Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

llbbdd

I'm glad to see more of this approach to modernizing education. I roll my eyes seeing people argue that we should go back to pen + paper or other weird rose-colored regressive approaches to preventing AI usage. It's part of education now, it's part of work now, and learning environments that don't acknowledge that are going to be dragged kicking and screaming into a future with empty classrooms.

Apreche

> I used AI daily—how could I expect my students to avoid it entirely? Uh, by also avoiding it entirely?

krater23

> I used AI daily—how could I expect my students to avoid it entirely? ...because I'm that I'm writing this article be a AI himself...

tonymet

Instruction needs to shift to accommodate AI rather than preventing it from being used to complete assignments and tests. Assignments and tests were always lossy, and over time more cheating crept in. Instruction should shift to benchmarking productive output, strategic thinking and group collaboration. Similar to labs where you are tested on completing an experiment or a project with artifacts. Or an MBA program with quarterly group objectives. A major part of the group effort is dealing with collaboration and overcoming obstacles like laggards. Hopefully people will realize how poor testing is for preparing students for the real world. the ultimate goal is preparing the students for a productive life, most commonly in commercial enterprise, but even academic pursuits require collaboration, productivity and other characteristics that were not well assessed by traditional testing and homework.

Rutledge

Would love to see the 'contract'

Aboutplants

The older I get the more I realize “moderation in everything” is the key to success and happiness. Moderation in the sense of using or consuming something to only a certain degree. In this case, education, the answer is in the middle. It’s exploring and utilizing new tools while ensuring the base foundation of education. It’s really simple. Apply “moderation” to nearly any facet of your life and it’s probably the correct choice. Want to consume alcohol? Moderate consumption. Enjoy TikTok or other video entertainment? Moderation. Work? Don’t destroy yourself, moderate extreme effort. This isn’t to say don’t follow passions or pursue things to a moderate extreme, just don’t ever let it consume you.

causality0

After some debate, we drew a line separating mechanical churning from actual thinking. Automating repetitive tasks or literature searches was acceptable. Was there any possibility of this not being the case? Rules which are not enforceable do not exist. If it's any part of the process you can't check, students are going to do it in the easiest way possible.

grayhatter

My job is to teach students how to get stronger. Instead of forcing them to stack and rerack their own weights, and instead of using the existing university policy against plagiarism, or the existing social contract. I made them sign an additional set of rules where they promise to only use the magic weight lift button when stacking or reracking. I feel that this middle ground is superior: I'd rather sacrifice the subtle exercise benefits of moving relatively light weight in weird ways; that extremely important toward helping prevent injuries, instead of actually dealing with the desire of students (human nature) to get out of the effort that goes into learning. I have no idea how accurate, or useful that analogy is, but personal intuition tells me it's really close. I also don't envy teachers. I used to teach, so I do understand the position they feel that they are required to adapt into. However, I prefer CS programs that don't encourage people to tolerate non-determinism, or otherwise unpredictable outputs. They're the source of some of the most intractable bugs, one i doubt the next generation of students will be able to troubleshoot correctly if they never learn to solve beginner level bugs without LLM assistance.

ckemere

I found this article frustrating. In my experience, the students who participate in the “co-creation of a contract” would likely also have done their best to comply with Professor induced rules. The challenge is the 10-20% who, stressed and overworked, will be just as likely to ignore this contract as any other. I would have liked to understand how the situation is changed compared to no rules at all…

ButlerianJihad

As an educator, I found that the institution was often powerless to prevent or detect cheating, because many, many applicants are highly motivated by perverse incentives. Many students attend because it's a "piece of paper" that's mandatory for their career aspirations. They'll never get hired without the college cred, and so they need to grab it by any means necessary. It's often not their own money they're spending: it's a federal grant, a loan, or mommy and daddy pining to give the same or better opportunity to the next generation. So family pressure to achieve is often immense, and overwhelming to a child being shoved through this system. Other students, they already have a job and/or family, striving to get ahead and be upwardly mobile according to the American Dream, and so they simply don't have time for actual study or homework, but they paid tuition and purchased books, and these consumers need their product that they already invested in. Perverse incentives abound in higher education, and without removing those or reforming the system, you'll never, ever stop or slow down the cheating, which is pervasive and rampant, believe you me.

lioeters

"Science" dot org, shilling for the highest bidder yet again. Keep the name of science out your mouth.

vitamark

I have no problem with AI as-is, but writing should be concise and to the point, and without heavy tweaking current models write pretentious hard-to-read stuff like this article. A person who has something to say often has trouble stopping writing. Outsourcing writing to AI then feels like the opposite, as if the author doesn't care but wants to just spew some content.

BobbyTables2

If there were a way an AI could generate output only based on the student’s own knowledge, it could be somewhat beneficial... Unfortunately that’s not how it works… Long ago, WordPerfect’s grammar checker showed me my writing flaws and helped me improve. Pasting a poorly written report and getting a dramatically restructured report wouldn’t be as instructive, even if the final result looked “better”.