Grading robots?

I am heading back to the classroom in August after a year-long sabbatical. I am wondering just how much has changed since I left, especially in terms of student use of AI.

Here is Beth McMurtrie at The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Jeff Wilson is a professor of religious studies at the University of Waterloo. Since ChatGPT appeared on the scene, he has warned his students against using artificial intelligence to do their work. Even so, he says, he saw a “massive” uptick in its use over the past academic year, estimating that about 25 percent of his students at the Canadian institution used generative AI in their assignments.

Some relied on AI to write responses to 150-word prompts. Others used it to complete an experiential-learning assignment, in which they were supposed to do mindfulness meditation, say, and then write about the experience. When he asked why, some students said they knew it was a mistake to do so, but they were pressed for time. A few didn’t know they had used generative AI because it’s embedded in so many other tools, like Grammarly. Others flat-out denied using AI, knowing, Wilson surmises, that it was unlikely they’d be investigated further.

The explosion in AI use, the endless hours spent figuring out whether — as he put it — there was a person on the other side of that paper, and the concern that students who cheat could end up getting the same grades as those who did the work sent Wilson reeling.

“I’ve been teaching at this university for 17 years and suddenly this comes along to devalue everything I’ve done to become a caring, competent instructor, and the students are creating make-work for me,” he says, describing the shift as “devastating.” “I’m grading fake papers instead of playing with my own kids.”

The tension surrounding generative AI in education shows no signs of going away. If anything, faculty members are sorting themselves into two camps. Some, like Wilson, are despairing over its interference with authentic learning, and deeply worried they will have to scuttle the meaningful assignments and assessments they’ve developed over the years because they have become too easily cheatable. Others agree that AI abuse is a problem but focus instead on how AI could enhance learning. Or they have found ways — in the short term, at least — to minimize its abuse while maintaining the integrity of their assignments. (Some argue there’s a third camp: the professors who so far are ignoring AI’s existence.)

Members of both groups, however, agree that administrators need to provide more and better support for faculty members, who remain largely on their own as they try to adapt to this rapidly changing landscape. Professors complain of receiving generic AI guidance that encourages them to experiment with the tools in their teaching but without providing tested examples of how to do so. Others say that unless students confess, it’s often pointless to try to bring forward an academic-integrity case, even with evidence, because of the difficulty in proving AI use.

The lack of guidance and training is of particular concern, experts say, because AI will soon be everywhere. AI tools can now listen to and summarize a lecture, as well as read and summarize long academic articles. “Now we have to start thinking about more than just assessments in AI. We have to think about learning itself,” says Marc Watkins, a lecturer in the department of writing and rhetoric at the University of Mississippi.

Read the rest here.