Jump to content

User:Setia033/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Support

[edit]

Although there is growing concern over the rise of AI and its potential use of plagiarism and production of biased content, some have argued ChatGPT itself is an effective tool to enhance students' critical thinking and reasoning. An example of this in practice involves a student who was assigned to analyze the work of a singer and songwriter Burna Boy. ChatGPT failed to offer an in-depth analysis of a political song by Burna Boy, only being able to assist with translating Nigerian Pidgin and slang, and listing discussion forums where Nigerian fans interpreted the meanings of the song. However, this limitation offered an opportunity for the student to engage with others and allowed them to think more critically and deeply about the content.[1] Jarrel De Matas from University of Massachusetts Amherst proposes an "inquiry-based model" where the writer problem solves and improves their critical thinking and writing skills when engaging with ChatGPT. De Matas also suggests a "user-centered design of the writing process" which prioritizes users over the technology. This "user-centered design" involves two core components. The first is an emphasis on reflective writing which would encourage students to view writing as a process rather than product-based like how ChatGPT can be. The second is to have students evaluate chatbot responses on their ability to provide information on a particular subject and the limitations of where it draws its information from.[2]

It's a complex issue with various viewpoints and implications for how education may evolve in the future. The theory that ChatGPT will destroy education is disputed almost as widely as it is believed. Kevin Brown of Christianity Today wrote that the human brain remains consistently better able to create material than ChatGPT. Brown further argued that education in its spirit will continue to live on and that ChatGPT could only revolutionize teaching methods.[3] The New York Times' Kevin Roose also reported that ChatGPT's prohibition would never be able to be practiced effectively, noting it would be impossible to police. Roose noted that students can access the internet outside of schools, effectively rendering a ban obsolete; Roose suggested instead that teachers allow it openly for some assignments similar to calculators, and that teaching with the AI is the best approach.[4] The oral exam has also been used as an example of an instruction method which could circumvent the assignment and test students' knowledge more effectively on a 1:1 basis.[5]

Some have emphasized a change in pedagogy focused on quality of writing and reading as opposed to quantity. If educators slow down by assigning one paper or one book per semester, it could allow students to put more "thought, research, and critical thinking into through multiple drafts and revisions".[6] This technological evolution prompts educators to rethink pedagogical approaches, emphasizing critical thinking and ethical AI usage. Proponents argue for integrating ChatGPT into educational frameworks responsibly, leveraging its potential to enhance learning outcomes through personalized approaches.[7][8]

Opposition

[edit]

The impact of ChatGPT on education is a topic of significant discussion. Daniel Herman's perspective reflects concerns about the potential devaluation of writing skills if AI can generate text as easily as humans.[9] Similarly, Naomi S. Baron wrote that "If AI text generation does our writing for us, we diminish opportunities to think out problems for ourselves". She also mentioned the risk of a slippery slope, where students start letting generative AI control the content and style of their writing, leading to a diminished sense of ownership.[10] Educators might have to rethink the practicality and value of writing in higher education. For example, business schools could reframe writing from a career prep approach to a liberal-arts approach, where writing is "the foundation of a rich and meaningful life".[11] According to Katy Major, faculty reactions towards AI at Ashland University varied depending on their field. Fields which viewed written words as carrying "significant view and value" were more likely to be concerned with AI in education as opposed to fields where writing is "treated pragmatically, as a means to some other end".[12] Others highlight the need for educators to adapt their methods to focus more on critical thinking and reasoning,[13] as AI tools like ChatGPT could potentially be used for plagiarism or produce biased content.

Not only is there growing concern around ChatGPT's impact on students, but also on the educators themselves. Writing centers may be particularly impacted by the growing use of ChatGPT in education. Although there are local policies on AI usage, university-wide policies are currently not well established and with this comes a burden that is placed on writing center tutors, who may have to act as "police clients for unethical AI-generated writing". According to a 2024 survey done on writing centers, participants stated that they believed they would need to be able to advise clients on the "ethical issues of using AI tools" and "recognize AI-generated text and discuss academic integrity".[14] Some have proposed ways to remediate this including placing digital watermarks on AI-generated works to distinguish it from original student work.[11]

Another frequent concern of using ChatGPT in education is because of the gaps in the tool's capability to produce verifiable information. ChatGPT's tendency to generating hallucination and misinformation, especially fabricated citations, makes it unreliable for academic credibility. Some inaccurate information, including when the tool refers to people or works that do not exist, could be detected easily.[15] However, ChatGPT might also offers fake results that are convincing. Jordan MacDonald from the University of New Brunswick–Saint John pointed out the downside is that students using ChatGPT to provide information on a topic may lack the knowledge require to identify false or misleading information.[16] Furthermore, students' over-reliance in using ChatGPT would impact their cognitive offloading which decline memory retention.[17] According to Michael Gerlich, younger generations who have grown up with AI technologies tend to be more dependent on them, which corresponds with lower critical thinking scores compared to older generations.[18][19]

Bans

[edit]

Some educational institutions have chosen to ban access to ChatGPT. The reasons behind these decisions likely vary, but concerns about potential misuse, such as plagiarism or reliance on AI for writing tasks, could be driving factors. ChatGPT has been met with various bans from certain educational institutions. One of the earliest districts to ban the tool was the Los Angeles Unified School District, which blocked access to the tool less than a month after its official release.[20] The New York City Department of Education reportedly blocked access to ChatGPT in December 2022[21] and officially announced a ban around January 4, 2023.[22][23]

In February 2023, the University of Hong Kong sent a campus-wide email to instructors and students stating that the use of ChatGPT or other AI tools is prohibited in all classes, assignments and assessments at the university. Any violations would be treated as plagiarism by the university unless the student obtains the prior written consent from the course instructor.[24][25]

Shift in the perception of ChatGPT in education

[edit]

Some schools in the United States for the 2023–24 school year announced a repeal of their bans for ChatGPT. New York City repealed its ban in May 2023 while replacing it with a statement which encourages students to learn how to use generative AI, and in rural Washington, Walla Walla Public Schools announced it would repeal its ban of ChatGPT in student assignments.[20][26][27] A professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, has permitted the incorporation of ChatGPT into his students' writing process instead of banning the use of this new technology.[28] He argued that educators should teach students to use ChatGPT ethically and productively, and that it is not feasible or practical to ban students from using it.[28] He also discussed the benefits of learning to write well with AI assistance, and stressed on the importance of being responsible users of AI.[28]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Girdharry, Kristi; Khachatryan, Davit (2023). "Meaningful Writing in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence". Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing. 11 (1): 1–10. doi:10.37514/dbh-j.2023.11.1.04. ISSN 2372-7497.
  2. ^ De Matas, Jarrel (2023). "ChatGPT and the Future of Writing about Writing". Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing. 11 (1): 1–7. doi:10.37514/dbh-j.2023.11.1.09. ISSN 2372-7497.
  3. ^ Brown, Kevin (December 23, 2022). "Why Educators Shouldn't Be Worried About AI". ChristianityToday.com. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
  4. ^ Roose, Kevin (January 12, 2023). "Don't Ban ChatGPT in Schools. Teach With It". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
  5. ^ Belkin, Douglas (June 1, 2023). "As AI-Enabled Cheating Roils Colleges, Professors Turn to an Ancient Testing Method". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
  6. ^ Major, Katy; Chiarelott, Clay (2023). "Slow Down: Generative AI, Faculty Reactions, and the Role of Critical Thinking in Writing Instruction". Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing. 11 (1): 1–12. doi:10.37514/dbh-j.2023.11.1.03. ISSN 2372-7497.
  7. ^ Roose, Kevin (January 12, 2023). "Don't Ban ChatGPT in Schools. Teach With It". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
  8. ^ Belkin, Douglas (June 1, 2023). "As AI-Enabled Cheating Roils Colleges, Professors Turn to an Ancient Testing Method". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
  9. ^ Herman, Daniel (2022-12-09). "The End of High-School English". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2024-09-16.
  10. ^ Baron, Naomi S. (2023-01-19). "How ChatGPT robs students of motivation to write and think for themselves". The Conversation. Retrieved 2024-09-16.
  11. ^ a b Werse, Nicholas R. (2023). "What Will Be Lost? Critical Reflections on ChatGPT, Artificial Intelligence, and the Value of Writing Instruction". Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing. 11 (1): 1–4. doi:10.37514/dbh-j.2023.11.1.07. ISSN 2372-7497.
  12. ^ Major, Katy; Chiarelott, Clay (2023). "Slow Down: Generative AI, Faculty Reactions, and the Role of Critical Thinking in Writing Instruction". Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing. 11 (1): 1–12. doi:10.37514/dbh-j.2023.11.1.03. ISSN 2372-7497.
  13. ^ Girdharry, Kristi; Khachatryan, Davit (2023). "Meaningful Writing in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence". Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing. 11 (1): 1–10. doi:10.37514/dbh-j.2023.11.1.04. ISSN 2372-7497.
  14. ^ Lindberg, Nathan; Domingues, Amanda (August 2024). "2024 Report on AI Writing Tools' Impacts on Writing Centers".
  15. ^ "GUEST POST: The Benefits and Risks of ChatGPT for Education". The Learning Scientists. 2024-02-15. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  16. ^ Dolan, Eric W. (2024-04-14). "ChatGPT hallucinates fake but plausible scientific citations at a staggering rate, study finds". PsyPost - Psychology News. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  17. ^ Desk, Editorial (2023-04-02). "ChatGPT May Lead To The Downfall Of Education And Critical Thinking". Tech Business News. Retrieved 2025-04-06. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  18. ^ Michael, Gerlich, (2025-01). "AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking". Societies. 15 (1). doi:10.3390/. ISSN 2075-4698. Archived from the original on 2025-03-30. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ^ Dolan, Eric W. (2025-03-21). "AI tools may weaken critical thinking skills by encouraging cognitive offloading, study suggests". PsyPost - Psychology News. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  20. ^ a b Singer, Natasha (August 24, 2023). "Despite Cheating Fears, Schools Repeal ChatGPT Bans". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
  21. ^ "New York City Department of Education Bans ChatGPT". GovTech. January 10, 2023. Archived from the original on February 16, 2023. Retrieved February 16, 2023.
  22. ^ Cole, Samantha (January 4, 2023). "NYC Bans Students and Teachers from Using ChatGPT". www.vice.com. Archived from the original on January 5, 2023. Retrieved January 5, 2023.
  23. ^ Ropek, Lucas (January 4, 2023). "New York City Schools Ban ChatGPT to Head Off a Cheating Epidemic". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on January 6, 2023. Retrieved January 6, 2023.
  24. ^ "港大禁用ChatGPT等AI工具，为全港大学首例". The Paper. China News Service. February 18, 2023. Archived from the original on March 6, 2023. Retrieved February 19, 2023.
  25. ^ Yau, Cannix; Chan, Kahon (February 17, 2023). "University of Hong Kong temporarily bans students from using ChatGPT". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on February 19, 2023. Retrieved February 19, 2023.
  26. ^ Faguy, Ana. "New York City Public Schools Reverses ChatGPT Ban". Forbes. Archived from the original on May 21, 2023. Retrieved May 21, 2023.
  27. ^ Serrano, Jody (May 19, 2023). "New York City Schools Lift Ban on ChatGPT, Say Initial Fear 'Overlooked the Potential' of AI". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on May 21, 2023. Retrieved May 21, 2023.
  28. ^ a b c Villasenor, John (February 10, 2023). "How ChatGPT Can Improve Education, Not Threaten It". Scientific American. Retrieved December 7, 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Setia033/sandbox&oldid=1284257821"