Instead of Fighting AI, Some Teachers Work It Into Their Lessons (msn.com) 16
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:1)
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.
Washington Post owned by Amazon And AWS (Score:1)
Disagree. Hard to see the article as unbiased since the Washington Post is owned by one of the largest sells of AI services in the world.
Another "AI might not be all the bad" article to ignore as Microsoft style FUD.
Amazon / Jeff Bezons owns Washington Post
Fools blindly trust or blindly distrust. (Score:5, Informative)
Hard to see the article as unbiased since the Washington Post is owned by one of the largest sells of AI services in the world.
You are working from a fallacy. Attacking the owner of a newspaper rather than the information.
Reality is that news organizations that are own by people you like, and people you dislike, will both lie to you at times, will both tell the truth at times. Which occurs is simply a matter of coincidence, of who the truth happens to coincidentally align with today. Sometimes that will be friends, sometimes that will be opponents.
So to find bias look at the information itself, from multiple sources. Then do your own research to see where the truth happens to lie. The con games of thieves and politicians and their surrogates only works if you blindly trust or blindly distrust.
And don't be foolish and think if one side if lying the other is telling the truth, they may both be trying to manipulate you with lies.
All about their respective agenda, NOT the truth. (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that both sides of the corporate political landscape lie, it is far from "simply a matter of coincidence":
The coincidence is whether or not the policy aligns with the truth,
\Trump lies constantly (99.9% lies) ...
I bet you go that number from the Democratic party, hint, it was not a day where politics aligned with reality. Now if you want to say that Trump says something dumb or misinformed 99.9% of the time I'd be more included to agree. However those dump, misinformed, mangled statements sometime actually align with policy representing the truth.
... and most of the Republican party still backs him up.
Sometimes it is that the underlying policy matches the truth, despite how mangled in its presentation. Sometimes it is the democrats have an even worse idea (back to that zero sum thinking, they are wrong so we must be correct).
The (corporate) Democrats prefer to obfuscate and only outright lie maybe 10-20% of the time. The progressives only lie by accident - which is why the oligarchs don't back them and they have trouble getting elected.
Sorry, left, right, far left, far right, will all obfuscate and only outright lie when their desired policy does not match the truth. They are NOT new organizations, they are NOT historians, they are all organization that seek to MANUFACTURE a perception that will advance their political agenda. Its all about their respective agenda, NOT the truth.
Another truth is that they may (both or not) be trying to distract you with a non-issue, like the Culture Wars, distracting from real issues.
These wedge issue are manufactured, or if real do not get solved, because both sides raise money or turn out voters on election day thanks to them.
Cut off the problem before it starts (Score:2, Troll)
If you can't beat them, join them (Score:2)
That's the crux of the article. The lame attempts at AI-integrated assessments are ineffectual, and that why we read "that's what we're trying now" rather than "we've tried this and *works* and *they learn*". It's just AI, hopes and prayers. Of course, no mention of how AI use negatively affects learning, as shown by multiple studies.
Or AI is just a tool you need to learn how to use (Score:3)
Computer literacy classes had to expand the curriculum to safely teach how to use the web, and email. It will need to do the same for AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah of course it's a tool but I'm not convinced about its net societal value. But when students use it for assignments to gain advantage over others that are trying to learn, that's not ok though. Remember that universities assess knowledge, which is what they provide students with. Assessment is a way of validating the process. This is problematic. "change what you assess" is equivalent to "change what you measure", which of course creates a mismatch of what is being taught and what is being measured. You
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah of course it's a tool but I'm not convinced about its net societal value.
One obvious thing, a web search. It will probably scan more web sites than I would. The key here is that it should provide a comprehensive list of references. Just like a formal paper for school. Ask for one in the prompt.
A similar case for programmers is looking up stuff things that are in reference manuals or books. AI can save me time walking over to my bookshelf and looking up something Again, references are important.
I've done the latter and had good results. In particular I recalled a day at wor
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing the utility of it as an augmented search engine, but that's partially because search engine results quality has fallen off a cliff. This is basically my main AI use as well.
I had to repeatedly sort some data in a high performance environment (3D rendering during rotation)
Where you doing transparency? :)
In modern times I created a prompt asking for an algorithm matching the data and to provide a sample in a particular programming language
That may work, but it certainly takes the fun out of it, if you have fun doing it.
Re your last paragraph - AI-assisted search, absolutely. Anything that improves search, it's great, to wade through all the noise. Although AI is responsible for a lot of that noise as well. Spelling/grammar,
That's the smart strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
because AI ain't going away. Teachers will get their learning experiments wrong sometimes, but that's par for the course for disruptive technologies.