I'm amused at just how obvious this proposal to limit the misuse of AI in the classroom is.
The short version is:
- Smaller class size.
- A lighter teaching load.
- More in person classes.
- More one to one interactions with instructors.
- Greater focus on in class performance.
- An administration that backs up their instructors.
I would note that that last point is rather unsurprising given that the writer is an instructor, but it does seem to me that more personal engagement of students would reduce cheating.
Everyone agrees it is happening. Below is a handy formula to limit
unauthorized AI use in the classroom, for use by faculty,
administrators, and legislators alike. Some of the key variables are
controlled by the institution, some by the faculty. Everyone needs to
work together.
I use the term “unauthorized,” so “cheating” is whatever the
faculty member declares to be unauthorized use, understanding that in
the AI era, students are fluent in AI and will seek the most efficient
way to fulfill course assignments. (Most of the misconduct data is
pre-LLM and is not directly applicable to today’s technology but I am
assuming the same patterns hold.)
The hundreds of conversations I have had in the past year with
faculty members across the country make clear that there is almost no
agreement about what AI misconduct means. Some faculty members hold that
any LLM use at all is cheating; others say “go ahead and use Claude or
ChatGPT, but if I can prompt your paper into existence in under 10
minutes, you fail.”
My
proposed rule is flexible by focusing on AI use that is “unauthorized”
by the faculty member. The institutional role is ensuring that faculty
can enforce their own line.
P = 1 − (S × L × M × C × A × Îº)
P
is the probability that a student will use AI in a way the instructor
did not authorize. P runs from 0 to 1. Zero means it won’t happen. One
means it will.
The six variables are the conditions of teaching. Each runs from 0 to 1. Multiply them. Subtract from 1. That’s P.
A 1 means the condition is fully present. A 0.1 means it’s gone.
The basic concept, that personalized education provided by instructors who are available to observe and provide individual instructions to the students, is likely true.
Reducing it to an equation, particularly one this simple, seems to be a rather silly exercise in faux mathematics.