I completely agree. Essays have been reduced to nothing more than mindless busy work. The existence of chat-GPT now forces teachers to come up with better formative and summative assignments. For instance teachers can have students read a novel, have them create a creative piece to show understanding, and than instruct students to write a short essay expressing their overall experience of the process. In this scenario, if students choose to use chat-GPT, it will most likely be used more as an assistant rather than a full on cheating tool.
Calculators spawned several generations of people who still can't make change without their electronic device. Cellphones spawned several generations of people who can't read a map or spell. Okay, those skills may be unnecessary now. But as long as writing ability remains the single most important skill for a career in science, having an AI write your essays is a big mistake. Essay assignments in English should be like, "Write an essay of at least N words on a subject that matters to you." If you must dictate a topic, just point out that the grade will depend on relevance to the most recent course material. Writing is not an exercise; it's self-discovery!
I strongly disagree with your argument here; essays are not assigned to teach topics, they are assigned to teach the art of communication via the written word. Learning how to organize thoughts into an essay form also guides students towards rational thinking and how to distinguish between effective and ineffective argumentation.
The use of GPT-3 or any other automated text generator will continue to fail students, who will learn nothing more than how to avoid work and depend on machines to "think" for them. The fact is that a question such as the one you propose does require reasoning and foster learning:
1. An essay requires detailed, specific answers to questions. This requires students to use recall or do research.
2. An essay has a strict form, word count, paragraph or page count, or time limit in which the student must articulate the information while making an argument for or against it's relevance to her answer. This requires mastery of the written word, grammar, punctuation, and brevity.
3. The student must learn or understand some principles of rhetoric to make a plausible or passionate argument.
These are all goals of the essay. Using a pessimistic view of education to support AI technology is a shockingly lackadaisical, backhanded swipe at the future well-being of millions of young people. Fixing broken systems requires more than technical Band-Aids. Worse, it's absolutely the worst argument for the use of AI there is . . . "your teachers are lazy, so it's a fine idea to allow the students to be lazy as well."
Hi! I think we are in vehement agreement :) I wonder if you perhaps missed this paragraph?
"The same changes are likely to play out with language models. In some cases, the point of assigning an essay is to teach writing skills or critical thinking. The availability of language models has not obviated these skills. To prevent cheating on this type of exercise, instructors could move them to the classroom. Even better: there are many ways to change the exercise so that the tools aren’t helpful. These changes take advantage of inherent limitations of language models that are unlikely to be fixed soon."
The problem is that your description of what essays should be assigned for--to teach expression and critical thinking--is at odds with the reality of how writing is used pedagogically in a fairly substantial portion of American academia, which is as demonstration of knowledge or command over subject matter. That's the point of Arvind's post: the latter use of essays was never pedagogically sound but it's about to be technologically obliterated.
I note in my own piece on this topic (https://timothyburke.substack.com/p/academia-cheating-writing-and-learning) that John Warner in particular (along with quite a few other composition/rhetoric scholars) has criticized the pedagogical misuse of writing for some time. Any faculty at any type or level of institution that fail to adapt by using writing in teaching the right way are going to be swamped by machine-written prose that most of them will not even recognize as such. That won't be the fault of the AI, it will be the fault of the faculty in question for sticking to using writing to assess whether a student did the reading or knows the subject.
maybe because you're not 12-years old, who has to learn critical thinking, basics of analysis and such. Ask google and facebook engineers who saw their kids raising with their "addictive design" methodology based products. And then multiply the effect by itself, given the only thing they will need is a device with 1 button "hey, ChatGPT...." We have to be really cautious before robbing them off the literacy that we think is inherited. I think there was a hard work of some of the older people - parents, teachers, nannies, etc - behind a smart guy who Shas is now. You've not grown up as a fruit on a tree, I suppose )
Neuroplasticity changes this perspective. While the adult brain is considered to be fully developed and stable until senescence, when its size progressively decreases, such stability seems at odds with constant human (knowledgeable/intellectual) development throughout life. These changes are related to intelligence. So, if you replace brain plasticity/flexibility with AI, e.g., to facilitate assays to students, you are compromising the required cognitive training needed to develop the brain. If AI does not allow students to challenge themselves in the art of communication, their brain plasticity (which should be growing) is compromised. Children/students are developing, growing, and learning; their brains are no exception.
I don't think neuroplasticity is affected by being challenged. However, knowing things and how to do things makes it easier to know other things and how to do other things. The effects are cumulative.
"These are deep and long-standing problems with our educational system. AI tools didn’t create them and banning their use by students won’t solve them."
I wouldn’t use that argument support AI-generated homework.
If you are unable to prepare good food because you are low on resources or time, you (or your provider) should invent ways to work on your shortcomings.
The last thing you would do would be to bring in a chef who cooks instant fast food with no guarantees about health, and provides no way to evaluate what made him the chef he professes to be.
I just want to point out one thing as an ardent lover of your writing the examples and analogies that you provide to drive home the points is excellent.
I recall one of your tweets maybe where you compared AI with vehicle / cars and how design of cars evolve with time and they made it less accident prone likewise the evolution of AI... Note that this blog has one very catchy analogy as well -- "usage of calculators".
I completely agree. Essays have been reduced to nothing more than mindless busy work. The existence of chat-GPT now forces teachers to come up with better formative and summative assignments. For instance teachers can have students read a novel, have them create a creative piece to show understanding, and than instruct students to write a short essay expressing their overall experience of the process. In this scenario, if students choose to use chat-GPT, it will most likely be used more as an assistant rather than a full on cheating tool.
Calculators spawned several generations of people who still can't make change without their electronic device. Cellphones spawned several generations of people who can't read a map or spell. Okay, those skills may be unnecessary now. But as long as writing ability remains the single most important skill for a career in science, having an AI write your essays is a big mistake. Essay assignments in English should be like, "Write an essay of at least N words on a subject that matters to you." If you must dictate a topic, just point out that the grade will depend on relevance to the most recent course material. Writing is not an exercise; it's self-discovery!
I strongly disagree with your argument here; essays are not assigned to teach topics, they are assigned to teach the art of communication via the written word. Learning how to organize thoughts into an essay form also guides students towards rational thinking and how to distinguish between effective and ineffective argumentation.
The use of GPT-3 or any other automated text generator will continue to fail students, who will learn nothing more than how to avoid work and depend on machines to "think" for them. The fact is that a question such as the one you propose does require reasoning and foster learning:
1. An essay requires detailed, specific answers to questions. This requires students to use recall or do research.
2. An essay has a strict form, word count, paragraph or page count, or time limit in which the student must articulate the information while making an argument for or against it's relevance to her answer. This requires mastery of the written word, grammar, punctuation, and brevity.
3. The student must learn or understand some principles of rhetoric to make a plausible or passionate argument.
These are all goals of the essay. Using a pessimistic view of education to support AI technology is a shockingly lackadaisical, backhanded swipe at the future well-being of millions of young people. Fixing broken systems requires more than technical Band-Aids. Worse, it's absolutely the worst argument for the use of AI there is . . . "your teachers are lazy, so it's a fine idea to allow the students to be lazy as well."
Hi! I think we are in vehement agreement :) I wonder if you perhaps missed this paragraph?
"The same changes are likely to play out with language models. In some cases, the point of assigning an essay is to teach writing skills or critical thinking. The availability of language models has not obviated these skills. To prevent cheating on this type of exercise, instructors could move them to the classroom. Even better: there are many ways to change the exercise so that the tools aren’t helpful. These changes take advantage of inherent limitations of language models that are unlikely to be fixed soon."
The problem is that your description of what essays should be assigned for--to teach expression and critical thinking--is at odds with the reality of how writing is used pedagogically in a fairly substantial portion of American academia, which is as demonstration of knowledge or command over subject matter. That's the point of Arvind's post: the latter use of essays was never pedagogically sound but it's about to be technologically obliterated.
I note in my own piece on this topic (https://timothyburke.substack.com/p/academia-cheating-writing-and-learning) that John Warner in particular (along with quite a few other composition/rhetoric scholars) has criticized the pedagogical misuse of writing for some time. Any faculty at any type or level of institution that fail to adapt by using writing in teaching the right way are going to be swamped by machine-written prose that most of them will not even recognize as such. That won't be the fault of the AI, it will be the fault of the faculty in question for sticking to using writing to assess whether a student did the reading or knows the subject.
I fail to understand how 'write five good and five bad things' about something teaches rational thinking.
It doesn't. That's the point. They don't want rational thinking, ever.
maybe because you're not 12-years old, who has to learn critical thinking, basics of analysis and such. Ask google and facebook engineers who saw their kids raising with their "addictive design" methodology based products. And then multiply the effect by itself, given the only thing they will need is a device with 1 button "hey, ChatGPT...." We have to be really cautious before robbing them off the literacy that we think is inherited. I think there was a hard work of some of the older people - parents, teachers, nannies, etc - behind a smart guy who Shas is now. You've not grown up as a fruit on a tree, I suppose )
Neuroplasticity changes this perspective. While the adult brain is considered to be fully developed and stable until senescence, when its size progressively decreases, such stability seems at odds with constant human (knowledgeable/intellectual) development throughout life. These changes are related to intelligence. So, if you replace brain plasticity/flexibility with AI, e.g., to facilitate assays to students, you are compromising the required cognitive training needed to develop the brain. If AI does not allow students to challenge themselves in the art of communication, their brain plasticity (which should be growing) is compromised. Children/students are developing, growing, and learning; their brains are no exception.
I don't think neuroplasticity is affected by being challenged. However, knowing things and how to do things makes it easier to know other things and how to do other things. The effects are cumulative.
I referred to the neuroplasticity associated to children/students under development- a different story.
Insightful & thought provoking post!
"These are deep and long-standing problems with our educational system. AI tools didn’t create them and banning their use by students won’t solve them."
I wouldn’t use that argument support AI-generated homework.
If you are unable to prepare good food because you are low on resources or time, you (or your provider) should invent ways to work on your shortcomings.
The last thing you would do would be to bring in a chef who cooks instant fast food with no guarantees about health, and provides no way to evaluate what made him the chef he professes to be.
Is Kervin's management style effective?why or why not?
Completely agree. I wrote a related post on Medium: https://link.medium.com/hGRUrSeblub
I just want to point out one thing as an ardent lover of your writing the examples and analogies that you provide to drive home the points is excellent.
I recall one of your tweets maybe where you compared AI with vehicle / cars and how design of cars evolve with time and they made it less accident prone likewise the evolution of AI... Note that this blog has one very catchy analogy as well -- "usage of calculators".
It was a good read. Thanks.