As the world scrambles to understand and use generative artificial intelligence in a variety of areas, the discourse about its implementation in higher education often centers around plagiarism and cheating. However, educators who spoke to Fox News Digital warned that the public is missing the point.
They argue that the real issue is determining what students have learned.
“I don’t think cheating is the right concept to use here,” Georgia Institute of Technology Regents’ Professor and Senior Associate Chair in the School of Interactive Computing Amy Bruckman told Fox News Digital. “I am not commenting on whether I think AI should be in the workplace. I’m simply saying, it seems like it will be, and therefore, banning students from using it at the university level seems like burying your head in the sand.”
CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY AIMS TO PRODUCE ‘IRREPLACEABLE’ GRADUATES AS AI RESHAPES HIGHER EDUCATION
Bruckman argued that in order for universities to work with students learning in the age of AI, they must redesign what they are teaching in order to help students learn through using AI. However, Bruckman said that rather than taking advantage of technology to further their education, students are “avoiding learning” by using AI.
“Some of the current students are learning absolutely nothing in school,” she said.
To understand what their students have actually learned, some professors have resorted to traditional methods of evaluation, such as handwritten exams that eliminate the possibility of relying on AI.
Bruckman told Fox News Digital that she is among the educators returning to analog evaluations by giving closed-book tests on paper to ensure that she is actually seeing what her students know. She said that this model separates students who used AI to complete their assignments without taking in the information from those who actually engaged with the content.
“I think we have to redesign our assessments to be resistant to AI,” she said. “To say, ‘I don’t care whether you used AI or not, I’m going to give you a test that shows whether you learned the content that was part of the learning objectives.'”
CALIFORNIA PROFESSOR ARGUES NEED FOR ‘OBJECTIVE MEASURES’ AFTER STATE DROPS ACT/SAT REQUIREMENT
The Georgia Tech professor is not alone in rethinking how student learning is evaluated. Several educators are not pushing for a ban on AI, but for changes so they can truly evaluate students’ understanding of the material.
Generations College Chancellor Dr. Grace Alexis told Fox News Digital that many faculty members initially viewed AI through the lens of potential cheating and plagiarism before realizing that they needed to rethink how to use the revolutionary technology in the classroom. Alexis said that this happened at her own institution and that instructors had not only learned how to use AI, but how to train students to use it in a way that enhances their critical thinking skills.
Alexis argued that the challenge is not simply allowing students to use AI, but ensuring that they do not end up relying on it. She compared it to the way previous generations used encyclopedias, noting that AI could be used to inform students’ work without doing it for them.
“It’s important for our students to understand that it is OK to use AI in the classroom … It’s really up to the faculty members to not only embrace the technology, but help their students embrace it properly and train them how to do that,” she said.
While both educators who spoke to Fox News Digital agree that AI should be incorporated rather than banned outright, they warned that students still need to develop the critical-thinking skills that higher education is meant to cultivate.
“The students in my class fall into two groups,” she explained. “The bottom half are definitely losing their critical thinking skills. I would not hire them to feed my cat, and I do not have a cat.”
She said the other half of her students are still engaging with the material and are working to learn, adding that “we’re not losing everyone, but we’re losing a good chunk.”
WILLIAM BENNETT, JON HAGE: AI CAN MIMIC A TEACHER, BUT IT CANNOT SHEPHERD A SOUL
Despite her concerns about the risks of generative AI use, Bruckman said that she has no interest in becoming an “AI cop.” She recognized that despite whatever skepticism higher education has about AI, their students will need to use it when they enter the workforce.
“I don’t want to waste my whole semester accusing people of AI use when they’re going to need AI in their jobs,” she said. “Teaching them appropriate use and redesigning assignments so that they can learn while using whatever tools they have at their disposal, I think, is the only way to go.”
Bruckman believes that higher education will eventually adapt to AI, but she remains concerned that students will be lost during the transition.
“We will meet this challenge,” she said. “My concern is that we will lose a generation of students in the gap while we’re figuring it out.”
