Great job, Alberto. You are a fantastic writer. I love how multi-perspectival your prose is--and yet at the same time---so clear and easy to read!
I had several break through moments while reading this series.
As you indicate throughout, the key is to shift the practice. And so many of the changes are relatively easy to do. Why should we clutch to the long-form work-at-home essay like it is the only way to assess writing skills? When did we get locked into this pedagogical approach and why? It seems like the time to do some deep study into the historical, cultural, idealogical, and technological conditions and narratives that motivated this method of production and assessment. If only Foucault was around to do one of his deep archeologies... I guess we will have to attempt one in his absence (RIP). But that will probably have to wait for another day or substack. It seems to me that, perhaps LLMs are the necessary "kick-in-the pants" for educators to reappraise the "fit" of the "long-form essay" assessment model for the contemporary world.
I also like how you mention grading. To me, that is the other "kick-in-the-pants" we educators need. We grade our students to death. And we do so inconsistently, inequitably, inaccurately, etc. Our students are primarily motivated by points, and so when a tool comes along that saves time and energy, are we surprised when they run blindly in its direction? Our grading system has crushed the spirit of learning. Kids running to use ChatGPT is just a symptom of a much larger and older problem.
This year, I am shifting to a standards-based 0-5 grading scale and plan tailor my approach to generative AI to fit inside my more equitable approach. Students will write rough draft in class and by hand unless IEPs direct otherwise in class to achieve level-2. Students will type in rough draft and do initial edits in a single class (I am blessed with 85 minute block periods) in order to achieve level-3. For level-4/5, students will be encouraged to use all the AI tools at their disposal. By that stage in the game, I will have had sufficient time with their writing in a more nascent, unassisted form. I personally believe that seeing student writing--unassisted--will continue to be a crucial part of writing pedagogy particularly in primary and secondary school. That said, I will also have time to work with them in class on how to most productively engage with new technologies as they most certainly will be expected to wherever they land professionally.
I am beginning to work on a larger model for AI-enabled language curriculum on my own fledging substack if anyone is interested. I would love some help for other folks who find themselves stuck in the middle of this predicament. I do believe--with Alberto--that we can work together to find safe and non-invasive solutions to introduction of generative AI into our classrooms and our world more generally.
Hey Nick, loving your approach. What do you teach and how old are your students if you don't mind me asking?
The only thing I'd add is that I see grading as useful--it's more objective a metric than most others if not all--but shouldn't be an end in itself, only a means for learning. Achieving that ideal is hard because students will unintentionally follow Goodhart's law and optimize the metric as the goal.
I have taught middle school, high school, and college. Right now, I am teaching 9th grade English, primarily. This is a good question. I think we all should preface our proposals for particular strategies by specifying target age groups or indicating that we are speaking to a more holistic spectrum. A good implicit reminder. Goodhart's law is a very real phenomenon and is lurking around every corner. Be well. Loving your research and writing.
Great job, Alberto. You are a fantastic writer. I love how multi-perspectival your prose is--and yet at the same time---so clear and easy to read!
I had several break through moments while reading this series.
As you indicate throughout, the key is to shift the practice. And so many of the changes are relatively easy to do. Why should we clutch to the long-form work-at-home essay like it is the only way to assess writing skills? When did we get locked into this pedagogical approach and why? It seems like the time to do some deep study into the historical, cultural, idealogical, and technological conditions and narratives that motivated this method of production and assessment. If only Foucault was around to do one of his deep archeologies... I guess we will have to attempt one in his absence (RIP). But that will probably have to wait for another day or substack. It seems to me that, perhaps LLMs are the necessary "kick-in-the pants" for educators to reappraise the "fit" of the "long-form essay" assessment model for the contemporary world.
I also like how you mention grading. To me, that is the other "kick-in-the-pants" we educators need. We grade our students to death. And we do so inconsistently, inequitably, inaccurately, etc. Our students are primarily motivated by points, and so when a tool comes along that saves time and energy, are we surprised when they run blindly in its direction? Our grading system has crushed the spirit of learning. Kids running to use ChatGPT is just a symptom of a much larger and older problem.
This year, I am shifting to a standards-based 0-5 grading scale and plan tailor my approach to generative AI to fit inside my more equitable approach. Students will write rough draft in class and by hand unless IEPs direct otherwise in class to achieve level-2. Students will type in rough draft and do initial edits in a single class (I am blessed with 85 minute block periods) in order to achieve level-3. For level-4/5, students will be encouraged to use all the AI tools at their disposal. By that stage in the game, I will have had sufficient time with their writing in a more nascent, unassisted form. I personally believe that seeing student writing--unassisted--will continue to be a crucial part of writing pedagogy particularly in primary and secondary school. That said, I will also have time to work with them in class on how to most productively engage with new technologies as they most certainly will be expected to wherever they land professionally.
I am beginning to work on a larger model for AI-enabled language curriculum on my own fledging substack if anyone is interested. I would love some help for other folks who find themselves stuck in the middle of this predicament. I do believe--with Alberto--that we can work together to find safe and non-invasive solutions to introduction of generative AI into our classrooms and our world more generally.
https://open.substack.com/pub/nickpotkalitsky/p/educating-ai?r=2l25hp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Be well,
Nick Potkatlitsky, Ph.D.
Hey Nick, loving your approach. What do you teach and how old are your students if you don't mind me asking?
The only thing I'd add is that I see grading as useful--it's more objective a metric than most others if not all--but shouldn't be an end in itself, only a means for learning. Achieving that ideal is hard because students will unintentionally follow Goodhart's law and optimize the metric as the goal.
I have taught middle school, high school, and college. Right now, I am teaching 9th grade English, primarily. This is a good question. I think we all should preface our proposals for particular strategies by specifying target age groups or indicating that we are speaking to a more holistic spectrum. A good implicit reminder. Goodhart's law is a very real phenomenon and is lurking around every corner. Be well. Loving your research and writing.