Instead of Fighting AI, Some Teachers Work It Into Their Lessons (msn.com) 2
Last year the writing program at the University of Baltimore used an app that tracks students while they're writing in Google Docs, offering teachers a video playing back revisions "with a scoreboard of all the edits, pastes and minutes spent on it," writes the Washington Post. "Is it surveillance? Yes, I think obviously," says the program's director.
But was there a better way? She is one of a dozen educators around the country who told The Post that they're experimenting with a different approach to student use of generative artificial intelligence this school year. Teachers and professors are throwing out old assignments, installing new policies and protocols, and incorporating AI built for the classroom, rather than feeling forced to choose between returning to pencil and paper or acting like the AI police.
Her new lesson plan even incorporates generative AI in a controlled way to let her evaluate students' critical thinking skills. She created chatbots using BoodleBox, the university's AI vendor, that allow instructors to see both sides of the conversation. For an assignment testing students' ability to make evidence-based arguments, they participate in a simulated school board meeting about banning books. It involves debating chatbots designed by Zeleny with names like the Confrontational Parent. Writing students usually turn in business proposals and research papers. This semester, instructors are starting to ask instead for transcripts of conversations a student had with a chatbot, a handwritten outline of their composition, and a video reflection of how they felt about the work. "In a lot of ways, we have made these assignments harder, but writing should have always had more detailed checkpoints along the way," she said.
But was there a better way? She is one of a dozen educators around the country who told The Post that they're experimenting with a different approach to student use of generative artificial intelligence this school year. Teachers and professors are throwing out old assignments, installing new policies and protocols, and incorporating AI built for the classroom, rather than feeling forced to choose between returning to pencil and paper or acting like the AI police.
Her new lesson plan even incorporates generative AI in a controlled way to let her evaluate students' critical thinking skills. She created chatbots using BoodleBox, the university's AI vendor, that allow instructors to see both sides of the conversation. For an assignment testing students' ability to make evidence-based arguments, they participate in a simulated school board meeting about banning books. It involves debating chatbots designed by Zeleny with names like the Confrontational Parent. Writing students usually turn in business proposals and research papers. This semester, instructors are starting to ask instead for transcripts of conversations a student had with a chatbot, a handwritten outline of their composition, and a video reflection of how they felt about the work. "In a lot of ways, we have made these assignments harder, but writing should have always had more detailed checkpoints along the way," she said.
adverse training for students (Score:2)
Flood them with options and force them to pick the right one. It might work. Sure sucks for those students if the new teaching policies don't work.
Cut off the problem before it starts (Score:2)
Facts Only
* University of Baltimore writing program.
* An app that tracks student writing in Google Docs.
* App features include video playback of revisions, edit counts, paste counts, and minutes spent.
* The program director identifies this as surveillance.
* BoodleBox is the university's AI vendor.
* Instructors created chatbots via BoodleBox for student interaction.
* One assignment involves a simulated school board meeting about banning books.
* Students debate a chatbot named the "Confrontational Parent."
* New submission requirements include chatbot conversation transcripts, handwritten outlines, and video reflections.
* A group of approximately twelve educators are experimenting with these AI-integrated approaches.
Executive Summary
Educators are shifting their approach to generative AI in the classroom, moving away from surveillance-based detection and toward integrated pedagogical use. At the University of Baltimore, this transition involves replacing traditional assignments, such as business proposals and research papers, with multi-stage checkpoints. These include handwritten outlines, video reflections, and documented interactions with AI chatbots.
One specific application utilizes BoodleBox to create simulated environments, such as a school board debate over book banning, where students must argue against specialized AI personas like a "Confrontational Parent." While these new requirements increase the workload and complexity for students, proponents argue that adding detailed checkpoints improves the evaluation of critical thinking and evidence-based argumentation. The goal is to avoid a binary choice between returning to analog tools or acting as "AI police."
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that educators are evolving their pedagogy to match technological reality, moving from "policing" to "partnering" with AI to foster higher-order critical thinking.
The transition from tracking software (surveillance) to structured AI interactions (integration) suggests a shift in the locus of trust. By requiring "transcripts" and "handwritten outlines," the burden of proof shifts from the software's ability to detect fraud to the student's ability to demonstrate a process. However, the reliance on BoodleBox as the sole vendor creates a closed loop where the tool used for assessment is also the tool provided by a commercial entity, potentially narrowing the scope of AI literacy to a single proprietary interface.
The root cause is a crisis of authenticity in digital output. The unstated assumption is that "harder" assignments with more checkpoints are inherently more honest or educational. This echoes the historical shift from oral exams to written essays, and now toward "process-based" grading. The second-order consequence is the professionalization of "prompt engineering" as a core academic skill, potentially at the expense of raw synthesis.
Patterns detected: none
If this were a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve "sanewashing" corporate AI adoption by framing it as a liberation from "surveillance," thereby making the vendor's product appear as the ethical solution to a problem the technology itself created. The actual content does not match this pattern; it presents a genuine pedagogical struggle with explicit admission of surveillance.
Bridge Questions:
1. Does requiring "process artifacts" (transcripts/outlines) actually measure critical thinking, or does it simply measure compliance with a new set of bureaucratic hurdles?
2. How does the use of a single vendor for "controlled" AI interaction affect a student's ability to navigate the unfiltered, chaotic AI landscape they will face in the workforce?
3. If AI can simulate a "Confrontational Parent," what happens to the value of human-to-human rhetorical struggle?