Highlights of my academic year related to generative AI:
- My interview for Helen Beetham’s “imperfect offerings” podcast about AI and student writing
- My contributions to CARADITE’s publication “Let’s Not Know Together”
- Guiding the development of “Recommendations By & For Duke Students“
Yes, I read the Times article “Professors Are Using ChatGPT, and Some Students Aren’t Happy About It.” And yes, I have thoughts.
(Before I begin, please know I’m a big fan of Kashmir Hill who wrote this article, and I recommend her excellent book about privacy.)
OK, let’s start with a few things that I found concerning.
First, the antagonistic framing of students versus professors isn’t helpful.
The article positions AI as a cultural cudgel to foreground contentious relationships between students and their instructors, playing into worn stereotypes about conventional approaches to education, who controls the types of learning that are permitted in a classroom, and whose knowledge is welcomed and rewarded.
Second, AI is presented as a means to shortcut the learning process (“the calculator on steroids”).
Much of the current discourse around AI in education concerns so-called efficiency and productivity, and the article aligns with a logic predicated on the reduction of complex knowledge to rote information. Unfortunately, the factory model of education, with the well-oiled depositing of information inside students’ brains, is easily perceived between the lines of this article.
Third, the article briefly mentions the many systemic challenges in higher education that may contribute to instructors’ use of AI.
Course workloads. Adjunctification and contingency. Lack of professional development. Not to mention the fact that higher education is under attack right now and it was a terribly stressful academic year! Less-than-informed AI use, and whether by students or instructors, is surely a symptom of deeper causes; it’s not helpful positioning AI as a technological distraction while giving little notice to endemic concerns.
So, with those critiques in mind, here are some things I wish had been acknowledged or more strongly emphasized in the article.
Ignorance
It’s OK that both students and instructors are ignorant, to varying degrees, about the relationship of AI to learning. Let’s not fault individuals! It’s OK to not know; isn’t that why we’re in school?! This technology is still new and disruptive. It’s OK for students to acknowledge this technology is changing what it may mean to learn. It’s OK for instructors to acknowledge this technology is changing what it may mean to teach. Recognition of ignorance creates opportunity to inquire and grow, and to do so together.
Experimentation
It’s OK that students and instructors are both learning and making mistakes in relationship to their use of AI. It’s important to create learning opportunities and environments where experimentation with technology is not overtly surveilled or immediately punished. It’s important to figure things out together, for students and instructors to tinker together, to be curious and creative as a part of a shared learning journey. And that is possible with thoughtful use of AI (and beyond chatbot tutors, IMO!).
Trust
Learning is a relational endeavor. Trust between students and educators is imperative. Full stop.
Professional Development
It’s critical to invest in professional development. Systemic approaches and incentives are needed to help instructors embrace their own learning in relationship to AI. The disruptions to teaching and learning brought about by AI demonstrate why pedagogy matters, same for curricular design and our assessment practices. Instructors need dedicated time to grow as professionals. University policies need to support, and provide clear pathways for, such professional growth. Again, we cannot blame individual instructors for any pedagogical shortcoming if there isn’t both institutional support and a culture that invests in teaching. It’s time for clear-headed and unambiguous investments in professional development.
So, where might that leave us?
With the academic year winding down, here’s an observation as I hold two truths at the same time.
I deeply respect many colleagues who are embracing generative AI in education, experimenting with possibility and pedagogy, while honoring their students’ agency in response to this transformative technology. I’ve read and learned a lot from these folks this year. And I’ll continue to follow their wisdom.
I deeply respect many colleagues who are refusing generative AI in education, resisting with pragmatism and scrutiny, while honoring their ethical commitments in response to this troubling technology. I’ve read and learned a lot from these folks this year. And I’ll continue to follow their wisdom.
I’m heading into the summer favoring complexity and nuance as I navigate my unfolding relationship with generative AI and, more importantly, honor my long-standing relationships with really smart, passionate, and creative colleagues.
Leave a Reply