This is great: "While detection systems may feel like a necessary response to immediate challenges, they represent at best a transitional phase. The long-term solution lies not in increasingly sophisticated surveillance but in reimagining education for an AI-integrated world."
Foundational skills in writing remain important, but co-authoring with AI is increasingly the norm in later college courses and in careers. Building processes that let students show their thinking in the context of AI content creation is a great way to help students recognize and value their individual contributions and learning.
Nick, thank you. Which of these are things you have been able to deploy, and which are still theoretical? What have you been able to implement and on how large a scale? I am really curious.
Hi, Guy, I am having several active conversations with educators who are inside this second wave of detection, and I am writing here in an effort to give some practical insights into make the system work for students. I highly advocate that teachers need to be in the business of demonstrating exactly how these systems work, and should in tandem teach students processes they can use to methodically document their work so as to sufficiently represent themselves when they inevitably become the subject of suspicion. This piece is by no means an endorsement for this systems. My school does not use any of these systems at the time being, but I was an instrumental part of our development of a campus wide AI policy. Our policy champions growth-oriented responses to first offences by initiating conversations, and always requires multiple faceted verification. At this time, neither first wave AI detectors nor second wave process monitors are used methods of verification.
This is great: "While detection systems may feel like a necessary response to immediate challenges, they represent at best a transitional phase. The long-term solution lies not in increasingly sophisticated surveillance but in reimagining education for an AI-integrated world."
Foundational skills in writing remain important, but co-authoring with AI is increasingly the norm in later college courses and in careers. Building processes that let students show their thinking in the context of AI content creation is a great way to help students recognize and value their individual contributions and learning.
Nick, thank you. Which of these are things you have been able to deploy, and which are still theoretical? What have you been able to implement and on how large a scale? I am really curious.
Hi, Guy, I am having several active conversations with educators who are inside this second wave of detection, and I am writing here in an effort to give some practical insights into make the system work for students. I highly advocate that teachers need to be in the business of demonstrating exactly how these systems work, and should in tandem teach students processes they can use to methodically document their work so as to sufficiently represent themselves when they inevitably become the subject of suspicion. This piece is by no means an endorsement for this systems. My school does not use any of these systems at the time being, but I was an instrumental part of our development of a campus wide AI policy. Our policy champions growth-oriented responses to first offences by initiating conversations, and always requires multiple faceted verification. At this time, neither first wave AI detectors nor second wave process monitors are used methods of verification.
Excellent standards and assessment ideas, I’ll be trying some of these out as I overhaul my intro courses for the fall