3 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2025
    1. Frequent, Low-Stakes Assessments:

      I think the solutions that will work best to reduce the usage of generative AI by students are dependent on the group of learners you are working with. As an elementary teacher, I feel that the best strategies are those that ensure class questions includes connection to self or the world. Typically, my younger students are not going to be able to do the higher level thinking required to get generative AI to complete a sensical response to a question like this.

      However, if you were a high school AP teacher, your students would be more likely able to utilize generative AI to build answers to complex questions. For this group, frequent, low stakes assessments may be a better direction to go in because the students in these classes are likely driven by success. If they feel they will not be able to achieve their desired score without the use of AI, they may be more likely to cheat. Lowering the stress and pressure may prevent their use of AI.

      In determining what strategies will help prevent the misuse of AI within your classroom setting, I think it is important to investigate the motivation of your group. Why are they inclined to use AI, and then pick an appropriate mitigation strategy based on that discovery.

    2. They do notthink; they create human-like responses based on prob-abilities and, in doing so, also tend to make things up (i.e.,hallucinate).

      I think this is a very terrifying notion. Currently many students are relying on generative AI to assist if not complete their school work. I think it would be unrealistic to assume that these individuals will not take that practice into their careers as well. This could cause a generation of people to join the workforce and perpetuate incorrect information and "fake news" without even knowing it.

      Regardless of a person's position on generative AI usage in the classroom, I think a new role of educators (particularly secondary educators) will be teaching students how to question the information that AI provides to them and fact check it through research. While this type of instruction will generally happen at the secondary level, I think elementary teachers have a role as well in teaching digital citizenship skills along with working to decrease student apathy.

    3. generate original written work that is virtuallyindistinguishable from that of human authors.

      I think this is an interesting statement. While this original work may be indistinguishable from some individuals work and in some settings, I think in a K-12 face to face classroom setting, it isn't nearly as difficult to distinguish as this quote implies.

      First, most teachers have some level of familiarity with their students writing voices and styles. I often find ChatGPT writing to be very formulaic. ChatGPT also uses phrasing that would be uncharacteristic of a student. For instance, I just asked ChatGPT to write a book report for Catcher and the Rye. This was a sentence from that report: "Salinger captures the feeling of alienation and confusion that accompanies adolescence with remarkable sensitivity." When considering the typical abilities of a high school student, this writing level seems like it should raise suspicions and indicate to an educator that artificial intelligence may be involved.

      I can see how determining AI vs student responses may be far more challenging for fully virtual classes where teachers may not be as familiar with a student's voice outside of technology. I also believe it would be far more difficult to distinguish at a college level, as some students writing voices become more complex and advanced. Fortunately, as a third grade teacher, I am able to disagree with this statement, as it would be extremely simple for me to distinguish my students writing from artificial intelligence writing.