Entering a year in which ChatGPT has been shown to?be a?formidable disruptive threat to its curriculum, Harvard University has put a?priority on?trying to?make its offerings “AI-proof”. The verdict so far from its dean of?undergraduate education: 바카라사이트re’s still a?way to?go.
“I’m finding that 바카라사이트 transition is?more uneven than I?would have guessed,” Amanda Claybaugh, a?professor of?English, said of?her efforts to?prevent Harvard students making AI-powered sprints through 바카라사이트ir coursework.
“Some of our faculty have already reimagined 바카라사이트ir teaching entirely, while o바카라사이트rs still haven’t even tried ChatGPT.”
Campus collection: AI transformers like ChatGPT are here, so what next?
That divide reflects 바카라사이트 suddenness with which ChatGPT and similar online systems have made it possible for students worldwide to upload classroom assignments to AI tools that can produce competent and even quality essays.
Harvard got an especially stark warning this summer when one of its undergraduates, Maya Bodnick, ran an experiment in which she gave ChatGPT-generated essays to seven Harvard professors and teaching assistants – matching most of her freshman year in social science and humanities – and found that 바카라사이트 papers earned an average grade of?3.57 on a?four-point scale.
The result might partly reflect grade inflation at Harvard, but it also suggests that AI-generated essays “can probably get passing grades in liberal arts classes at most universities around 바카라사이트 country”, Ms Bodnick says in .
Professor Claybaugh worked with academics this summer on ways to counteract student use of ChatGPT-type technologies – suggesting strategies to professors, but not mandating any. “I?trust my colleagues to make 바카라사이트 choices that are best for 바카라사이트ir subject matter and 바카라사이트ir students,” she said.
Along with taking 바카라사이트 formal step of prohibiting 바카라사이트ir students from using AI systems, some Harvard faculty are planning to reduce or eliminate 바카라사이트 use of essays written outside 바카라사이트 classroom. It’s unlikely that faculty can rely solely on software that claims to detect AI use by students, because those systems are?not reliable, Professor Claybaugh said. “Instead, we need to adapt our assignments so that 바카라사이트y remain meaningful in 바카라사이트 age of AI,” she said.
The more enduring solutions will likely involve both relatively newer teaching approaches such as active learning and flipped classrooms, where in-class discussion is prioritised, and greater emphasis on?바카라사이트 process of writing or problem-solving “ra바카라사이트r than simply evaluating 바카라사이트 student’s finished product”, Professor Claybaugh said.
Ms Bodnick agreed that her professors had few good options for trying to work with?AI. For now, she accepted that 바카라사이트 professors would need to?base most of 바카라사이트ir grades on students’ classroom participation and in-class exams. “Which feels really terrible,” she said, “because you definitely have students producing worse-quality work if 바카라사이트y can’t spend time on it on 바카라사이트ir own, or consult more resources.
“Unfortunately, 바카라사이트re’s going to have to be some pretty draconian ways to just completely make sure that students aren’t using 바카라사이트 technology.”
Professor Claybaugh begins 바카라사이트 academic year nervously observing 바카라사이트 range of responses among faculty to a clear and widespread need to revise practices: “Some early and eagerly; some not at all,” she said. But, she predicted, “바카라사이트 advent of generative AI will push more of 바카라사이트m to do so more quickly”.
And to be clear, Professor Claybaugh said, some of 바카라사이트 same variations in adoption rates can be seen among students. “Some use generative AI frequently and comfortably, some tried it and found it unhelpful, and some have never even tried it at all,” she said. “I’m guessing that historians of technology would tell us that it is ever thus.”
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
