Adapting to Generative Ai in the Classroom
I have been very concerned about how to manage the increasing presence of Ai while also allowing my students to use tools that can support and improve their learning.
I have had a couple a light bulb moments in framing my own teaching context, I can only assess my students' own work. I generally start the semester by talking about creating/encouraging individual voices in writing. As I’m evaluating their language specifically to determine whether they have the required benchmark to enter post-secondary, I need to see their own work in order to assess their work and change their benchmarks. Framing the use of Ai more strongly as a tool that can assist but not replace their efforts or voice is a point that I have learned to emphasize to underscore the importance of students developing their language skills.
I have long thought of Ai as a tool and group in the section of authorized/unauthorized tools portion of my learning plan when discussing AI with students. Following a webinar from English Australia (2023), I implemented some changes to one of my courses this semester which have helped both me and my students as we navigate this new frontier. The first was the inclusion of badges on each of my assignments to specify if/when/how Ai use was permitted. This idea came from case study presented by Gabriel Azpilcueta from the University of Adelaide who showed similar badges that he had created and used with his students. Based on my own students experiences and needs, I produced two badges with specific when/if/how Ai use was permitted for each of my course assignments. I recognized that in my context, I had to specifically mentioned the grammar/spelling check feature in MS Word and the Turnitin Similarity Report. In most previous classes, my students were not permitted to use the spelling and grammar check feature in MS Word. As I'm a class that focuses on the transition from our program to post-secondary programs, I want to give my students tools that are both permitted and expected. When I teach them about academic integrity, I also teach them about Turnitin and how to use the similarity report to revise and edit their work.
In this same webinar, Brooke Donnelly & Ryan Phelan from University of New South Wales College (English Australia, 2023) also discussed the use of reflection questions related to the feedback which is provided to students. This ensured that students engaged my feedback, and hopefully, incorporated my feedback into their future work. There were a few important take-aways from the first time assigning this task. First, not all of my students were viewing all of my feedback. This provided an opportunity to show them how to do this and start a conversation. Second, at first, my students were reluctant to go into great detail and kept their responses at a very surface level. Also, with the question related to feedback that they would not use, they were reluctant to engage with this question as they felt it was criticizing me and my feedback. Ultimately, once I was able to help them see how to do this task correctly, it initiated a useful dialogue between the student and myself that often is not realized through normal feedback. I found a much deeper level of engagement with the feedback. I've continued this process again with the new intake moving the first use of this task to earlier in the semester, so that I can ensure that students know where to look for their feedback sooner, and thus, hopefully operationalize it a little quicker.
Two further webinars which were part of the University of Bournemouth's Speaker Series on Academic Integrity have also informed my presentation and approach to academic integrity. Mary Davis (2024) said some this that really resonated with me in terms of how I present and explain academic integrity to my students. As I'm a language teacher, I'm assessing their language output. This means that I need to see what they can do with language, so that when I'm assessing their language skills, I have an accurate picture of their abilities. Davis talked about voice and how Ai can impact individual voice taking on the role of co-author without clear boundaries and expectations. This got me thinking of an analogy that I could use to talk about appropriate Ai use with my students.
I thought of the analogy of a cake for initiating a conversation with my students. This semester will the be first time that I'm testing this analogy, but I'm hoping that this will make the students' perspective on the importance of their own work and voice clearer. Curtis (2024) talked about the variation between different student profiles, and which profiles were the most important to target in terms of changing their thinking and behaviours. He identified the majority of learner who fall in the middle of spectrum between never cheating and cheating as a normal practice. He identified this middle ground as 'cheat curious' and stated that this group was the one on which teaching about academic integrity could be the most beneficial, so I'll be curious to see whether there are notable changes this semester.
References:
Curtis, G. (2024, Feb. 9). Promote, prevent, and prosecute: Tailoring academic integrity for distinct student psychological
profiles, Bournemouth Speaker Series on Academic Integrity. Promote, prevent, and prosecute: Academic integrity for student profiles. (panopto.eu).
Davis, M. (2024, Mar. 13). Ethical & inclusive approaches to student use of artificial intelligence, Bournemouth Speaker Series on Academic Integrity. Ethical and inclusive approaches to student use of Artificial Intelligence (panopto.eu).
English Australia (2023, Oct. 25). Enhancing ethical AI engagement: Detecting tools & policies for English language colleges.(6) Enhancing ethical AI enagement - YouTube.
