In this week’s edition of ‘Down the AI Rabbit Hole,’ I share an insightful piece from John Orlando that tackles the pressing issues of plagiarism and AI-induced biases. I also discuss the importance of moving beyond merely trying to catch up with AI to strategically planning for the upcoming technological advancements.
This week’s tip:
This week’s teaching professor features a thought-provoking piece by John Orlando titled “Getting Past AI Fears: Student Success Demands It,” which encourages us to reconsider our stance on plagiarism and bias in the context of AI. Orlando suggests that akin to how we expect students to critically engage with information found via Google searches, we should also train them to effectively use and assess AI-generated content. He challenges the idea of shunning AI due to potential biases, highlighting that even respected sources, such as The New York Times, are not immune to these issues. According to Orlando, the key lies in equipping our students with the skills to navigate biases.
I think about AI all the time (not the Roman Empire)
My weekday mornings start with 30 minutes on the elliptical trainer and a skimming of the AI headlines for the day from the numerous journals, newsletters, and blogs I receive. Occasionally this routine elevates my blood pressure- for example, when articles claim AI lacks critical thinking abilities without testing their assertions on advanced models like ChatGPT 4.0 or Gemini Advanced. However, more often, it provides insights into the latest technological trends and future directions. Throughout the rest of the day, I think about AI a lot, whether developing ideas for my AI Literacy Course, writing about AI, or preparing a presentation on AI (apologies to the Roman Empire).
We will never catch up.
Despite my efforts, I will never be fully up-to-date on this technology. I would argue that despite all the blogs and websites that promise to keep you up-to-date on AI, this is a Sisyphean task – no one will roll their rock to the top of the AI hill. Indeed, AI has achieved things the creators didn’t even know were possible, like writing executable computer code or understanding gender-inclusive sentences in German, known as emergent learning. So, it may never be possible to fully understand the technology.
This realization is unsettling for educators accustomed to being experts in their fields, relied upon by students for knowledge and guidance. So, the question arises: how do we navigate AI if complete understanding is elusive?
Shifting from reactive to proactive strategies
In her Inside Higher Ed piece, “The Program-Level AI Conversations We Should Be Having,” Kathleen Landy argues that we need to move from a reactive position to a proactive one. Initially, the focus was on devising assessment methods to outsmart AI and updating academic policies to detect its use among students- a strategy quickly proven ineffective.
Three critical questions
Landy argues that as more faculty become familiar with generative AI platforms and how they affect their disciplines, the time has come to shift to a proactive, systematic program-level response. She poses three questions for programs and departments to consider.
- What do we want the students in our academic program to know and be able to do with (or without) generative AI?
- At what point in our academic program- that is, in what specific courses- will students learn these skills?
- Does our academic program need a discipline-specific, program-level learning outcome about generative AI?
The advantages of a proactive approach
Landy emphasizes the multiple benefits of involving academic departments in integrating generative AI into their curricula. These include setting clear expectations for students, enhancing program identity and efficiency, reducing faculty anxiety, and fostering opportunities for intellectual and professional growth.
A call to action
We must integrate the answers to these pivotal questions into the curricula of academic programs. The future success of our academic programs, along with the educators, administrators, and support staff behind them, hinges on our willingness and ability to adapt proactively. Failing to do so risks stagnation and a detrimental impact on the foundation of our educational missions. Let us embrace change and ensure our programs are as dynamic and forward-thinking as the fields they encompass.