Duncan is a Principal Lecturer in Museum & Heritage Studies in the Department of Humanities
Duncan discussed how his evaluation of how students should be interacting with Generative AI (GenAI) is done on a case-by-case basis, with his various modules containing different statements that he has written to guide and inform students.
He also explained how he sees the challenges of GenAI for student learning intersect with wider problems in HE – namely that students are not always coming to degree study with a solid background in digital and information literacies, as well as growing engagement issues that can stem from increasing time pressures and responsibilities.
What did Duncan decide to do, and why?
Duncan created GenAI statements for his modules to explain to students the extent to which they can use GenAI as part of a particular assessment, and why. The statements are different depending on the nature of the module assessment; for instance, on his module “Transformation: Agency & Self” he explained in the assessment brief that he is happy for students to use GenAI tools as part of the researching ideas phase of a photobook assessment, but not to generate materials for the assignment submission itself. He gave specific reasons for this decision, relating to the specific nature of the module and assessment briefs:
- The module assignments were designed to evidence how the individual students think, work, and engage with their course subjects and reflect on their first semester experience of university.
- The photobook assignment required a set of selected images which would potentially be digitally distributed by an external industry partner, and so they needed to be indisputably free of copyright restrictions, something that couldn’t be guaranteed with the GenAI tools available to students.
Duncan sees the impact of GenAI tools on his final-year Humanities Research Project module to be different from the first-year module, and he found it harder to produce a clear set of ‘do’s and ‘don’t’s. He has observed that some problems students have with their studies in their first year can “snowball” and he is concerned that students who might use GenAI as a kind of “safety blanket” early on in their degrees may struggle even more with the larger capstone projects that come later. He discussed the use of GenAI with the students not only in terms of academic integrity but also communicated that some uses of these tools could interfere with their learning and their ability to meet the learning outcomes. He believes that a cornerstone of Humanities education is developing critical thinking, and an overreliance on, or misuse of, GenAI tools could undermine this.
How else does the availability of GenAI tools affect Duncan’s understanding of his teaching practice?
Duncan sees GenAI in the context of broader issues affecting HE: for example, there is variability in the information literacies learned at school, as well as the digital literacies, and students do not always recognise where they might need support to develop. Duncan wonders if the somewhat opaque nature of how GenAI produces its outputs may exacerbate these existing problems. He is also interested in what the longer-term impact will be of these technologies on attendance and engagement, already issues that are widely discussed in Higher Education, as GenAI tools offer perceived solutions for students facing increasing time pressures and responsibilities. Finally, Duncan recognizes there will be wider benefits of AI, including supporting students with Specific Learning Differences, such as dyslexia.
