Juju Johnson
Contributing Writer
“A.I. is creeping into college classrooms, and it’s changing how professors teach — whether we’re ready or not,” is how ChatGPT suggests I start an article discussing whether artificial intelligence (A.I.) belongs in the university classroom. Ironic, isn’t it? Over the past couple of years, the introduction of A.I. chatbots has disturbed the world of academia and has raised the question of whether the two can coexist. I believe that their coexistence is no longer a question but a fact — and instead, we must shift our focus to how the two can uplift one another while still promoting free thought.
The current UC Santa Barbara policy on A.I. usage within the Writing Program is as follows: “We advocate for the use of A.I. writing technology situated within a range of collaboration and communication classroom activities, tools, and resources, to complement students’ critical thinking and creative expression,” highlighting an overall progressive attitude in comparison to other scholastic institutions. On the contrary, the Los Angeles Unified School District — the second largest in the nation as well as a near neighbor of Santa Barbara County — outright banned ChatGPT in classrooms in late 2022.
This contrast highlights a rift in the academic community regarding what standards, if any, should be implemented to address A.I. At this point, continuing to fight or remain opposed to A.I. is a misuse of resources. Students are going to find a way to use it — no matter the policy! So instead, we must focus on highlighting the ways in which A.I. can be used productively in a classroom setting by upholding three major criteria: clarity, change, and coexistence.
We’ve all been there: sitting in a lecture during syllabus week, listening to the professor read the A.I. policy declaring that usage is not allowed and will result in a report to the major department for plagiarism. While at first blanket statements like this suffice, it seems as though the capability of A.I. grows greater by the day, making it difficult for professors to keep up with what they do and don’t allow.
This is where the first approach, clarity, must be enacted: instead of explaining what isn’t permitted, instructors should highlight the acceptable uses of A.I. This will clarify to students what programs they can use and in what ways they can use them. Not only does this simple shift in approach reduce initial confusion, it also establishes a repeatable precedent for what professors allow — regardless of how much further A.I. develops.
Secondly — and the most important approach — is change. Technology is ever-evolving, and human history is oftentimes defined by the things we create. New things, unsurprisingly, can be intimidating, especially when they disrupt the status quo.
Upon the invention of writing and the sharing of texts, Socrates argued that it would prove detrimental to society since people would rely on others’ written memory and ideas instead of critically reflecting on their own experiences. Today, we see many of the same sentiments expressed in regards to A.I. tools, with some claiming that ChatGPT is the death of critical thinking and will only make people lazier.
This connection points out an overarching pattern throughout history: We are scared when things change, but eventually we adapt until they are integrated into our daily lives. I argue that the introduction of A.I. is an extension of this pattern, and once we stop resisting, then we can begin to acclimate and take control of A.I.’s influence.
ChatGPT works by gathering a massive dataset from all available public texts on the web, including articles, books, posts, and more. From my observations, the most common usage of ChatGPT among students is to generate answers to math problems, writing assignments, or coding material. Each of these easily generated assignments focuses on an outcome, whether that be an essay to answer a question, a solution to a math problem, or the steps required to run a certain computer program. In teaching, the key to adapting to an A.I.-adjacent society is to shift away from questions that have already been answered countless times and instead focus on inquiry and critical thinking, encouraging students to generate their own, unique ideas and solutions to new and emerging problems.
Instead of teaching students what to think, we should be teaching them how to ask their own questions and how to express their ideas effectively. Whether it be through project-based assignments or Socratic seminars and debates, stimulating critical thinking is the best way to keep students engaged and eager to learn instead of turning to A.I. to answer the same old questions in the same old ways.
Finally, I advocate for coexistence not only between academics and A.I. but also between those who want to embrace and fully integrate it in the classroom and those who see no place for it within their curriculum. The issue is not A.I. itself but an outdated education system that fails to ask critical questions that keep students engaged. Through employing more hands-on and inquiry-based learning and projects, students will have no choice but to collaborate with their peers and develop their own unique solutions to new problems without relying on A.I. tools for answers.
Overall, ChatGPT is not the enemy — traditionalism and a lack of engagement in the classroom are. Whether or not professors choose to embrace A.I. in their classroom is up to them, but continuing to teach students in ways that keep them unengaged and unmotivated while turning towards A.I. tools for basic-level questions cannot continue. In the grand scheme of things, it might not matter if you use ChatGPT for your homework or if this entire article was fabricated, but what compels us to take these actions does, and that is a lack of inquiry that fuels passion and excitement for learning. So, it’s time to take control of the A.I. epidemic in education, before it takes control of us.