果冻影院

Dr Matteo Tiratelli Lecturer (Teaching) at 果冻影院 Social Research Institute led a project to explore students鈥� opinions on generative AI. The results are fascinating.

Students鈥� views were gathered through focus groups and surveys and student leads Mia Meade and Ruth Ogundamisi tested the AI tools. The project was .听

---

Patchy knowledge

Of the students consulted, about 60% believed that the use of AI tools, and ChatGPT in particular, was already widespread amongst students (鈥渆veryone is using it鈥�).听However, of those who disagreed, many thought that no one was using it. If there听are pockets of high-use and pockets of low-use among our students, then this may have serious equality听implications.

Students are excited about the possibilities of these tools but expressed that they didn鈥檛 know much about them. While students felt like they knew how to use them to cheat, they lacked positive examples for how these tools could improve their learning experience.

---

Homogenisation and decoloniality

Respondents discussed the ethics of using these tools for their studies and their awareness of tools鈥� illusion of objectivity.听

Students raised concerns surrounding the training datasets used for most Large Language Models. For instance, ChatGPT relies on sources that are primarily in English, which has potential to perpetuate an 鈥淎nglocentric hegemony鈥� and ignore 鈥渙ther cultural perspectives鈥�. Similarly, respondents recognised that as an aggregate or popular average, there is a risk it will reinforce existing prejudices and patterns of thought.

---

Deskilling and dependency

In particular students were concerned that reliance on ChatGPT might inhibit the听development of skills such as: writing fluent English prose, understanding complex texts, developing a coherent argument, essay planning and structure.

On the other hand, many students felt that the extent to which independent thinking and听creativity would be impacted in the short term has been overstated.

---

AI as a research assistant

Broadly students felt that 果冻影院鈥檚 guidance on the use of ChatGPT was already out of date. Most students did not believe that their peers would cite the tool, either out of fear that it would impede on their marks or because they saw it like Google or any other internet tool.

While some students also raised concerns that academic integrity could be听undermined by the tool, others likened it to a research assistant. If the tool is used to organise thought rather than generate it, they saw nothing wrong with its use.听

Students did however acknowledge the difficulties in discerning 鈥済ood鈥� from 鈥渂ad鈥� uses of these tools and were concerned that the opaque nature of ChatGPT makes it difficult to evaluate its sources.

---

Students鈥� suggestions

1. 听Students were much more concerned about the equality implications than about academic integrity and plagiarism (e.g. more 鈥渢echy鈥� students would have an unfair advantage etc).
2. Classes on 鈥渉ow to use AI鈥� including: what tools are available; how to use them for learning, not just assessments; how to use them effectively; the tools鈥� strengths and limits.
3. Educators should integrate these tools into their teaching and model 鈥済ood use-cases鈥�.
4. This is a good opportunity to rethink assessments more generally. Students emphasised the difference between 鈥渁ssessment-for-results鈥� and 鈥渁ssessment-as-learning-opportunity鈥� and the need to keep both in mind. They also focussed on听the marking rubrics on the student's voice, flair, argument, critical thinking, and originality, rather than just summarising theories. They felt that the former represented something 鈥渄istinctive鈥� that the student can offer beyond an AI tool.
5. 听Alternative assessments including:听open essay questions (e.g. pick three theories from this course and use them to reflect on a contemporary event);听鈥減ortfolio鈥� assessments (e.g. 10% of grade is for essay plan, 15% for presentation of initial research, 75% for final essay); multi-mode assessment (e.g. 20% individual presentation, 30% group project, 50% final essay).

---

Recommendations

Clarification and consistency on rules

Students were unclear about what the rules were and many had received different听messages from different members of staff. At present 果冻影院 guidance is that听ChatGPT can be used in assessments but it must be cited.听

However, it is worth noting that respondents believed that most students would simply ignore this because:听

• it was assumed that staff would react negatively to听seeing that ChatGPT had been cited
• there would be no way of checking
• they didn鈥檛 think it made sense to cite something which is not producing data or听opinions of its own.

Educate students (and staff) about what it can and can鈥檛 do

It is concerning that there was almost universal agreement from students that听ChatGPT could be used as a 鈥渕ore specific Google鈥� or a 鈥減ersonal tutor鈥�; in short,听as an information retrieval service.

However, ChatGPT is a language model and has no concept of the validity of the听truth claims it makes.听

Update guidance regularly

These technologies are improving all the time. We therefore need to commit resources to听ongoing research and updating.

Open dialogue between staff and students

We suggest organising a staff-student 鈥渢own hall鈥� in early October to discuss what we should do next academic year, and set expectations for first years.听

We also recommend creating a committee of staff and students who meet regularly to discuss these themes.
听