I have previously posted that student uptake of AI was greater than the case with staff in schools and colleges. Now my sense is that this is true. I myself gathered data between Jan 2023 and Apr 2023 in relation to uptake of generative AI tools like ChatGPT and the rate of uptake with students was definitely greater than it was for staff. A more recent analysis of weekly use in schools, focusing on the big well known AI tools, showed around 83% of the usage on the school network belonged to students. This got me thinking about students and generative AI and why use of generative AI might be a good thing.
So what might students get from generative AI?
One of the things a teacher offers to a class of students is their knowledge as shared through lessons and the set learning activities. But the teacher is only available to students fleetingly during their lessons, or occasionally when they are free at other times in the busy school week. GenAI also has knowledge to offer. It however benefits from being available anytime and anywhere that students have access to a smart phone, tablet, laptop or computer. It also benefits from being much broader in its knowledge; If we were to read the same data as ChatGPT 3.5 has ingested, it would take us 2500 years to do so. Surely having easy access to knowledge, and such a wealth of broad knowledge, and more often, is a good thing?
And we also need to consider how Generative AI delivers its knowledge. A library provides knowledge but requires significant time, effort and a bit of skill to traverse. Google provides knowledge, but we need to get the search terms right plus then dig through the links. But with Generative AI we can actually have a bit of a dialogue, discussing and finessing our requirements to get that which we want. Maybe a little like when chatting about an interesting topic with your teacher, but available anytime, anywhere and without other commitments which they need to rush off too?
And another key aspect and feature of GenAI is the often chatbot style with which we interact with it. As human beings this is one of our key methods of communication to allow us to understand or seek to understand. We have a dialogue. We make comments, are corrected, reply and adjust our approach, our thinking and our language. It’s a two way process, back and forth and that’s exactly how we interact with GenAI such a Gemini, ChatGPT or CoPilot. It’s very much like the dialogue a student might have with a teacher.
One aspect of this dialogue between teacher and student in schools is that of feedback. I remember the Hattie research which indicated that feedback was one of the more powerful levers which could be pulled to influence student outcomes. Now the issue with feedback is always the time for the teacher to provide the feedback and the time taken to create it, however with GenAI students could potentially get feedback as and when they need it, and at every stage of the creation of their work. Its like having at least part of a teacher on call to provide feedback 24/7.
This feedback also needn’t be simply limited to feedback on coursework and other submissions. It can extend to a variety of topics including health, wellbeing, study tips and more, where GenAI can provide some advice and help as and when needed. AI can help students get started with work, it can advise regarding interpersonal issues or can help draft ideas or to restructure ideas the student have already identified. And if you have issues with language, its there to translate, or summarise to help. Its an IA, or intelligent assistant, there to help and assist, as and when needed.
Its also important to circle back to the broad knowledge set of GenAI as not only is it valuable in its own right, but it also means that quite often prompts generate responses which go beyond that which we expect, opening up other things to consider within the scope of the topic or task we are exploring. It helps stimulate our creativity and introduces further breadth, plus it also allows us to access other mediums, allowing students to be artists, musicians, poets and more, through the support of generative AI. Why would any student still believe they aren’t creative, when they have generative AI to help?
Another thing to consider, is where students might find it difficult to talk to an adult or even one of their peers. It may be that a generative AI based chatbot might be able to help here, providing at least some initial advice and hopefully reassuring students but also pointing them towards appropriate help services and individuals. I don’t think the AI would provide all the required support however it might just be that starting point that gets that shy or unsure student looking in the right direction for the support they need. AI could just be that quiet friend with advice and support, positive words of reassurance and more, which a student needs.
It is also a tool to automate things, helping organise and coordinate our lives to make things easier; It can take notes in lectures, it can update your to-do list and more, and a world where things are getting increasingly busy and hectic, maybe our young need this help more than anyone else. Its all new to them so they haven’t built the coping strategies that those older than them may have developed, so something that helps take at least a little bit of the busyness out of life would be a good thing.
Conclusion
So is it any wonder that students are using Generative AI. Students, and the young more generally are experimental where adults, who have been conditioned by a world of systems, processes and rules, are less so. As such students are more likely to try new things, and as something as shiny and which promises so much, it’s no wonder they are experimenting with generative AI. And all of the above, in my eyes anyway, is potentially positive and doesn’t even touch on the possible mis-use of GenAI for “cheating” which many are concerned about. Is it cheating anyway if it helps the students achieve the best they can potentially achieve? Why would we want students to achieve less? Is it right to be happy with students being academically honest and achieving a B, when with the help of tools so commonly now used in the world they could achieve an A? Why is it academically dishonest, or unfair, to try and achieve the best grade by using the tools available, in an educational game which ranks all students in terms of grades irrespective of their individual needs, abilities and disabilities? If AI produces better outcomes, or reduces stress and anxiety, or improves wellbeing, confidence, etc, then surely it’s a good thing?
Maybe we need to worry less about the change being brought about by generative AI and worry more about why our education systems are so reluctant to allow for change?
Technology and Learning