 |
| Last week in a post-assignment debrief, my students expressed surprise that such a short paper had been so hard to write. The challenge was that the broad prompt had required them to make a lot of their own choices about how to focus their reflection and what evidence to select to support their assertions. This process was hard and time-consuming. Ultimately, we agreed (I think) that while more directed prompts may allow for more efficient paper writing, there can be something even more satisfying about having more decision-making control over the shape of a paper or research project.
The value (and burden) of choice leapt out at me again when I read this essay by a group of undergraduates at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, “Trapped in Someone Else’s Imagination: Students on AI, Choice, and the Futures We Deserve.” In what feels like an age of chaos on all sides, there are not many AI-and-higher-ed related articles that I voluntarily read more than once. But this one I love because these students are examining questions about AI and education with both clarity and nuance–they get to the heart of the challenges that confront the broader higher ed community as well as all of us at Denison. I hope you’ll decide to read their essay. I’m choosing this excerpt to highlight why it’s worth your time: “Through hundreds of conversations, we’ve learned that people fundamentally want three things: “1. To be seen and heard. Not surveilled, not suspected, not monitored, but genuinely listened to. “2. To connect with each other. Not through transactions mediated by algorithms, but through authentic relationships that honor the friction and complexity of being human. “3. To preserve our authenticity while expanding the tools we engage with. These don’t have to be in opposition. We can fly in planes without becoming less human. We can use augmentative technologies without losing ourselves. “But none of this is possible without the space to reflect and the power to choose. “We need educational spaces where AI isn’t taboo but also isn’t mandatory. Where students can make informed choices about when and how to use these tools, and when not to. Where neurodivergent students can celebrate AI as liberation without others facing judgment for choosing differently. “We need faculty to have genuine academic freedom, not pressure to integrate AI to prove they’re ‘innovative,’ but trust to design learning experiences that foster connection and growth. “And we need all of us, not just tech CEOs, to shape the futures we’re building together right now.” |