ChatGPT is writing assignments. The tool ‘AI Humanizer’ by Quill Bot makes the text a bit flawed so it is less easy to detect cheating. AI is creating presentations with the face of the student in the corner much like dubbing in film. Live transcription is possible in lectures and seminars and translation tools are readily available. Google translate does not make laughable mistakes anymore. The question for anyone teaching international students now is ‘how much are they depending on this kind of technology?’, and ‘how much is it hindering or helping them to communicate effectively in university settings?’. Is it possible to get through university now without having to fully engage in verbal communication if the technology exists to enable submission of plausibly authentic written assignments, read translated academic articles, follow lectures with the aid of a native language other than English and avoid contributing in seminars.
The truth is that I do not know the answer yet. The consequence of all of this is that my international students are still largely silent and it is getting harder to assess their progress in written communication when so much time is taken up judging how much of it is really them.
Why are they doing this?
Is it the pressure to progress coupled with a belief that they cannot get there on the strength of their own hard work and determination?
Is it that they do not believe me when I emphasize the importance of the process and not the finished product?
Is it just that taking shortcuts is all too easy now?
What do they say?
This is the interesting bit. They do not want to admit they are using such tools. My evidence is gained from monitoring what is on their laptop screens, reading texts covered in non-English annotations, live transcriptions on during a recorded talk, text that is not self-generated. It is also the fact that they still struggle to interact verbally in English no matter what I do to support their discussions.
Translation is not always non-interactive. I have noticed students asking each other to translate what I have just said so they are mediating, a skill acknowledged by the CEFR (Common European Framework used to judge progression). Translating a text into their mother tongue and then using the source effectively back in English is also mediation. In fact, who is to say that writing in their own language and then using translation software to help them with an English version is unacceptable academic practice, if the creative thought and development of knowledge is still their own? A personal tutee, who is noticeably quiet in workshops, suddenly piped up in a tutorial to ask me what “flow” meant. He had used translation software to help him with a possibly literal translation of the assessment criteria. The translation this time had given him a voice where he did not have one. Had he realized that the translation software was not helping him interpret the criteria effectively? Was this an instance of where a dialogue between us about the strengths and weaknesses of the tool would have made a difference to both of us.
All of this highlights my ignorance about how effective this software actually is. I cannot tell if the transcription or translation is accurate until I see understanding reflected in their work. I do know the impact of AI and translation tools on their confidence to develop their own writing independently. I do know that they are not making good strategic choices, but they are taking charge of their learning.
Where does that leave me?
I am still left questioning how much primacy we still give to verbalization as a way to judge engagement when students are finding their own ways to communicate using technology.
I am still trying to work out how I get my students to share with me honestly how they are using technology so that I can then plan to help them make more strategic choices about its efficacy and therefore their use of it. Positively rewarding them for being autonomous might be one way and asking them to teach me how to use the tools to open discussion as to their strengths and weaknesses. After all, I want to be able to integrate these tools into the way I work with students so that it is not about getting caught out for academic misconduct or having to hide the fact that they are using them.
I want to hear from tutors who are further down the road than I am so that I can find a way to use technology more innovatively whilst delivering a curriculum that is not yet making space for technology but is instead still battling to stop its use and abuse.
I would love to hear from tutors who are having conversations with students about their use of AI or who are integrating it into their workshops, please get in touch or leave a comment below!
Oh, very very interesting Imogen, and thank you.
So, I had a conversation about “delve into” with a student writing their final summative IMRD assessment earlier today. I explained the noticeable meteoric rise in usage of this phrasal verb in the advent of ChatGPT and the reason for my knee jerk reaction was it’s overuse and distance from the expected formal academic and appropriate lexis such as, examine/analyse/investigate.
I applaud your patience and insightful provocation in laying this out for us all to try and realign ourselves as we trudge through the murky lexis, phraseology, voice, stance and other discombobulating submissions we are having to navigate.
Thank you for your response. One of the definite ways forward is to talk to students and show them that we are noticing and want to engage in positive dialogue.