Despite what students may think, McMaster’s restrictive AI guidelines will best prepare students for the workforce of tomorrow
McMaster’s AI advisors have not had an easy job dealing with the rise of AI. When Chat-GPT was first released for public use, the university had to quickly throw together provisional guidelines which were mostly prohibitive of the use of AI. Out of nowhere, a huge threat to honest academic work became available to all students giving the academic institutions little time to consider how to respond.
McMaster’s response has taken time, but the beginning of this year has marked the introduction of guidelines no longer considered provisional.
These guidelines are unpopular with many and the consulting process created rifts between the McMaster Students Union and the university administration. MSU president Jovan Popovic suggested that students need to be prepared to work with AI in a future workforce in which the use of AI is prevalent. Meanwhile, the university was greatly concerned about the significant risks that AI poses to university pedagogy by undermining student engagement with their coursework and learning
The final guidelines have fallen firmly on the side of mitigating educational risks, without a single mention of the AI skills that might be required for the future of work. While this may disappoint student union activists who fought for more permissive AI use, I think the guidelines’ are best for students entering the uncertain AI future.
The guidelines’ ultimate goal is to maintain the integrity of the university learning process. This process is one based on learning the methods relevant to any given field of study, rather than simple content-based learning. These processes are under threat by generative AI’s capabilities to produce text indistinguishable from that written by a human, to analyze data and to interpret primary sources.
AI’s abilities to do this work convincingly represents a fundamental threat to intellectual labour. The MSU’s position, informed by this belief, is that students need to familiarize themselves with using generative AI in order to prepare themselves for a workplace dominated by AI use. But this fails to account for experts' varied views on what a future with AI might look like.
Without denying its potential to change the landscape of work, MIT Sloan, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's business school, has discussed what the direct impacts on workers might be. It suggests that subject-matter experts and experienced employees will be increasingly required to work alongside AI, judging the quality of its output and the appropriateness of its use.
McKinsey, a globally recognized management consultancy, argues that humans will still have to check the work of AI to ensure it is correct and accurate. So, maintaining and fostering our abilities to write, validate sources and ensure the quality of our work remains essential. Considering the errors that AI can and does make, AI is best used for well-defined, job and company specific tasks such as searching through proprietary data. It is vital that we maintain and foster our creative and critical thinking abilities and not blindly trust AI with such important tasks.
McMaster’s new guidelines’ continued focus on teaching core skills is best suited to creating knowledgeable experts, ready to excel at tasks they are assigned and who understand where AI might help their work and the importance of verifying the accuracy of AI's outputs. Additionally the new guidelines’ promotion of the long, repetitive process of learning will create students prepared for a workforce defined by lifelong learning.
I believe McMaster’s current guidelines, old-school as they are, are in fact the best model for creating students ready to work alongside AI, regardless of how it may develop. Anyone can write a prompt for Chat-GPT, only well educated experts will be truly prepared for the work leftover.
Recently launched “AI Dialogues” podcast presents information and nuanced discussion about the use of AI in university
A new Spotify podcast titled AI Dialogues recently was launched by McMaster's MacPherson Institute, featuring discussions on the use of generative AI in higher education and at McMaster University.
The MacPherson Institute is McMaster's teaching and learning center and provides instructors and teaching assistants with resources and training. The podcast discusses practical and ethical questions regarding the use of AI in education and aims to present this discussion to both educators and students who may not be familiar with AI technology.
Presently, according to McMaster's provisional guidelines on the use of AI and the final report by the Task Force on Generative Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning, McMaster's current policy on the use of generative AI is that students should assume they do not have permission to use the technology unless otherwise specified by their instructor.
In an interview, Stephanie Verkoeyen, an educational developer at the MacPherson Institute and the host of the podcast, expressed thoughts on many instructors restricting the use of generative AI in the classroom. “A lot of instructors seem to be taking the approach right now of just banning use (of AI),” said Verkoeyen.
Verkoeyen stated that a reason for this approach may be a lack of resources and dedicated opportunities for educators to investigate the positive and negative implications of AI for themselves and their students. Verkoeyen hopes that the podcast will reach these educators and bring them different perspectives on the use of AI in higher education.
Four episodes have been released and have featured discussions with guests who take both supportive and more critical positions on the use of AI in education. For the second episode, MSU President Jovan Popovic was featured as a guest and discussed what he has been hearing from students on the topic.
On the fourth episode, guest Mat Savelli, an associate professor in the Department of Health, Aging and Society at McMaster, shared a more critical perspective of the use of AI. According to Verkoeyen, aspects of this perspective were rooted in concerns that it could undermine the critical thinking skills of students, such as when AI is used to summarize information.
For future episodes, Verkoeyen stated that some planned topics include discussing how educators can be better taught and trained to use and apply generative AI in their teaching, what potential to improve teaching AI possesses and how AI could improve the accessibility of learning in higher education.
Students, educators, and anyone interested in the discussion surrounding the use of AI in higher education can listen to the podcast on Spotify.
McMaster community members share what they believe this report means for the community, particularly with regard to possible use of GenAI Turnitin
To better understand how generative artificial intelligence could be used in educational settings at McMaster University, a Generative Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning Task Force was created in May 2023. The finalized report was then released to the McMaster community by Susan Tighe, provost and vice-president (academic), in late September 2023.
Erin Aspenlieder, the coordinator for the task force and associate director at the Paul R. MacPherson Institute for Leadership, Innovation and Excellence in Teaching, first heard about ChatGPT in Nov. 2022 on a podcast. She had been fascinated with GenAI technology and was curious about what this could mean for educational settings. Since then she has been learning about GenAI and its many functions.
As Aspenlieder learned more and began to speak with the McMaster community, she found there were some who were excited about GenAI’s future while others were apprehensive.
Jovan Popovic, McMaster Students Union president, was brought onto the Task Force by Kim Dej, vice-provost (teaching and learning). Popovic and MSU vice president (education) Abigail Samuels were both task force members and were heavily involved in conversations surrounding implementing GenAI.
Popovic expressed in an interview with the Silhouette that the final report reads to him as a discouragement to the use of GenAI in classrooms. He believed that GenAI is one of the most powerful learning tools and he worried that, by discouraging its use, McMaster students may fall behind a society that is utilizing GenAI as a tool to assist learning.
Popovic also shared that he is disappointed that despite students being discouraged to use GenAI, one of the items included in the final report is the possible integration of GenAI Turnitin. Turnitin is a software that is utilized around the world to detect plagiarism by comparing work with resources that already exists.
Popovic also shared that he is disappointed that despite students being discouraged to use GenAI, one of the items included in the final report is the possible integration of GenAI Turnitin.
Popovic has shared written statements of disagreement about the integration of GenAI Turnitin with both the task force and the broader McMaster community.
Popovic referenced a piece by the Washington Post that examined the negative influences of GenAI Turnitin in educational settings. He also highlighted his concern for students falsely accused of cheating by the software and wanted to make sure that something will be done to ensure these students are protected.
“The biggest concern at the immediate moment is the Turnitin AI detection software. The concern of academic integrity cases flying through the roof on students who really shouldn't be going through [it] . . . I strongly believe that this may not deter the dishonest from continuing to use such resources, but it will deter those who study with ethics, seeing it potentially as a frightening threat,” said Popovic.
The biggest concern at the immediate moment is the Turnitin AI detection software. The concern of academic integrity cases flying through the roof on students who really shouldn't be going through [it] . . . I strongly believe that this may not deter the dishonest from continuing to use such resources, but it will deter those who study with ethics, seeing it potentially as a frightening threat.
Jovan Popovic, president, McMaster Students Union
Aspenlieder explained that McMaster is currently conducting a privacy risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis for the use of GenAI Turnitin and acknowledged that the software does come with some uncertainties. Currently, she says that its implementation at McMaster will be dependent on the results of the previously mentioned PIA and cost/benefit analysis.
Lucas Mei, a fourth-year linguistics student, shared in an interview with the Silhouette that he has been keeping up with the development of GenAI for a while. Despite being very impressed by the technology, he disliked its use in academics. He stated that he thought using GenAI tools, such as ChatGTP, in academics could often cause students to not problem-solve through their work by themselves.
Mei also expressed that when he read the task force's report he felt that the person who wrote the report may not necessarily be the most knowledgeable about GenAI. He attributed this impression to the fact that many people in higher positions are often unaware of the applications of advanced technology.
Ultimately, Mei hoped that as the university continues to look into GenAI there are people on the task force who can better speak to the understanding of newer AI.
“I'm hoping that someone [on the Task Force] is of our generation or a millennial . . . and can actually understand AI. I'm just really hoping for that. Because I've seen way too many times things completely fall through because of lack of expertise and poor management and egos getting in the way,” said Mei.
As the next steps begin to be explored McMaster students are encouraged to attend the November townhalls organized by the task force, which will be announced later in the semester.
If you are unable to attend the town halls Aspenlieder also shared they are working on the open feedback form and Popovic encouraged MSU students to reach out to Samuels and himself through their emails with any comments or concenrs.
New university task force works on clearer protocols around use of AI tools in the classroom, provides provisional guidelines ahead of the fall semester
The recent rise in generative artificial intelligence use has pushed universities to address the lack definitive and researched protocols for its use in the classroom.
On May 1, 2023, the Paul R. MacPherson Institute for Leadership, Innovation and Excellence in Teaching launched their Generative Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning Task Force. The task force’s goal is to better understand the impact of generative AI through an educational lens and develop recommendations for policies around its use for at McMaster University.
"Task Force members representing all six Faculties included faculty, undergraduate and graduate students, staff and senior administrators. The efforts of this diverse group of experts are summarized in a Final Report. . .The Final Report will also include recommendations for continued work across all areas of the University, which may include research, teaching and learning and staff work,” said Kim Dej and Matheus Grasselli, co-chairs of the task force, in a written statement.
On Sept. 10, they will submit their recommendations to Susan Tighe, provost and vice president (academic), after which they will undergo further review before being released.
Until this is completed the provisional guidelines have been released by the university to help guide the use of generative AI in the meantime.
As McMaster prepares to release its specific policies and guide for generative AI, everyone is encouraged to use the provisional guidelines and resources provided on the Generative Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning website.
Transparency is at the core of these guidelines. Instructors are permitted to integrate generative AI tools, such as Chat GPT, into their courses, if they so choose, but they must communicate clearly with their students the extent to which these tools will be and are permitted to be used.
When it comes to student work and assessments, while instructors are again permitted to integrate generative AI tools into these tasks, unless told otherwise, students should operate with the assumption that the use of these tools is not permitted.
If members of the McMaster educational community have any comments or concerns about the Provisional Guideline provided and future guidelines they are encouraged to share through the task forces form.
