Humanities’ Calculator: ChatGPT Can Complete Most Class Assignments

OpenAI’s latest invention, ChatGPT, has teachers and professors in a panic, especially English and social studies teachers. If you are unfamiliar with ChatGPT, I assume you have been off-world, in stasis, or locked in a Klingon prison colony. However, since many of my readers fall into those categories, I’ll explain:

ChatGPT or GPT-3 is an artificial intelligence chatbot that is much more sophisticated than any other similar chatbots. ChatGPT can write essays – with citations. It can complete math homework and explain the steps. It can generate fiction, journals, and personal narratives. It can write cover letters, recipes, business plans, programming code, and much more. In short, it can complete many of the assignments that teachers and professors use to evaluate their students’ thinking and analysis skills. 

How should educators adapt? Do they make changes to their assignments? Do they move all homework into the class? Do they forbid the use of computers? Is that possible or reasonable? On TikTok, Twitter, and other forms of social media, teachers are discussing how to respond to the challenges of teaching in a world where a machine can do your homework in seconds. What should they do? 

I asked ChatGPT, “How should English teachers and other teachers who rely on essays to test students' thinking skills adapt their assignments and teaching given that ChatGPT can now do much of the writing (and thinking) for students?”

Here is what it said,” As an AI language model, ChatGPT is not capable of doing the thinking or writing for students. While it can generate text based on a given prompt, it is not capable of understanding or analyzing the content of that text in the same way that a human can. Therefore, English teachers and other teachers who rely on essays to test students' thinking skills should continue to assign and grade essays as they have in the past.

However, it is important for teachers to be aware of the potential for students to use AI tools like ChatGPT to help them with their writing assignments. In such cases, it may be necessary for teachers to put in place additional measures to ensure that students are not simply copying or paraphrasing text generated by these tools. This could include requiring students to submit rough drafts of their essays for review or implementing more rigorous plagiarism detection methods.

Additionally, teachers may want to consider incorporating lessons on the ethical use of technology into their curriculum, to help students understand the importance of original thinking and the potential consequences of using AI tools to cheat on assignments. Overall, while ChatGPT and other AI tools may present some challenges for educators, they should not fundamentally change the way that teachers assess their students' thinking skills through writing assignments.”

While I think all teachers should teach about, “the ethical use of technology” as well as a frank and detailed discussion of what constitutes cheating and the consequences of academic dishonesty, I disagree with ChatGPT’s thesis. I asked it the same question several times and got variations on this same argument. ChatGPT says that the existence of AI tools like GPT-3 should not change teaching practice. I strongly disagree. 

Instead of forbidding the use of technological tools, branding them plagiarism or dishonest, or returning to handwriting in bluebooks, I contend that Humanities teachers must embrace this technology and use it further their foundational goals: critical thinking, argumentation, and communication. 

I was in middle school when calculators became small and cheap enough to be added to the school supply list. And while I knew the steps to divide large numbers, letting the machine handle that work allowed my teacher to not only enlarge the curriculum but to delve further into mathematical concepts and processes – and class became a whole lot more fun. ChatGPT may be Humanities’ calculator. 

Our students can already go online and find or purchase essays on a plethora of topics. Teachers who think they have an assignment that is unique or designed so cheating is not possible soon find that the market has proved them wrong. And while some students crib their work from online sources, which can be detected by plagiarism detection software, others simply provide original essays written by others. The essay arms race is never-ending.

Now ChatGPT can be the worst of both worlds: it is not the students’ work and it is original enough not to be flagged as copying. Time for capitulation, fellow teachers. Skynet has won this war, so it is time to move battlegrounds. 

What are we teaching when we ask students to write? On a basic level, we are teaching language and writing skills: sentence structure, organization, the use of evidence, tone, word choice, and grammar. Above this are thinking skills like argumentation, persuasion, textual analysis, historical and literary context, and the relationship between writer and work. There is more, of course. 

ChatGPT is a new tool with which to achieve these objectives. Instead of rejecting it and banning it from the classroom, why not make it another tool to achieve our goals? How might we do this? 

Use ChatGPT to generate example pieces of work. For some assignments, instead of having students write the essay, ask them to evaluate and improve what ChatGPT writes. Feed student writing into ChatGPT and examine the changes it makes. Give ChatGPT very specific instructions regarding tone, argument, or authorial intent and assess its effectiveness. Compete with ChatGPT. Give students an in-class prompt and then see how their efforts are similar or different from the writing of the AI. 

While I agree that writing will now be more often an in-class task rather than homework, ChatGTP could be part of an out-of-class process assignment. Students must show their steps (outline, drafts, etc.), but must also show where they used ChatGPT and where they used other resources (the writing lab, a tutor, a partner in class, etc.). This kind of assignment would allow students and teachers to go through the process together and break down the steps of good thinking, analysis, and communication. 

I will probably write further about possible ChatGPT connected assignments. I will look for articles that provide ways to adapt teaching practices to this new technology. 

Right now, plagiarism detectors like Turnitin.com may not be able to flag writing by AI. That will probably change. I came across a website that claims to be able to figure out to what degree a piece of writing is most likely written by a bot. I have played with it a little and it has been fooled as often as it was correct. 

Like computers, phones, and calculators, teachers who stick their heads in the mud and refuse to change their practices will only provide students with the choice of how to trick them with minimal conflict. Instead, like math teachers and calculators, we need to embrace this new technology, help students use it effectively and ethically, and refocus our lessons on the most important goal of our classes: competent, critical, and creative thinkers and communicators!  

Reading for Treasure – Thanksgiving Leftovers

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction.

Here are some Thanksgiving leftovers: articles I have been saving, but haven’t neatly fit into a theme or category for the past few posts. 

One member of my family used to get very upset when another member of the family would reply to texts simply with, “k.” This article from Lifehacker makes the case for not sending quick and short text responses like this one for a simple reason: it comes off as rude: “Don’t Text ‘OK.’”

If it isn’t clear from the name of my blog, I am an enthusiastic fan of Fred Rogers. There has been some conversation that his tone and style would not work well with kids today. I disagree and so does Mary Pflum Peterson in this older article from The Washington Post, “What Happened When I Showed Vintage Mister Rogers to my 21st Century Kids.” 

One of my most recent posts questions some of the traditions of weddings – many of which focus on gender. This wonderful Valentine’s Day article from The Atlantic makes the point clearly, “If You Want a Marriage of Equals, Then Date as Equals.” Yup. 

Speaking of couples with some issues, how about Lord and Lady Macbeth? I laughed out loud reading, “A Letter from the Condo Association to Mr. and Mrs. Macbeth” from McSweeny’s. While we all might have had neighborhood issues, these are on a Shakespearean scale! 

While the above piece is satirical, this satire piece from last winter’s Chicago Tribune by Rex Huppke is right on point in its treatment of “deniers.” Whether it is the pandemic, insurrections, or other clear and verifiable events, Mr. Huppke joins them to cry, “A Major Chicago Snow Storm? That’s What the Media Want You to Believe!” Snowstorms? Hurricanes? Bah, humbug! They are all conspiracies. 

Finally, a wonderful and relevant discussion of an interesting dice game called “Drop Dead” in the fantastic blog, Math with Bad Drawings. This game, which you could certainly play, also demonstrates a lesson about complex systems and the idea that more is better: “When A Trillion Dice Are No Better Than A Dozen.” 

I am currently rereading Frank Herbert’s Dune before seeing the movie! 

Reading For Treasure: COVID Trackers

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction! 

 

I have struggled with figuring out COVID statistics. I used to go to my state’s Department of Health page, but it was very difficult to understand. I couldn’t tell if things were getting better or worse and there was no way to put the statistics into context.

 

I have come to rely on two tracking websites that make both my state and other place’s information understandable and help me put compare my state to other places.

 

Here is an NPR article about the Harvard Global Health Institute’s map, which I find very easy to understand. Here is the actual website. 

 

The Atlantic has started the COVID-19 Tracking Project. They also include a tracker that focuses on race.

Using the Atlantic’s data, this website provides a very clear overall tracking of the outbreak by state. Each state is either in the red or in the green and then specific curves for each state are provided. This may be the clearest tracker I have found and it is the one I turn to most frequently.

 

Two other sources that are worth a look are NPR’s tracking page and a complex visualization at Domo.

 

Different trackers may work for different readers depending on what data makes sense to you and how you prefer to see the situation represented. I have found that all of the above sources agree on the overall trend. You will not be able to find better or worse news between them, just different ways of representing the data.

 

Currently, I am reading Dawn by Octavia Butler.

Reading For Treasure: Thinking about Learning

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

Stop Trying to Raise Successful Kids: Kids learn more from what we do and how we behave than what we say. This article from The Atlantic argues that kids know that, although parents say they want their kids to be kind and caring, achievement and happiness is far more important – but in ways you might find surprising, kindness will serve them better in the long run.

I was a Low-Income College Student. Classes Weren’t The Hard Part: Professor Jack of the Harvard Graduate School of Education shares his powerful experiences about being a low-income first generation college student. It is clear from both his story and his experiences as a college professor that our university system neither understands nor adapts to this important population.

How Revising Math Exams Turns Students Into Learners, Not Processors: Thinking about our thinking is metacognition. It is not enough to just solve the problem, we want students to really understand the process and think behind problem-solving. This article from MindShift talks about how a math teacher upended her teaching based on the ideas from writing revision. Math teachers, what do you think of this?

New Study Finds Gifted Programs Favor Wealth Over Ability: There are more wealthy students in gifted programs? Really? I don’t think any of us are surprised. Here is the opening line from this article, “A new study confirms that lower-income elementary students are far less likely than their wealthier counterparts to be placed in gifted programs. That’s even when those students go to the same school and display the same levels of academic achievement.”

Why Some People Become Lifelong Readers: The Atlantic’s article focuses on what parents can do to help their children develop a true love of reading and not merely see it like eating their veggies.

I am currently reading Brand by Henrik Ibsen.

Math's Need for Speed

Professor Jo Boaler, of Stanford’s Graduate School of Education, says, “Mathematics education in the United States is broken.” I can’t get her recent Atlantic Magazine article, “The Stereotypes That Distort How Americans Teach and Learn Math” off my mind. It has been sitting in an open tab on my browser since it was published in mid-November. 

In the article, Professor Boaler goes on to write that math classes have focused too much on “procedure execution” instead of embracing a far broader curriculum including making connections, working visually, and problem-solving. Boaler even challenges the idea that there is such a thing as a “math person.”

However, the part of the article that resonates the most for me is at the end of the article:

“Another problem addressed by the Common Core is the American idea that those who are good at math are those who are fast. Speed is revered in math classes across the U.S., and students as young as five years old are given timed tests—even though these have been shown to create math anxiety in young children. Parents use flash cards and other devices to promote speed, not knowing that they are probably damaging their children’s mathematical development. At the same time mathematicians point out that speed in math is irrelevant. One of the world’s top mathematicians, Laurent Schwartz, reflected in his memoir that he was made to feel unintelligent in school because he was the slowest math thinker in his class. But he points out that what is important in mathematics “is to deeply understand things and their relations to each other. This is where intelligence lies. The fact of being quick or slow isn't really relevant.” It is fortunate for Schwartz, and all of us, that he did not grow up in the speed- and test-driven classrooms of the last decade that have successfully dissuaded any child that thinks deeply or slowly from pursuing mathematics or even thinking of themselves as capable. " 

"The U.S. does not need fast procedure executors anymore. We need people who are confident with mathematics, who can develop mathematical models and predictions, and who can justify, reason, communicate, and problem solve. We need a broad and diverse range of people who are powerful mathematical thinkers and who have not been held back by stereotypical thinking and teaching. Common Core mathematics, imperfect though it may be, can help us reach those goals.”

Why must content-driven high school courses force students to demonstrate what they know quickly? Why do teachers insist on writing tests that challenge students’ ability to complete them? How does a child’s ability to move quickly demonstrate her academic skills?

In all fairness, math is not alone in subjecting students to speed testing. Many disciplines do it. However, it seems to accompany those subject areas that want kids to memorize facts, formulas, or procedures. From a Bloom perspective, it is always the lower level thinking skills of knowing, remembering, and applying that are the focus of these kinds of “objective” tests. What about evaluating, synthesizing, creating, or analyzing? Yeah, those don’t work as well on multiple choice Scantron tests. 

Do you work well when you are forced to move quickly? Do you do your best when the amount of work you have to do will not fit in the amount of time you have to do it? Want to be judged on the tasks you had to rush through? Why make kids do that?

When my children have struggled on tests, it is often not about the material or their preparation that has been the issue. It has been about finishing the test! Is that one of the targets of the course: be able to regurgitate at warp speed?

When a test is so long and difficult that kids must rush to finish, it a set up for failure.  Is it a realistic or reasonable assessment of their learning? What would we lose and what would we gain if students could take as much time as they needed to complete these tests and even had time to double check their responses?

We’d get a much more accurate measure of what they have learned!