istory teacher Susan Petrie "testified that the revision history showed that RNH had only spent approximately 52 minutes in the document, whereas other students spent between seven and nine hours.
The use of AI detectors should not be the only measure of inappropriate AI use.
see what support faculty need to make these judgments about where they want to adopt AI or maybe where they want to refuse it.”
We should have sessions for faculty who don't want to use AI in their classroom.
And if institutions expect to be environments where scholars grapple with the more existential questions generative AI poses—such as the value of art or writing produced by a machine—they’ll have to start by acknowledging that AI is changing education.
Changing the education paradigm
Having professors who are transparent about how they want students to use AI “encourages students a lot more to only use it how they’ve instructed,” she said.
When you are more explicit about what you want, there is less room for gray. Students know what to expect and what it is that you DO want, as opposed to wondering. Where there is a void or vacuum, something will fill it!
So this fall, he plans to scrap many of his writing assignments, including the experiential-learning one that was once so meaningful to many of his students. “Because of those people at the bottom of the scale making it impossible for me to do my work,” he says of AI users, “all those people at the upper end of the scale will never have that good experience.” Some of those better students might even have chosen to become religious-studies majors.
I don't think you play to the lowest common denominator. Don't deprive the students who will really do the learning/assignment and find it to be a valuable experience just become there are some who will cheat. Before AI, they probably were still going to cheat or not do it at all!