Below is the slide deck from the conversation, followed by a summary of the session and an analysis of the polls taken by attendees. Continue reading to learn about your colleagues’ thoughts on Generative AI and view more about our AI resources and programming.
In this second session of the CTL AI exploration series we focused on ways in which generative AI software might play a defined role in the classroom. The moderators each presented a narrative from their own classroom experience with a specific teaching situation remediated to engage students with AI. Then we facilitated small groups to discuss the ways in which participants’ teaching might be impacted by and include generative AI.
We summarized three observed approaches to teaching with AI:
- Brainstorming with AI to sharpen lines of inquiry or develop nuance.
- Prompting AI to generate content with effective language, approaching AI as a non-human conversant, and receiving feedback on human-written text.
- Analyzing AI-generated content with situated concerns in mind, such as its underlying processes; the output of cultural signifiers; the validity of its responses; and/or its limitations.
Cathy Kawalek described the “Case of the MIssing Team Member.” Business courses frequently deploy team assignments and, many times when there are absences, teams are hamstrung in class. In this case, a team was allowed to ‘hire’ ChatGPT to function as a “missing team member.” Interestingly, students observed that ChatGPT was a helpful collaborator, but that ultimately—noticing, for one, the program’s repeating the same generic content for different prompts—they still had to do significant human work to make their message effective, accurate, original and targeted to the specific assignment.
Shiraz Biggie described incorporating reflective writing that asked students to produce and then analyze what ChatGPT said about their writing. Based on the feedback and conversations she had with students about this assignment, she identified three recurring genres of feedback:
- Ethical Enhancement (“yes, but…”)
- Learn and Ask Why (“why did you…”)
- Explore Possibilities and Personalize (“consider your options…”)
These frameworks helped Shiraz bring students’ use of ChatGPT into a mode of critical engagement and exploration.
Seth Graves described using generative AI prompting to collaborate with students over the development of a course syllabus. As the course discussed ChatGPT’s output of a syllabus, it began to revise and add prompt material that considered more of the educational contexts and desires of the class. Refining the prompt and looking at the output generated an engaged conversation with the classroom space and course goals, and a collaborative syllabus.
During the session, participants were polled about their current view of AI use in the classroom.
The first question asked participants to “select the 3 statements that most align with your point of view about AI today.”
Consolidation of the ‘think critically about AI’ questions reveals that the majority of attendees want students to view AI as a resource that needs critical assessment:
Please select the 3 statements that most align with your point of view about AI today
|I want my assignments to be AI-proof||1/14 (7%)|
|I want to be able to identify when my students are using AI||1/14 (7%)|
|I want my assignment(s) to challenge students to use AI critically||9/14 (64%)|
|I want my assignment(s) to trigger discussion and thinking about AI and its impact||5/14 (36%)|
|I want to teach my students to use AI ethically||8/14 (57%)|
|I want my students to consider research methods and information gathering with and without AI||6/14 (43%)|
|I want to help my students prepare for a future in which AI is a dominant and daily factor in professional life||4/14 (29%)|
|I want to help my students understand the what and why the AI response is lacking (in voice/style/etc)||8/14 (57%)|
Additionally, respondents were asked an open-ended question: “Has the above list missed anything? Tell us your point of view on how AI should/could be integrated into assignments and classroom teaching.” Key comments included the following:
- Part of “thinking about AI and its impact”: students need to be aware of the implicit biases of AI and how that can affect their own work if they’re using it
- I want my students to see AI as a useful tool, not a solution
- Related to “ethically” and “lacking,” I want my students to think critically about using corporate tools that collect their information and give results without auditable trails. It seems antithetical to the scholarly project to not be able to verify or repeat results.
Summary and analysis prepared by Shiraz Biggie, Seth Graves, and Catherine Kawalek.