by Hend Elsheikh
Heraclitus said, “Change is the only constant.” That was about 2500 years ago, and his words, unironically, have stood the test of time. More recently, Charles Darwin wrote about the “survival of the fittest.” He wasn’t referring to anyone’s ability to run a marathon, of course - a good editor might have rewritten this as “survival of the one who fits best.” But if you put the two quotes together, you get a pretty handy guide to how a teacher can navigate the modern landscape of teaching. One of the most recent and controversial topics is the use of AI in education. Like many disruptive innovations, ChatGPT has taken students, teachers, and educational institutions by surprise due to both its capabilities and the threats it poses.
I recall the semester my students first had access to ChatGPT. There was an assignment due in on an advanced rhetoric and composition course, and twenty out of the twenty-five students resorted to using ChatGPT to help them. I had heard about ChatGPT and read about it before that incident, but I did not expect my students to adopt it so quickly.
My first reaction was “Why?”
“Why would you, my students, throw away all our combined effort throughout the semester and choose the easy way out?” I was frustrated and thought that they should be penalized. I considered the use of ChatGPT to be akin to plagiarism. When my students received their grades, they were terribly unhappy about the penalties they were given.
But what changed everything was our subsequent conversation. I realized that they did not know that using AI may be considered cheating or plagiarism as per the universal definition we all abide by. Many of them were overwhelmed with other tasks in other courses and found ChatGPT a savior at that moment. Some of them simply found using AI an easy and time-saving solution to put their most daunting tasks behind them.
I started to put myself in the students’ shoes and see it all from their perspective. I reminded myself that it is my duty to address the root causes of the problem. Here, I recalled the two quotes I started my article with and embarked on working on some strategies to address the misuse of AI tools in education - at least in my circle of influence.
My team and I produced and implemented these strategies, and I thought that sharing the results of our experiment would be of practical use to my fellow teachers.
Our strategies included:
1. Educating students about AI and regulating its use
One of the big reasons behind the misuse of AI tools is that students do not know how to make the best use of the tools and how to use them ethically - or, at least, within the rules. Also, to assume that students will not use AI in their assignments is not realistic. Who would say no to a personal assistant that can save time and effort with an endless to-do list throughout the academic year?
Hence, after passing through the change stages (shock/denial, anger/fear), we moved on to acceptance and commitment and decided that we would allow students to use AI without penalty as per some agreed upon regulations.
But first, we had to educate our students on how to use AI ethically and efficiently. We had multiple activities assessing and critiquing the output of AI tools in different contexts and comparing it to human work. And through that, we made it clear to students that they first need to learn how to do the tasks themselves before resorting to any AI tool. That boosted the students’ confidence in their own work and enhanced their critical thinking skills. They noticed the robotic answers produced by AI and learned that their human voice should represent most of their work to be accepted by the teacher. This way, the tool becomes a helping agent, not a replacement for the students’ minds.
In addition, for each assignment, the instructions had to be clear on when and when not to use AI. For example, in one assignment AI can be used for brainstorming and the final fine-tuning of the paper. In another assignment, AI can be used for generating questions about a text, etc. Therefore, the attractiveness of the forbidden AI went away, and we as teachers, stopped panicking about the rapid development of AI tools as long as we are able to cope with the changes and “fit” in the new era of education.
2. Changing assessment methods and Focusing on the learning process itself
Another reason that leads students to use AI is that many teachers and institutions still use old assessment methods. In summative assessments, students need to study for an exam at specific points in the semester. They deal with isolated chunks of information, study while stressed at the last minute to get the highest grade possible, and in many cases, they are unable to see how a course's objectives make a coherent whole or a real learning experience.
In formative assessments, students must make several submissions to pass a course. If a student is required to write an essay, the teacher would explain the essay structure, show the students model essays, and then the student works on the assignment, submits their work, receives feedback, revises their work (if they care enough), gets a grade, and the teacher moves on to a new objective or concept. This leaves space for the students to misuse AI. They work independently, but they still need more focused and consistent support and guidance. They may encounter difficulties, but they may prefer not to talk about them with the teacher. They would rather ask for help from other colleagues or just go to ChatGPT, Bard, Bing, Grammarly, Humanize AI, etc. to correct their mistakes. Their aim is not to improve their work, or their understanding of the topic, but simply to get the best mark they can get - and move on.
Bearing that all in mind, we decided that our assessments need to be used for learning not of learning and that the more technology is being used, the more human interaction is needed with the students. To elaborate, in that same course I mentioned above, the students were required to write an academic argumentative essay with a list of references. We treated this as a project, and we taught writing as a process. The students were given a choice of topic. They were to make an annotated outline for the essay including their main ideas and the extracts from sources they think can support their ideas, in addition to the citation for each source.
Our rule was that when students satisfactorily complete the task, they get the full mark. It does not matter if they make mistakes, choose irrelevant extracts or unreliable sources or if their ideas need improvement, which proved quite reassuring to the students and left them with space to be creative and understand that making mistakes is not a problem but an opportunity to learn.
The feedback was given to students in task two, when the students were asked to present all they had done in the pre-writing stage to the teacher. Here, the teacher was able to give proper active feedback and reflect with the students on what they had done, and at the same time was better able to assess and see the students’ work, thinking, and research skills, and whether they had relied heavily on AI. The students had to take notes and explain themselves or argue for their points or choices during the discussion. The thing that gave them the most confidence in themselves was the understanding that their assessment was based not only on the outcome of their work, but on the effort they had put into the work in the first place - or, rather, the effort they had put into their learning.
The students also listened attentively to the teacher’s feedback and had to make use of it, not just receive it. They had a bigger role to play in the learning process.
In task three, the teachers held in-class writing workshops for the students, who were required to come and start writing the first draft of their essay based on the discussion they had had with the teacher, with the teacher being there to monitor, guide, and support the students while they were writing. When the students felt the need to use AI, they used the tools with the teacher around, making sure they used them properly and ethically as explained before. Again, our rule was that when the students satisfactorily completed the task, they got the full mark.
In the last stage of the project - task four - the students were given time to review and finalize their work. At this point, they had been equipped with the knowledge, skills, experience, and tools to allow them to submit work of high quality with a greater degree of confidence. They had been encouraged and empowered by the teacher. They had become critical thinkers/writers and, most importantly, autonomous, lifelong learners.
The project was followed by a reflection task, in which the students were also able to offer us feedback on the learning process they had just gone through. This feedback was positive, and reflected the feeling among the students that they had learned more effectively.
From our perspective as teachers, we think it was a fruitful experience. We saw thoughtful efforts exerted in producing the final draft of the essay, motivated students, and, above all, human beings using technology to their advantage. Not to mention that we were proud of ourselves that we managed to “survive”, adapt to the change, and empower our students to “fit” now and in their future careers.
Author Biography
Hend Elsheikh is an assistant lecturer of English and course convener at Nile University, Egypt. Hend holds a BA in English language (Ain Shams University), an MA in translation studies (University of London) and Trinity College DipTESOL. She has 15 years of experience teaching academic English and scientific writing at the tertiary level. She is interested in curriculum design, technology in education, project-based learning and student engagement and motivation.