To teach in the time of ChatGPT is to know pain

What’s the point of building formative assessments into a course if they’re just handed off to an LLM? Suddenly, it’s a waste of time for both the student and the instructor. Small quizzes are excellent study tools to help students check their own understanding―if a student does them. Now, you can direct an “agentic” LLM browser to complete all the quizzes in an entire course with a single, frictionless prompt.

Should instructors preserve these sorts of assignments for students who want to benefit from them and accept the cheating, or should they eliminate the learning opportunity just to prevent cheating?

Evolution, the natural selection

Many instructors are trying to adapt to this crisis by going back to the only evaluation tools that are pretty much LLM-proof—tests like oral exams or handwritten work created under supervision in the classroom.

None of these solutions are available to instructors of asynchronous online classes. That sucks, since the availability of those classes is important. They can serve students with physical disabilities, students in rural areas far from a campus, or students trying to obtain a degree while working full-time jobs or caring for dependents. If we have to simply give up on the idea of online classes, those are the casualties.

But even for in-person classes, adaptations to prevent LLM cheating are often concessions that reduce pedagogical quality. For example, labor-intensive oral exams didn’t become an endangered species just because of the swelling student-to-instructor ratio. Pen and paper (or keyboard and mouse) exams make it easier for each student’s experience to be the same and remove some of the potential for bias in scoring.

Writing assignments that may previously have been excellent teaching tools have obviously become the first things to end up on the chopping block. I used to have students in a natural disasters class write a plot for a big-budget Hollywood disaster movie, using both accurate and implausible physical processes. It was good practice for their writing skills; the students found it enjoyable, and it forced them to skillfully apply a lot of what they had learned.


Source: Read Full Article

Sam Miller

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *