9 Comments

I think your approach strikes a good balance between using AI while still not outsourcing the entire process to it. Would be curious to see some examples of output from ChatGPT for this specific task! (Was it generally solid and were there both great and mediocre examples, etc.)

Expand full comment

Thanks, Daniel. I will add a few sometime today. My students did get some varied results. I keep forgetting they only have access to 3.5, while I am working on 4.0. Also, their systems don't have much of a history of use... which seems to impact results in unpredictable ways. Overall, students produced formulae that looked like the one included in the article. But I will run examples through 3.5 and post in the article to fill out the piece. As always, you are my closest and most helpful reader.

Expand full comment

Totally agree! Writing -- at least this form of writing -- is a form of thinking that shouldn't be outsourced to a chatbot. Great approach Nick, once again you're at the frontline of navigating this new education landscape.

Expand full comment

This is what I like about LLMS.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Michael. They do have their uses, when they are glitching or overcompensating.

Expand full comment

I haven't read the Knowles piece, but it is on my todo this week. But I don't like the dichotomy that human-in-the-loop and machine-in-the-loop sets up. (Though I think your application of the concept is spot on.)

There is actually a very wide range of interactions and choices between these two poles ... each with their own purpose. Also most dichotomies have a good and a bad end. Human-in-the-loop isn't "bad," but has its own specific purposes.

Teaching students to navigate this range of options will be key (though maybe not in K-12).

Expand full comment

Thanks, Lance.

Yes, these dichotomies all imply some sort of fundamental opposition that seems more counterintuitive the further we get from the drop of ChatGPT.

Knowles gets into the spectrum in between some. It is a good piece. Worth reading for sure.

I would love to chat with you more about K-12. The challenge in this space is that the foundational skills haven't settled yet, and the critical AI literacy we yearn is so sophisticated, there isn't time in the same course to do both foundational skills and critical AI literacy justice.

Do we need to bring back basic Computer Studies courses, but in a different guise? Perhaps.

Expand full comment

So Computer Studies is not a think anymore? I remember several CS classes. Honestly, most of the were worthless, but one was learne Paschal coding language. I could definitely see bringing that model back.

I also heard you don't teach typing anymore. I'm curious ... what kinds of courses do you have replaced those courses?

Expand full comment

Yes, my school offers a good range of coding classes. Back when I was in high school, everyone had to take a typing and a general computer literacy course.

Typing has disappeared from the curriculum, which boggles my mind. Seeing high schoolers hunting and pecking.

But I can see this playing out in terms of a return to some form of general AI literacy curriculum being required for all 7-12 students. It is just too much for an English teacher to take on.

We already do vocab, grammar, informational texts, literary texts, research, multimedia presentation, oral discussion skills.

To throw the full brunt of AI literacy training onto a 7-12 English teacher's plate is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

Expand full comment