"In these instances, there is a wide gap between the content and the form in which that content is delivered. A person touts new age technology’s ability to connect people and to challenge traditional learning. But then they tell us to sit down, shut up, and listen to their 45-minute presentation with mind-numbing PowerPoint slides". This is one of the points I appreciated most in the issue. Honestly, I don't write and I don't have a background related to education, but this perception is very widespread and I perceived it very directly. Furthermore, there is a crucial point that in my opinion should be highlighted in what has been stated: "sometimes, instead of reinforcing, we should rethink". We often try to integrate new and old dynamics without thinking about the overall vision. This integration that you underlined, however, is an important process even if only to stimulate the rethinking of certain dynamics, especially in education.
I feel like the real attraction of this AI courseware has less to do with the students than the faculty. The more administrations can AI-ify the less they need professors, who are already outnumbered 2-1 in many institutions by administrators.
I think that is absolutely part of what is happening here!
I wonder if Academic Integrity here is a Trojan Horse. I can't help thinking that they are using AI detectors and Academic Integrity as a whole to sneak in that AI-assisted grading.
It seems to sneakily move us towards automation. (Or maybe it's not that sneaky...)
I love this line: "It’s a doubling-down on the Industrial Era style of education, using AI as its enabling mechanism."
Lance Eaton has a nice essay up today on AI + Education = Simplified. As I read it, I reflected on the impact that you, Lance, Ethan Mollick, and many of the writers on your list had in raising awareness about the problematic nature of AI detectors. I think it mattered that so many were posting on LinkedIn and blogging about the issue. It helped inform journalists writing on the topic and guide colleagues who were genuinely confused about how they worked.
It makes me hopeful that something similar will happen in response to Coursera and other anti-democratic and anti-student approaches to using AI in education. The fairly critical coverage last week at Inside Higher Ed is a good sign.
Reinforcing is easy. Rethinking is hard. There is a very high and thick wall to climb over. For-profits like Coursera can’t do the hard work because it is too risky (financially and for their perspective).
Those of us inside the ivory towers have to be the ones to do the hard work of rethinking and changing perceptions.
Those on the list are doing just that. I’m grateful for Substack and LinkedIn and Zoom and Twitter and other places we can share and collaborate because it feels like a lonely world for those revolutionaries.
Bingo! The students are almost always left out of the conversation. I finally have my first consulting/training where students will be at the center - woohoo!
Every other time I’ve asked for them to be involved I’ve been told that’s not the right place for them.
If this isn’t the right place for them, then what are we doing?
"In these instances, there is a wide gap between the content and the form in which that content is delivered. A person touts new age technology’s ability to connect people and to challenge traditional learning. But then they tell us to sit down, shut up, and listen to their 45-minute presentation with mind-numbing PowerPoint slides". This is one of the points I appreciated most in the issue. Honestly, I don't write and I don't have a background related to education, but this perception is very widespread and I perceived it very directly. Furthermore, there is a crucial point that in my opinion should be highlighted in what has been stated: "sometimes, instead of reinforcing, we should rethink". We often try to integrate new and old dynamics without thinking about the overall vision. This integration that you underlined, however, is an important process even if only to stimulate the rethinking of certain dynamics, especially in education.
Thank you for that, Riccardo!
I think this is spot on. It's easier to just work AI in and not rethink the overall vision.
I feel like the real attraction of this AI courseware has less to do with the students than the faculty. The more administrations can AI-ify the less they need professors, who are already outnumbered 2-1 in many institutions by administrators.
I think that is absolutely part of what is happening here!
I wonder if Academic Integrity here is a Trojan Horse. I can't help thinking that they are using AI detectors and Academic Integrity as a whole to sneak in that AI-assisted grading.
It seems to sneakily move us towards automation. (Or maybe it's not that sneaky...)
I love this line: "It’s a doubling-down on the Industrial Era style of education, using AI as its enabling mechanism."
Lance Eaton has a nice essay up today on AI + Education = Simplified. As I read it, I reflected on the impact that you, Lance, Ethan Mollick, and many of the writers on your list had in raising awareness about the problematic nature of AI detectors. I think it mattered that so many were posting on LinkedIn and blogging about the issue. It helped inform journalists writing on the topic and guide colleagues who were genuinely confused about how they worked.
It makes me hopeful that something similar will happen in response to Coursera and other anti-democratic and anti-student approaches to using AI in education. The fairly critical coverage last week at Inside Higher Ed is a good sign.
Thank you for that! Yeah, I'm hopeful that we can move the needle. But we do need to keep pushing
And as I think about it, I left so many people off this list--including you, Lance Eaton, and Marc Watkins!
Reinforcing is easy. Rethinking is hard. There is a very high and thick wall to climb over. For-profits like Coursera can’t do the hard work because it is too risky (financially and for their perspective).
Those of us inside the ivory towers have to be the ones to do the hard work of rethinking and changing perceptions.
Those on the list are doing just that. I’m grateful for Substack and LinkedIn and Zoom and Twitter and other places we can share and collaborate because it feels like a lonely world for those revolutionaries.
I think that is a great point.
I think that true rethinking needs to come from those who actually have consistent, meaningful contact with students!
Bingo! The students are almost always left out of the conversation. I finally have my first consulting/training where students will be at the center - woohoo!
Every other time I’ve asked for them to be involved I’ve been told that’s not the right place for them.
If this isn’t the right place for them, then what are we doing?
Thanks for the shout out Jason! What a great list
You're welcome. You absolutely deserve to be on there!
Who did I miss in my non-exhaustive list?
Feel free to list and tag!
Since I mentioned him above: Lance Eaton, AI + Education = Simplified.