Old problem, new era

heducationist2 Comments

“Empirical studies suggest that a majority of students cheat. Longitudinal studies over the past six decades have found that about 65–87% of college students in America have admitted to at least one form of nine types of cheating at some point during their college studies”

(Yu et al., 2018)

Shocking? Yes. But also reassuring in its own way. When you are presented with something like that from 2018 (ie. pre chatgpt) you realise that this is not a newly massive issue; it’s the same issue with a different aspect, lens or vehicle. Cheating in higher education has always existed, but I do acknowledge that generative AI has illuminated it with an intensity that makes me reach for the eclipse goggles. There are those that argue that essay mills and inappropriate third party support were phenomena that we had inadequately addressed as a sector for a long time. LLMs have somehow opened a fissure in the integrity debate so large that suddenly everyone wants to do something about it. it has become so much more complex because of that but also that visibility could be seen positively (I may be reaching but I genuinely think there is mileage in this) not least because: 

1. We are actually talking about it seriously. 

2. It may give us leverage to effect long needed changes. 

The common narratives I hear are ‘where there’s a will, there’s a way’ and chatgpt makes the ‘way’ easier. The problem though, in my view, is that just because the ‘way’ is easier does not mean the ‘will’ will necessarily increase. Assuming all students will cheat does nothing to build bridges, establish trust or provide an environment where the sort of essential mutual respect necessary for transparent and honest working can flourish.  You might point to the stat at the top of this page and say we are WAY past the need to keep measuring will!  Exams, as I’ve argued before, are no panacea, given the long-standing issues of authenticity and inclusivity they bring (as well as being the place where students have shown themselves to be most creative in their subversion techniques!). 

In contrast to this, study after study is finding that students are increasingly anxious about being accused of cheating when that was never their intention. They report unclear and sometimes contradictory guidance, leaving them uncertain about what is and isn’t acceptable. A compounding  issue  is the lack of consistency in how cheating is defined. it varies significantly between institutions, disciplines and even individual lecturers. I often ask colleagues whether certain scenarios constitute cheating, deliberately using examples involving marginalised students to highlight the inconsistencies.  Is it ok to get structural, content or proof reading  suggestions from your family? How does your access to human support differ if you are a first generation, neurodivergent student studying in a new language and country? Policies usually say “no” but to fool ourselves that this sort of ‘cheating’ is not routine would be hard to achieve and even harder to evidence. The boundaries are blurred, and the lack of consensus only adds to the confusion.

To help my thinking on this I looked again at some articles on cheating over time (going back to 1941!) that I had put in a folder and badly labelled as per usual and selected a few to give me a sense of the what and how as well as the why and to provide a baseline to inform the context around the current assumptions about cheating. Yu et al. (2018) use a long established categorisation of types of cheating with a modification to acknowledge unauthorised digital assistance:

  1. Copying sentences without citation.
  2. Padding a bibliography with unused sources.
  3. Using published materials without attribution.
  4. Accessing exam questions or answers in advance.
  5. Collaborating on homework without permission.
  6. Submitting work done by others.
  7. Giving answers to others during an exam.
  8. Copying from another student in an exam.
  9. Using unauthorised materials in an exam.

The what and how question reveals plenty of expected ways of cheating, especially in exams but it is also noted where teachers / lecturers are surprised by the extent and creativity. Four broad types:

  1. Plagiarism in various forms from self, to peers to deliberate inappropriate practices in citation.
  2. Homework and assignment cheating such as copying work, unauthorised collaboration, or failing to contribute fairly.
  3. Other academic dishonesty such as falsifying bibliographies, influencing grading or contract cheating.
  4. In exams.

The amount of exam based cheating reported should really challenge assumptions about the security of exams at the very least and remind us that they are no panacea whether we see this issue through an ongoing or a chatgpt lens. Stevens and Stevens (1987) in particular share some great pre-internet digital ingenuity and Simpkin and McLeod (2006) show how the internet broadened the scope and potential. These are some of the types reported over time: 

  1. Using unauthorised materials.
  2. Obtaining exam information in advance.
  3. Copying from other students.
  4. Providing answers to other students.
  5. Using technology to cheat (using microcassettes, pre-storing data in calculators, mobile phones. Not mentioned but now apparently a phenomenon is use of bone conduction tech in glasses and/ or smart glasses).
  6. Using encoded materials (rolled up pieces of paper for example).
  7. Hiring a surrogate to take an exam.
  8. Changing answers after scoring (this one in Drake,1941)
  9. Collaborating during an exam without permission.

These are the main reasons for cheating across the decades I could identify (from across all sources cited at the end):

  1. Difficulty of the work. When students are on the wrong course (I’m sure we can think of many reasons why this might occur), teaching is inadequate or insufficiently differentiated.
  2. Pressure to succeed. ‘Success’ when seen as the principal goal can subdue the conscience.
  3. Laziness. This is probably top of many academics’ assumptions and it is there in the research but also worth considering what else competes for attention and time and how ‘I can’t be bothered’ may also mask other issues even in self-reporting. 
  4. Perception that cheating is widespread. If students feel others are doing it and getting away with it, it increases the cheating.
  5. Low risk of getting caught.
  6. Sense of injustice in systemic approach, structural inequalities both real and perceived can be seen as a valid justification. 
  7. External factors such as evident cheating in wider society. A fascinating example of this was suggested to me by an academic who was trained in Soviet dominated Eastern Europe who said cheating was (and remains) a marker of subversion so carries its own respectability)
  8. Lack of understanding of what is allowed and is not- students reporting they have not been taught this and degrees of cheating blurred by some of the other factors here- when does collaboration become collusion?
  9. Cultural influences. Different norms and expectations can create issues and this comes back to my point about individualised (or contextualised) definitions of what is and is not appropriate. 
  10. My own experiences, over 30 years, of dealing with plagiarism cases often reveals very powerful, often traumatic, experiences that lead students to act in ways that are perceived as cheating.

For each it’s worth asking yourself:

How much is the responsibility for this on the student and how much on the teacher/ lecturer and / or institution (or even society)?

I suspect that the truly willful, utterly cynical students are the ones least likely to self declare and are least likely to get caught. This furthers my own discomfort about the mechanisms we rely (too heavily?) on to judge integrity too.

This skim through really did make clear to me that cheating and plagiarism are not the simple concepts that many say they are. Also cheating in exams is a much bigger thing than we might imagine. The reasons for cheating are where we need to focus I think.  Less so the ‘how’ as that becomes a battleground and further entrenches ‘us and them’ conceptualisations.  When designing curricula and assessments the unavoidable truth is we need to do better by moving away from one size fits all approaches, by realising cultural, social and cognitive differences will impact many of the ‘whys’ and hold ourselves to account when we create or exacerbate structural factors that broaden likelihood of cheating. 

I am definitely NOT saying give wilful cheaters a free pass but all the work many universities are doing on assessment reform needs to be seen through a much longer lens than the generative AI one. To focus only on that is to lose sight of the wider and longer issue. We DO have the capacity to change things for the better but that also means that many of us will be compelled (in a tense, under threat landscape) to learn more about how to challenge conventions and even invest much more time in programme level, iterative, AI cognisant teaching and assessment practices. Inevitably the conversations will start with the narrow and hyped and immediate manifestations of inappropriate AI use but let’s celebrate this as leverage; as a catalyst.  We’d do well, at the very least, to reconsider how we define cheating, why we consider some incredibly common behaviours as cheating (is it collusion or is it collaboration for example or proof reading help from 3rd parties). Beyond that, we should be having serious discussions about augmentation and hybridity in writing: what counts as acceptable support? How does that differ according to context and discipline? It will raise questions about the extent to which writing is the dominant assessment medium, about authenticity in assessment and about the rationale and perceived value of anonymity. 

It’s interesting to read how over 80 years ago (Drake, 1941) many of the behaviours we witness today in both students and their teachers have 21st century parallels. Strict disciplinarian responses or ignoring it because ‘they’re only harming themselves’ being common. In other words, the underlying causes were not being addressed. To finish I think this sets out the challenge confronting us well:

“Teachers in general, and college professors in particular, will not be enthusiastic about proposed changes. They are opposed to changes of any sort that may interfere with long- established routines-and examinations are a part of the hoary tradition of the academic past”

(Drake, 1941, p.420)

Drake, C. A. (1941). Why students cheat. Journal of Higher Education, 12(5)

Hutton, P. A. (2006). Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it. College Teaching, 54(1), 171–176. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27559254 

Miles, P., et al. (2022). Why Students Cheat. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education (JUNE), 20(2):A150-A160 

Rettinger, D. A., & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and individual factors associated with academic dishonesty. Research in Higher Education, 50(3), 293-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9116-5 

Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat?. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 441-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0275-x 

Stevens, G. E., & Stevens, F. W. (1987). Ethical inclinations of tomorrow’s managers revisited: How and why students cheat. Journal of Education for Business, 63(1), 24-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1987.10117269 

Yu, H., Glanzer, P. L., Johnson, B. R., Sriram, R., & Moore, B. (2018). Why college students cheat: A conceptual model of five factors. The Review of Higher Education, 41(4), 549-576. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0025 

Gallant, T. B., & Drinan, P. (2006). Organizational theory and student cheating: Explanation, responses, and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 839-860. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3838789 

CPD for critical AI literacy: do NOT click here.

heducationistLeave a comment

In 2018, Timos Almpanis and I co-wrote an article exploring issues with Continuous Professional Development (CPD) in relation to Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL). The article, which we published while working together at Greenwich (in Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching), highlighted a persistent challenge: despite substantial investment in TEL, enthusiasm for it and use among educators remained inconsistent at best. While students increasingly expect technology to enhance their learning, and there is/ was evidence to supports its potential to improve engagement and outcomes, the traditional transmissive CPD models supporting how teaching academics were introduced to TEL and supported in it could undermine its own purpose. Focusing on technology and systems as well as using poor (and non modelling) pedagogy often gave/ give a sense of compliance over pedagogic improvement.

Because we are both a bit contrary and subversive we commissioned an undergraduate student (Christina Chitoroaga) to illustrate our arguments with some cartoons which I am duplicating here (I think I am allowed to do that?):

We argued that TEL focussed CPD should prioritise personalised and pedagogy-focused approaches over one-size-fits-all training sessions. Effective CPD that acknowledges need, relfects evidence-informed pedagogic apparoaches and empowers educators by offering choice, flexibility and relevance, will also enable them to explore and apply tools that suit their specific teaching contexts and pedagogical needs. By shifting the focus away from the technology itself and towards its purpose in enhancing learning, we can foster greater engagement and creativity among academic staff. This was exactly the approach I tried to apply when rolling out Mentimenter (a student response system to support increasing engagement in and out of class).

I was reminded of this article recently (because fo the ‘click here; clck there’ cartoon) when a colleague expressed frustration about a common issue they observed: lecturers teaching ‘regular’ students (I always struggle with this framing as most of my ‘students’ are my colleagues- we need a name for that! I will do a poll – got totally distracted by that but it’s done now) how to use software using a “follow me as I click here and there” method. Given that the “follow me as I click” is still a thing, perhaps it is time to adopt a more assertive and directive approach. Instead of simply providing opportunities to explore better practices, we may need to be clearer in saying: “Do not do this.” I mean I do not want to be the pedagogy police but while there is no absolute right way there are some wrong ways, right? Also we might want to think about what this means in terms of the AI elephant in every bloomin’ classroom.

The deluge of AI tools and emerging uses of these tech (willingly and unwillingly & appropriately and inappropriately) means the need for effective upskilling is even more urgent. However we support skill development and thinking time we need of course to realise it requires moving beyond the “click here, click there” model. In my view (and I am aware this is contested) educators and students need to experiment with AI tools in real-world contexts, gaining experience in how AI is impacting curricula, academic use and, potentially, pedagogic practices. The many valid and pressing reasons why teachers might resist or reject engaging with AI tools: workload, ethical implications, data privacy, copyright, eye-watering environmental impacts or even concern about being replaced by technology are a significant barriers to adoption. But adoption is not my goal; critical engagement is. The conflation of the two in the minds of my colleagues is I think a powerful impediment before I even get a chance to bore them to death with a ‘click here; click there’. In fact, there’s no getting away from the necessity of empathy and a supportive approach, one that acknowledges these fears while providing space for dialogue and both critical AND creative applications of responsibly used AI tools. In fact, Alison Gilmour and I wrote about this too! It’s like all my work actually coheres!

Whatever the approach, CPD cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution, nor can it rely on prescriptive ‘click here, click there’ methods. It must be compassionate and dialogic, enabling experimentation across a spectrum of enthusiasm—from evangelical to steadfast resistance. While I have prioritised ‘come and play’, ‘let’s discuss’, or ‘did you know you can…’ events, I recognise the need for more structured opportunities to clarify these underpinning values before events begin. If I can find a way to manage such a shift it will help align the CPD with meaningful, exploratory engagement that puts pedagogy and dialogue at the heart of our ongoing efforts to grow critical AI literacy in a productive, positive way that offers something to everyone wherever they sit of the parallel spectrums of AI skills and beliefs.

Post script: some time ago I wrote on the WONKHE blog about growing AI literacy and this coincided wiht the launch of the GEN AI in HE MOOC. We’re working on an expanded version- broadening the scope of AI beyond the utterly divisive ‘generative’ as well as widening the scope to other sectors of education. Release due in May. It’ll be free to access.

What do we call colleagues when they are our students?

heducationist1 Comment

I love working with ‘Proper’ students. ‘Actual’ students; ‘Real’ students… I don’t think it’s just me in my teacher educator/ academic developer role who says stuff like this. It’s one odd side of the way we refer to folk we work with because of the nature of our work. The large part of what many of us do: lecturer/ teacher development/ training, CPD and so on also often puts me in a linguistic pickle. Obviously these colleagues are not “students” in the traditional sense, but they’re also more than just “colleagues” in that context. They occupy a unique space in those moment at least: learners, collaborators, peers… and when I want to write about or talk about that I find myself saying awkward things like ‘my students who are of course my colleagues’

Do we need to neologise? Or has this been sorted but I just haven’t heard that all the cool academic developers use the term ‘Learn-o-nauts’ or something.

I tried to think of somehting but I am up early on the weekend and no-one is about so I sought some AI assistance. A couple are actually mine but I am too embarrrassed to say which.

Vote for your favourite from the (possibly crigeworthy and wholly inadequate) list below and add comments or suggestions in the comments or via Bluesky

AI positions: Where do you stand?

heducationistLeave a comment

I have been thinking a lot recently about my own and others’ positions in relation to AI in education. I’m reading a lot more from the ‘ResistAI’ lobby and share many persepctives with core arguments. I likewise read a lot from the tech communities and enthusiastic educator groups which often get conflated but are important to distinguish given bloomin’ obvious as well as more subtle agenda and motivation differences (see world domination and profit arguments for example). I see willing adoption, pragmatic adoption, reluctant adoption and a whole bunch of ill-informed adoption/ rejection too. My reality is that staff and students are using AI (of different types) in different ways. Some of this is ground-breaking and exciting, some snag-filled and disappointing, some ill-advised and potentially risky. Exisiting IT infrastrucutre and processes are struggling to keep pace and daily conversations range from ‘I have to show you this- it’s going to change my life! ‘ to ‘I feel like I’m being left behind here’ and a lot more besides.

So it was that this morning I saw a post on LinkedIn (who’d have thought the place where we put our CVs would grow so much as an academic social network?) from Leon Furze who defines his position as ‘sitting on the fence’. I initially I thought ‘yeah that’s me’ but, in fact, I am not actually sitting on the fence at all in this space. I am trying as best I can to navigate a path that can be defined by the broad two word strategy we are trying define and support at my place: Engage Responsibly. Constructive resitance and debate are central but so is engagement with fundamental ideas, technologies, principles and applications. I have for ages been arguing for more nuanced understanding. I very much appreciate evidence and experiential based arguments (counter and pro). The waters are muddied though with, on the one hand, big tech declarations of educational transformation and revolution (we’re always on the cusp, right?) and sceptical generalisations like the one I saw gaining social media traction the other day which went something like:

“Reading is thinking

Writing is thinking

AI is anti-thinking”

If you think that then you are not thinking in my view. Each of those statements must be contextualised and nuanced. This is exactly the kind of meme-level sound bite that sounds good initially but is not what we should be entertaining as a position in academia. Or is it? Below are some adjectives and defintions of the sorts of positions identified by Leon Furze in the collection linked above and by me and research partners in crime Shoshi, Olivia and Navyasara. Which one/s would you pick to define your position? (I am aware that many of these terms are loaded; I’m just interested in the broadest sense where people see themselves, whether they have planted a flag or if they are still looking for a spot as they wander around in the traffic wide eyed).

  • Cautious: Educators who are cautious might see both the potential benefits and risks of AI. They might be hesitant to fully embrace AI without a thorough understanding of its implications.
  • Critical: Educators who are critical might take a stance that focusses on one or more of the ethical concerns surrounding AI and its potential negative impacts, such as the risk of AI being used for surveillance or control, or ways in which data is sourced or used.
  • Open minded: Open minded educators might be willing to explore AI’s possibilities and experiment with its use in education, while remaining aware of potential drawbacks.
  • Engaged: Engaged educators actively seek to understand AI, its capabilities and its implications for education. They seek to shape the way AI is used in their field.
  • Resistant: Resistant educators might actively oppose the integration of AI into education due to concerns about its impact on teaching, learning or ethical considerations.
  • Pragmatic: Pragmatic educators might focus on the practical applications of AI in education, such as using it for administrative tasks or to support personalised learning. They might be less concerned with theoretical debates and more interested in how AI can be used to improve their practice.
  • Concerned: Educators who are concerned might primarily focus on the potential negative impacts of AI on students and educators. They might worry about issues like data privacy, algorithmic bias, or the deskilling of teachers.
  • Hopeful: Hopeful educators might see AI as a tool that can enhance education and create new opportunities for students and teachers. They might be excited about AI’s potential to personalise learning, provide feedback and support students with diverse needs.
  • Sceptical: Sceptical educators might question the claims made about AI’s benefits in education and demand evidence to support its effectiveness. They might be wary of the hype surrounding AI and prefer to wait for more research before adopting it.
  • Informed: Informed educators would stay up-to-date with the latest developments in AI and its applications in education. They would understand both the potential benefits and risks of AI and be able to make informed decisions about its use.
  • Fence-sitting: Educators who are fence-sitting recognise the complexity of the issue and see valid arguments on both sides. They may be delaying making a decision until more information is available or a clearer consensus emerges. This aligns with Furze’s own position of being on the fence, acknowledging both the benefits and risks of AI.
  • Ambivalent: Educators experiencing ambivalence might simultaneously hold positive and negative views about AI. They may, for example, appreciate its potential for personalising learning but be uneasy about its ethical implications. This reflects cognitive dissonance, where conflicting ideas create mental discomfort. Furze’s exploration of both the positive potential of AI and the reasons for resisting it illustrates this tension.
  • Time-poor: Educators who are time-poor may not have the capacity to fully (or even partially) research and understand the implications of AI, leading to delayed decisions or reliance on simplified viewpoints.
  • Inexperienced: Inexperienced educators may lack the background knowledge to confidently assess the potential benefits and risks of AI in education, contributing to hesitation or reliance on the opinions of others.
  • Other: whatever the heck you like!

How many did you choose?

Please select two or three and share them via this Mentimeter Link.

I’ll share the responses soon!

AI in healthcare pulse check

heducationist1 Comment

I have been interested recently in the ways in which AI is being integrated into healthcare as part of my personal goal to widen my understanding and broaden my own definition of AI. I’m seeing increasing need to do this as part of growing awareness and literacy as well as a need to show that AI is impacting curricula well beyond the ongoing kerfuffle around generative AI and assessment integrity. I was recommended this panel by Professor Dan Nicolau Jr who chaired this session at the recent event which looked at the many barriers to advances in a context where early detection, monitoring, business models and data availability impact the ways in which we do medicine and advance it in a world where ageing populations present an existential threat to global healthcare systems. It struck me when I watched this how much the potentials and barriers expressed here will likely be mirrored in other disciplines. Medicine does seem to be an effective bellweather though.

Some of the issues that stood out:

Data availability and validity: Just as healthcare AI can produce skewed results from over-represented organisms in protein design, we see similar issues of data bias emerging across AI applications. The challenges around electronic health records – inconsistent, incomplete and error-prone – mirror concerns about data quality in other domains.

Business models and willingness/ ability to use what is available: The difficulty in monetising preventative AI applications in medicine, for example, reflects broader questions about how we value different types of AI innovation. Similarly, the need to shift mindsets from reactive to proactive approaches in healthcare has parallels with cultural change required for effective AI adoption elsewhere. The comments from the panel about human propensities NOT to use devices or take medicines that will help them are quite shocking but still somehow unsurprising. Cracking that, according to the panel, would increase life expectancy more than finding a cure for cancer.

The regulatory landscape: The NHS’s procurement processes, which can stifle AI innovation, demonstrate how existing institutional frameworks may need significant adaptation. This raises important questions about how we balance innovation with appropriate oversight – something all sectors grappling with AI must address.

For me, healthcare exemplifies the complex relationship between technical capability and human behaviour. The adoption issue is obviously one that has parallels with willingness/ openness to using novel technologies, even where they can be shown to make life better or easier. The panel’s observations about patient compliance mirror wider challenges around user adoption and engagement with AI systems. We cannot separate the technology from the human context in which it operates.

Bots with character

heducationistLeave a comment

This is a swift intro to character AI *(note 1)- a tool that is available to use for free currently (on a freemium model). My daughter showed it to me some months ago. It appears as a novelty app but is used (as I understand it) beyond entertainment for creative activity, gaming, role playing and even emotional support. For me it is the potential to test ideas that many have about bot potential for learning that is most interesting. By shifting focus away from ‘generating essays’ it is possible to see the appeal of natural language exchanges to augment learning in a novel medium. While I can think of dozens of use cases based on the way I currently (for example) use YouTube to help me to learn how to unblock a washing machine I imagine that is a continuum that goes all the way up to teacher replacement.*(note 2) Character AI is built on large language model, employs ‘reinforcement’ (learning as coversations continue) and provides an easy to learn interface (basically typing stuff in boxes) that allows you to ground the bot with ease in a wysiwyg interface.

As I see it, it offers three significant modifications in the default interface to standard (free) LLMs. 1. You can create characters and define their knowledge and ‘personality’ traits by having space to ground the bot behaviour through customisation. 2. You can have voice exchanges by ‘calling’ the character. 3. Most importantly, it shifts the technology back to interaction and away from lengthy generation (though they can still go on a bit if you don’t bake succinctness in!) What interests me most is the potential to use tools like this to augment learning, add some novelty and provide reinforcement opportunity through text or voice based exchanges. I have experimented with creating some academic architypes for my students to converse with. This one is a compassionate pedagogue, this one is keen on AI for teaching and learning, this one a real AI sceptic, this one deeply worried about academic integrity. They each have a back story, defined university role and expertise. I tried to get people to test arguments and counter arguments and to work through difficult academic encounters. It’s had mixed reviews so far: Some love it; some REALLY do not like it at all!

How do/ could you use a tool like this?

Note 1. This video in no way connotes promotion or recommendation (by me or by my employer) of this software. Never upload data you are not comfortable sharing and never upload your own or other’s personal data.

Note 2: I am not a proponent of this! There may be people who think this is the panacea to chronic educational underfunding though so beware.

Meet my slightly posher, potentially evil twin

heducationistLeave a comment

I have been awestruck by the capabilities of tools like HeyGen and Synthesia in the way they can create videos voiced by AI avatars and, with HeyGen in particular, translate from one language to another. The latest beta tool in HeyGen enables someone with limited technical skills (i.e. me) to create an AI avatar of themselves. This is a screen recording on me conversing with my twin. I could choose to speak with it/ him in a number of languages and on topics outside the grounding though it is bland and vague in those spaces. Apparently with some nudging away from the highbrow his Hindi is pretty good and his French sounds Quebecois. I grounded it in the King’s central guidance on GenAI and a few other things I have written. For now only sharing the the recording while I get to grips with the implications of this. I have honed the base prompt so that the twin is crisper in response and doesn’t waffle on. What do you think of this? What are genuine educational use cases that are not about putting humans out of work?

Conversing with AI: Natural language exchanges with and among the bots

heducationistLeave a comment

In the fast evolving landscape of AI tools, two recent releases have really caught my attention: Google’s NotebookLM and the advanced conversational features in ChatGPT. Both offer intriguing possibilities for how we might interact with AI in more natural, fluid ways.

NotebookLM, still in its experimental stage and free to use, is well worth exploring- as one of my King’s colleagues pointed out recently: it’s about time Google did something impressive in this space! Its standout feature is the ability to generate surprisingly natural-sounding ‘auto podcasts’. I’ve been particularly struck by how the AI voice avatars exchange and overlap in their speech patterns, mimicking the cadence of real conversation. This authenticity is both impressive and slightly unsettling and at least two colleagues thought they were listing to human exchanges.

I tested this feature with three distinct topics:

Language learning in the age of AI (based on three online articles):

A rather flattering exchange about my blog posts (created in fact by my former colleague Gerhard Kristandl – I’m not that egotistical):

A summary of King’s generative AI guidance:

The results were remarkably coherent and engaging. Beyond this, NotebookLM offers other useful features such as the ability to upload multiple file formats, synthesise high-level summaries, and generate questions to help interrogate the material. Perhaps most usefully, it visually represents the sources of information cited in response to your queries, making the retrieval-augmented generation process transparent.

The image is a screenshot of a NotebookLM (experimental) interface with a note titled "Briefing Document: Language Learning in the Age of AI." It includes main themes and insights from three sources on the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and language learning: 1. **"Language Learning in the Age of AI" by Richard Campbell**: Discusses AI applications in language learning, highlighting both benefits and challenges. 2. **"The Future of Language Learning in an Age of AI" by Gerhard Ohrband**: Emphasizes that human interaction remains crucial despite AI tools in language acquisition. 3. **"The Timeless Value of Language Learning in the Age of AI" by Sungho Park**: Focuses on the cultural and personal value of language learning in an AI-driven world. The note then expands on important ideas, specifically on the transformative potential of AI in language learning, such as personalized learning and 24/7 accessibility through AI-driven platforms.

Meanwhile, ChatGPT’s latest update advance voice feature (not available in EU, by the way) has addressed previous latency issues, resulting in a much more realistic exchange. To test this, I engaged in a brief conversation, asking it to switch accents mid-dialogue. The fluidity of the interaction was notable, feeling much closer to a natural conversation than previous iterations. Watch here:

What struck me during this exchange was how easily I slipped into treating the AI as a sentient being. At one point, I found myself saying “thank you”, while at another I felt a bit bad when I abruptly interrupted. This tendency to anthropomorphise these tools is deeply ingrained and hard to avoid, especially as the interactions become more natural. It raises interesting questions about how we relate to AI and whether this human-like interaction is beneficial or potentially problematic.

These developments challenge our conventions around writing and authorship. As these tools become more sophisticated, the line between human and AI-generated content blurs further. What constitutes a ‘valid’ tool for authorship in this new landscape? How do we navigate the ethical implications of using AI in this way?

What are your thoughts on these developments? How might you see yourself using tools like NotebookLM or the advanced ChatGPT in your work?

Sources used for the Langauge ‘podcast’:

  1. “Language Learning in the Age of AI” by Richard Campbell
  2. “The Future of Language Learning in an Age of AI” by Gerhard Ohrband
  3. “The Timeless Value of Language Learning in the Age of AI” by Sungho Park

The Essay in the Age of AI: a test case for transformation

heducationist1 Comment

We need to get beyond entrenched thinking. We need to see that we are at a threshold of change in many of the ways that we work, write, study, research etc. Large language models as a key development in AI (with ChatGPT as a symbolic shorthand for that) have led to some pretty extreme pronouncements. Many see it as an existential threat, heralding the ‘death of the essay’ for example. These narratives, though, are unhelpful as they oversimplify a complex issue and mask long-standing, evidence-informed calls for change in educational assessment practices (and wider pedagogic practices). The ‘death of the essay’ narratives do though give us an opportunity to interrogate the thinking and (mis)understandings that underpin these discourses and tensions. We have a chance to challenge tacit assumptions about the value and purpose of essays as one aspect of educational practice that has been considered an immutable part of the ways learning and the evaluation of that learning happens. We are at a point where it is not just people like me (teacher trainers; instructional designers; academic developers; enthusiastic tech fiddlers; contrarians; compassionate & critical pedagogues; disability advocates etc.) that are voicing concerns about conventional practices. My view is that we leverage the heck out of this opportunity and find ways to effect change that is meaningful, scalable, responsive and coherent.

So it was that in a conversation over coffee (in my favourite coffee shop in the Strand area)  on these things with Claire Gordon (Director of the Eden Centre at LSE) that we decided to use the essay as a stimulus for a synthesis of thinking and to evolve a Manifesto for the essay (and other long form writing) in the age of AI.  To explore these ideas further, we invited colleagues from King’s College London and the London School of Economics (as well as special guests from Richmond American University and the University of Sydney) to a workshop. We explored questions like:

  • What are the core issues and concerns surrounding essays in the age of AI?
  • What alternatives might we consider in our quest for validity, reliability and authenticity?
  • Why do some educators and students love the essay format, and why do others not?
  • What is the future of writing? What gains can we harness, especially in terms of equity and inclusion?
  • How might we conceptualise human/hybrid writing processes?

A morning of sharing research, discussion, debate and reflection enabled us to draft and subsequently hone and fine tune a collection of provocations which we have called a ‘Manifesto for the Essay in the age of AI’

I invite you to read our full manifesto and the accompanying blog post outlining our workshop discussions. As we navigate this period of significant change in higher education, it’s crucial that we engage in open, critical dialogue about the future of assessment.

What are your thoughts on the role of essays in the age of AI? Or, indeed, how assessment and teaching will change shape over the next few years? I welcome your comments and reflections below.

Situationally oblivious

heducationistLeave a comment

I’m reading Leopold Aschenbrenner’s extended collection of essays Situational Awareness:
The Decade Ahead (June 2024). It made me think about so many things and so I thought I’d start the academic year on my blog with a breathless brain dump. You never know, I might need one for every chapter! In the first chapter Aschenbrenner extrapolates from several examples predictions about AI capabilities in the near future stating: “I make the following claim: it is strikingly plausible that by 2027, models will be able to do the work of an AI researcher/engineer.”

The (heavily caveated!) prediction of near future AGI and replacement of cognitive jobs within a timeframe that doesn’t even see me to retirement is bold but definitely not set out in a terminator / tin foil hat way either. The strucutred and systematic approach including pushing us to engage with our reactions at stages in the very recent past (‘this is what impressed us in 2019!’) it is hard not to be convinced by the extrapolations. For a relative lay person like me the trajectory from GPT-2 to GPT-4 has indeed been jaw-dropping and I definitely feel the described amazement at how we (humans) so quickly normalise things that dropped our jaws so recently. But extrapolating this progress linearly still seems improbable to my simple brain (as if to prove this ‘simple’ assertion to myself I accidentally typed ‘brian’ three times before hitting on the correct spelling). The challenges of data availability and quality, algorithmic breakthroughs and hardware limitations acknowledged in the chapter are not trivial hurdles to overcome though, as I understand it, but this first chapter seems to promise me a challenge to my thinking. Neither are the scaling issues and relative money and environmental costs which must be the top priority whichever lens on capitalism you are looking through.

That being said, the potential for AI to reach or exceed PhD-level expertise in many fields by 2027 is sobering, though I remain sceptical about the ways in which each new iteration ‘achieves’ the benchmarks: much of the ‘achievement’ masks the very real and essential human interventions but then compares human and AI ability realtively in an apples versus oranges way without acknowledging those essential leg ups. It reminds me a bit of some of the controversies around what merits celebration of achievement in this year’s Olympics: ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ levels of privilige, augmentation, diets, birth differences and so on are largely masked and set aside behind narratives of wonder until someone with an agenda picks on something as if to reveal as a surprise that Olympic athletes are actually very different from the vast majority of us (some breakdancers nothwithstanding).

If the near future cognitive performance predictions are realised, this will have profound implications for higher education and the job market. The current tinkering around the edges as we blunder towards prudent and risk averse change may seem quaint much sooner than many imagine and it definitely keeps me awake at night tbh. So, yes, human intelligence encompasses more than just information processing and recall, but we shouldn’t ignore the success against benchmarks that exist irrespective of any frailty in them in terms of design or efficacy. Aschenbrenner says one lesson from the last decade is that we shouldn’t bet against deep learning. We can certainly see how ‘AI can’t do x’ narratives so often and so swiftly make fools of us. Aschenbrenner shares in that first chapter this image from ‘Our World in Data’ which has a dynamic/ editable version. The data comes from Kiela et al (2023) who acknoweldge benchmark ‘bottlenecking’ is a hindrance to progress but that significant improvements are in train.

Look at the abilities in image recognition for example. Based on some books and papers I read from the late 2010s and early 2020s I get the sense that even within much of the AI community the abilities of AI systems in that domain will have come as a big surprise. By way of illustration here is my alt text for the image above which I share here unedited from ChatGPT:

A graph showing the test scores of AI systems on various capabilities relative to human performance. The graph tracks multiple AI capabilities over time, with human performance set as a baseline at 0. The AI capabilities include reading comprehension, image recognition, language understanding, speech recognition, and others. As the lines cross the zero line, it indicates that AI systems have surpassed human performance in those specific areas.

I asked for a 50 word overview suitable for alt text and not only does it save me labour (without, I should add, diminishing the cognitive labour necessary to get my head around what I am looking at) it also tells me there’s no excuse not to alt text things now we can streamline workflows with tools that can support me in this very way.

The nuanced aspects of creativity, emotional intelligence and contextual understanding may prove to be more challenging for AI to replicate meaningfully but even there we are being challenged to define what is human about human cognition and emotion and art and creativity. As educators, the challenges are huge. Even if the the extrapolations are only 10% right this connotes disruption like never before. For me, in the short term, it suggests we need to double down on the endeavours many of us have been pushing in terms of redefining what an education means at UG and PG level, what is valuable and how we augment what we do and how we learn with AI. We can’t ignore it, that’s for sure, whether we wish to or not. We should be preparing our students for a world where AI is a powerful tool, so that we can avert drifts towards dangerous replacement for human cognition and decision-making at the very least.

Kiela, D., Thrush, T., Ethayarajh, K., & Singh, A. (2023) ‘Plotting Progress in AI’, Contextual AI Blog. Available at: https://contextual.ai/blog/plotting-progress (Accessed: 20 Aug 2024).