How AI Changes the Landscape of Teaching

2023 CTL Symposium

Presenters:

Sarah Erickson

Dan Harbowy

Wendy Lightheart

Itinerary (Sarah)

• Demonstrations of ChatGPT
• Why this matters
• Recommendations for faculty

​

• https://chat.openai.com/chat
• How many different ways are there to arrange the letters in the word BOOK? 4!/2 = 12

​

Writing example (Sarah)

Calculus example (Wendy)

To find the exact volume of the solid of revolution generated when the region R is bounded by y = cos(x) and the x-axis, between x = 0 and x = π/2, is rotated about the y-axis, we can use the method of cylindrical shells.

​

Consider an infinitesimally thin vertical strip of width dx at a distance x from the y-axis. The strip has height y = cos(x) and length 2πx (the circumference of the circle generated by rotating the strip around the y-axis). The volume of the shell generated by rotating this strip is approximately given by the product of the circumference, the height, and the thickness of the strip:

​

dV = 2πx cos(x) dx

To find the total volume of the solid, we integrate this expression from x = 0 to x = π/2:

​

V = ∫(0 to π/2) 2πx cos(x) dx

​

Using integration by parts with u = x and dv = cos(x) dx, we get:

​

V = [2πx sin(x)](0 to π/2) - ∫(0 to π/2) 2πsin(x) dx

V = [2π(π/2) sin(π/2) - 2π(0)sin(0)] - [2π cos(x)](0 to π/2)

V = π

​

Therefore, the exact volume of the solid generated when the region R is rotated about the y-axis is π cubic units.

Things to keep in mind (Wendy)

• Examples demonstrate AI can answer problems
• Issue isn’t instructor’s problems aren’t “creative enough”
• ChatGPT still gets things wrong, but quickly improving
• Other AI chatbots exist. (Bard, Caktus, etc.)
• Currently, ChatGPT can only process text questions
• Soon AI will analyze pictures, videos, and other mediums
• When AI fails, human interfaces (like Course Hero and Chegg) can still be used to solve problems fairly quickly

Statistics example (Dan)

Why does this matter?

Hurts students who want to be evaluated honestly (Sarah)

• Students want to be honest but experience pressure from many sides to use AI, Chegg, etc.
• Equity issue: More tech-savvy students have an advantage.
• Many students want instructors to care about this!

AI companies are preying on and profiting from our students (Sarah)

• AI companies encourage students to let AI do schoolwork for them. E.g.,
• “Caktus is the first ever educational artificial intelligence tool. It allows you to automate all of your school work so you can spend more time doing the things you love!”
• AI and Chegg are not just tools or calculators.

This hurts employers and customers (Dan)

• Integrity issues and incompetence can have massive consequences
• Money, time, resources, and worse can be lost
• Hurts innocent people

Using AI chatbots can hurt students (Wendy)

• Getting caught cheating can hurt a student’s GPA and their chances to get into Lane programs
• They might choose to leave Lane and try again at a different college instead
• When students use AI, they do not receive the education they paid for
• Getting an A in a course using AI may be great for their GPA, but they are severely unprepared for subsequent courses and workforce demands

Recommendations for faculty (Dan)

• AI is not just a wave of the future–it’s a tsunami!
• We can try to fortify against it, spending a lot of time and resources
• Faculty have tried creative (and often time-consuming) ways to get around technology and “tutoring” services
• Some faculty have tried oral exams, harder problems, graphics, and showing work
• Many of these no longer work now that there are AI chatbots
• We can move to “higher ground”
• Avoid AI and human interfaces by having proctored, in-person exams that do not allow this technology to be used
• In addition, our accreditation may be at stake!

Common rebuttals and our responses (Sarah)

“What about remote proctoring services?”

• Colleges have been sued for using invasive remote proctoring services, e.g.:
• NPR: A federal judge in 2022 sided with a student at Cleveland State University in Ohio, who alleged that a room scan taken before his online test as a proctoring measure was unconstitutional. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119337956/test-proctoring-room-scans-unconstitutional-cleveland-state-university
• Less effective than in-person proctoring; it’s easy to hide a phone off camera.

Common rebuttals and our responses (Dan):

“Students will still cheat even if it’s in person.”

Yeah, but it’s a lot easier to prevent and catch cheating.

• You can limit what resources they can use during the exam.
• You can watch them throughout the exam (for unusual activities, like looking at their lap, possibly at a phone/notes).
• The fact they know they’re being watched is a great deterrent.
• You can give multiple versions of the exam, so they can’t copy from their neighbor (and it’s obvious when they do).

​

Common rebuttals and our responses (Wendy)

“There are equity concerns about having students come to campus to take in-person exams.”

• We should accommodate students with busy schedules by having a robust ITS with a wide range of available hours.
• It is a far greater equity concern to ignore the fact that students who must take proctored assessments in one section of a course are having to unfairly compete with students in another section who are allowed to let Chegg, ChatGPT, etc. complete assessments for them.

Common rebuttals and our responses (Sarah)

“If you make your assessment methods less stressful, then people won’t cheat!”

• Offering multiple attempts on exams and projects requires a lot of time and resources
• Even this does not prevent cheating
• Students do not only cheat due to stress.
• Homework and activity problems still appear on Chegg even if graded mostly for completion.
• Caktus advertises using AI to automate your schoolwork to save time.
• According to a 2010 study by Simkin & McLeod, a “desire to get ahead” was the most important motivating factor for cheating.

​

Simkin, M. G., McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat?. Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 94. 441-453.

Common rebuttals and our responses (Sarah)

“I just want to teach; I don't want to think about cheating.”

• Assigning grades that are as accurate as possible is a big responsibility, since grades are used to make important decisions.
• The integrity of Lane transcripts could erode if programs and employers no longer believe our grades are reliable indicators of students’ mastery.
• Some universities (e.g., the University of Arizona) no longer accept online courses to transfer unless there is documentation of proctored assessments.

A quote from the literature:

The prevalence and increasing severity of cheating should be distressing to educators because of their implications for:

1. undermining institutional missions that include preparation for citizenship and service to society, each of which has a moral dimension;
2. invalidating measures of student learning and grading equity;
3. damaging student and faculty morale, the reputation of the institution, and public confidence in higher education;
4. increasing the likelihood of engagement in dishonest acts both outside the classroom and after graduation.

​

Passow, H. J., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assignment. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 47. 643-684. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-006-9010-y