I was privileged to teach a Grad course this semester at the University of Regina. Having not taught since 2019, I was excited about this opportunity both because I love teaching and also to examine how the classroom might be different as a result of the emergence of Generative AI.
The official course name was EC&I 832 and the course catalogue reads:
EC&I 832 Digital Citizenship and Media Literacies (3)
This course examines the complex nature of identity and citizenship in our digital world. Students will interrogate the interconnected areas of media literacy, online identity, and responsible participation in local and global networks as they relate to educational contexts and society at large.
My good friend Dr. Alec Couros has taught this course many times and graciously handed over his syllabus and course outline from previous semesters for me to use. I kept a similar structure but as has been my practice since I began teaching post-secondary in 2007, I built much of the content around my network and guest speakers. For me, this is the best thing I can do for my students, introduce them to some of the smartest people I know and add these people to their network. As my students shared their own summaries of their learning as well as their final projects, each and every one of my guests were mentioned and called out for the impact they had on my student’s thinking. If I do nothing else, this was a win.
The greatest challenge I would face was how might GenAI play a role in our learning. Here is the snippet of my syllabus where I laid out the ground rules:
3.1 Use of Generative AI
Students are permitted to make use of available technological tools, including generative AI (GenAI) tools as supplementary resources in this course. When leveraging these technologies, students are encouraged to critically evaluate the generated content and to integrate it with their understanding to produce original work.
While students are free to use generative AI to brainstorm or draft their assignments, the final submission should primarily reflect the student’s original understandings and insights.
Generative AI tools may be used to assist in students’ understanding of course content or in their completion of coursework for this class. However, if students choose to use generative AI to help with their coursework, they must be sure to cite and credit any generative AI tools in the manner in which they were used.
Schools and education in general is struggling to determine when, how and if generative ai should be used in learning. Part of this course will require your reflections and meta cognition as to how you choose to use it and whether it not it enhances not only your products and assignments but your own learning.
Students should practice including how they use GenAI in all writing and assignments.
We met every Tuesday evening and in nearly every class we wrestled with this. 2 specific incidents still have me thinking. The first involved one of my students who reached out to me and suggested that they felt one of her classmates was using AI to comment on their blog. While this was not a breach of our agreement it did raise some interesting ethical dilemmas. If you respond to the comment, are you just responding to a bot? Did the person leaving the comment feel invested in the ideas and simply needed support articulating it or was it simply an act of compliance? What value does that comment offer for the writer? The second incident involved me. Students submitted a form that outlined their thinking and some details about their final project. This was intended for me to help steer them in the right direction and provide feedback about whether the project would meet the criteria or perhaps it needed to be broadened or maybe narrowed down. I utilized ChatGPT to provide feedback and considerations and then added my own that was more based on my understanding of their circumstances and the potential usefulness of the project in their context. I shared the feedback and was transparent about my use of AI. I openly asked every student to share their feelings about me doing that. A few responded saying they assumed I would use it and many were quite pleased with the feedback. While no one openly shared any criticism, one student at least, shared some uneasiness in their summary of learning video. The truth is I felt the same. On the one hand, AI provided overall provided better feedback than I might have given. On the other hand, if that’s true, why would they need me? I suppose in hindsight I might have asked them to seek feedback from AI and then I might be able to add nuance, context or other personalized feedback that the AI might not be able to provide.
I love teaching and I want to give a shout-out to my students. You can find them and read some of their work on our class blog hub. While I’m sure there were moments of compliance and for many it was just part of knocking off the credits they needed for their degree I also know that for the most part, they were engaged, and thoughtful and were focusing on their learning and not their grade. I once again invited them to do some self-assessment and I have no reason to doubt their own assessment and remind them how little I think grading has to do with learning. As much as I work towards creating a community, I realize that a 13-week course with students who work full time and many have families is not a robust community that we might think of but I was very proud of how they supported one another and pushed each other’s thinking.
Finally, let me thank the guest speakers and they need to know how impactful they were to my students:
Mike Ribble, Alec Couros, Andrew McLuhan, Wes Fryer, Jennifer Casa-Todd, Chris Kennedy, Bonnie Stewart and Dave Cormier
