By Martin Compton & Chris Rowell
Caveat: This two-for-one post was generated using multiple AI technologies. It is drawn from the transcript of an event held this afternoon ( 6th October 2023) which was the first in a series of conversations about AI hosted by Chris Rowell at UAL. We thought it would be an interesting experiment to produce a blog summary of the key ideas and themes but then we realised that it was Friday afternoon and we both have lives too. So… we put AI tools to work: first MS Teams AI provided an instant transcript, then Claude AI filtered the content and separated it into two main chunks (Martin answering questions and then open discussion). Third we used the prompt in ChatGPT: Using the points made by Martin Compton write a blog post of 500-750 words that captures the key points he raises in full prose, using the style and tone he uses here. Call the post ” Babies and bathwater: how far will AI necessitate an assessment revolution?” . Then, we did something similar with the open discussion and that led to part two of this post below. Finally, I used some keywords to generate some images in Bing Chat which uses Dall-e 3 to decorate the text.
Part 1: The conversation
The ongoing dialogue around AI’s influence on education often has us pondering over the depth and dimensions of the issue. Our peers frequently express their concerns about students using AI to craft essays and generate images for their assessments. Recently, I (Chris) stumbled upon the AI guidelines by King’s, urging institutions to enable students and staff to become AI literate. But the bigger question looms large: what does being AI literate truly entail?
For me (Martin), this statement from the Russell Group principles on generative AI has been instrumental in persuading some skeptics in the academic realm of the necessity to engage. It’s clear that AI literacy isn’t just another buzzword. It’s a doorway to stimulating dialogue. It’s about addressing our anxieties and reservations, then channeling those emotions to drive conversations around teaching, assessment, and learning.
Truth be told, when we dive deep into the matter of AI literacy, we’re essentially discussing another facet of information literacy. It’s a skill we aim to foster in our students and one that, as educators, we should continually refine in ourselves. Yet, I often feel that the larger academic community might not be doing enough to hone these skills, especially in the digital age where misinformation spreads like wildfire.
With the rise of AI technologies like ChatGPT, I was both amazed and slightly concerned. The first time I tested it, the results left me in awe. However, on introspection, I realized that if an AI can flawlessly generate a university-level essay, then it’s high time we scrutinized our assessments. It’s not about the capabilities of AI; it’s about reassessing the nature and objectives of our examinations.
When my colleagues seek advice on navigating this AI-augmented educational landscape, my primary counsel is simple: don’t panic. Instead, let’s critically analyze our current assessment methodologies. Our focus should pivot from regurgitation of facts to evaluating understanding and application. And if a certain subject demands instant recall of information, like in medical studies, we should stick to time-constrained evaluations.
To make our existing assessments less susceptible to AI, it’s crucial to reflect on their core objectives. This takes me back to the fundamental essence of pedagogy, where we need to continuously question and redefine our approach. Are we merely conducting assessments as a formality, or are they genuinely driving learning? It’s imperative to emphasize the process as much as the final output.
Now, if you ask me whether we should incorporate AI into our summative assessments, my perspective remains fluid. While today it might seem like a radical notion, in the future, it could be as commonplace as using the internet for research. But while we’re in this transitional phase, understanding and integrating AI should be done judiciously.
Lastly, when it comes to AI-generated feedback for students, I believe there’s potential, albeit with certain limitations. There’s undeniable value in students receiving feedback from various sources. Yet, we must tread cautiously to ensure academic integrity.
In essence, as educators and advocates of lifelong learning, we must embrace the challenges AI brings to our table, approach them with a critical lens, and adapt our strategies to nurture an equitable, AI-literate generation.
Part 2: Thoughts from the (bathroom) floor: Assessing Process Over Product in the Age of AI
The following is a synthesis of comments made during the discussion that ensued after the intial Q & A conversation.
Valuing Creation Process over End Product
There’s been a long-standing tradition in education of assessing the final product. Be it a project, an essay, or a painting, the emphasis has always been on the end result. But isn’t the journey as significant, if not more so? The time has come for assessments to shift their focus from the finished piece to the process behind its creation. Such an approach would not only value the hard work and thought process of a student but also celebrate their research journey.
Moving Beyond Memorization
Currently, knowledge reproduction assessments rule the roost. Students cram facts, only to regurgitate them during exams. However, the real essence of learning lies in fostering higher-order thinking skills. It’s crucial to design assessments that challenge students to analyze, evaluate, and create. This way, we’re nurturing thinkers and not just fact-repeating robots.
Embracing AI in the Classroom
The introduction of AI image generators in classroom projects was met with varied reactions. Some students weren’t quite thrilled with what the AI generated for them. However, this sparked a pivotal dialogue about the value of showcasing one’s process rather than merely submitting an end product.
It became evident that possessing a good amount of subject knowledge positions students better to use AI tools effectively, minimizing misuse. This draws a clear parallel between disciplinary knowledge and sophisticated AI usage. Today, employers prize graduates who can adeptly wield AI. Declining AI usage is no longer a strength but a weakness.
The Ever-Evolving AI Landscape
As AI tools constantly evolve and become more sophisticated, we can expect students to step into universities already acquainted with these tools. However, just familiarity isn’t enough. Education must pivot towards fostering honest AI usage and teaching students to discern between appropriate and inappropriate uses.
Critical AI Literacy: The Need of the Hour
AI tools, no matter how advanced, are just tools. They might churn out outputs that match a user’s intent, but it’s up to the individual to critically evaluate the AI’s output. Does it align with what you wanted to express? Does it represent your research accurately? Developing a robust AI literacy is paramount to navigate this digital landscape.
The Intrinsic Value of Creation
We must remember that the act of writing or creating is in itself a learning experience. Merely receiving an AI’s output doesn’t equate to learning. There’s an intrinsic value in the process of creation, an enrichment that often transcends the final product.
To sum it up, as the lines between human ingenuity and AI blur, our educational paradigm must pivot, placing process over product, fostering critical thinking, and embracing the AI wave, all while ensuring we retain our unique human touch in creation. The future beckons, and it’s up to us to shape it judiciously.
HEducationist 