Michael Sankey is the Director of Learning Futures and Lead Education Architect at Charles Darwin University. He is also the President of the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and eLearning. As a highly experienced leader, coach and mentor in the field of technology-enhanced learning in higher education, he set out to create a comprehensive edited volume on the virtual university, together with Henk Huijser and Rachel Fitzgerald.

The publication “Technology-Enhanced Learning and the Virtual University” discusses recent issues and noteworthy advancements that hold significance for administrators, instructional designers, public officials, and various other stakeholders and decision-makers. It extensively examines the ongoing discourse surrounding the choice between virtual and traditional brick-and-mortar approaches in higher education. With a global perspective, the book chapters offer practical insights and solutions that can be applied by higher education institutions worldwide. The book covers the nitty gritty aspects of running and maintaining a university infrastructure, reflects on the impact of globalization and internationalization on delivery and demand of higher education, comments on the commoditization of research, and discusses the changing paradigms of teaching and learning.

In the interview for AACE Review Michael shares his lessons learned from the publication process, his thoughts on virtual vs. in-person learning, the role of learning management systems (LMS), and his perspective on changes brought on by generative AI.

Edited Interview

Book Audience

Stefanie Panke: As an author, it was a pleasure to contribute to “Technology-Enhanced Learning and the Virtual University”. Who is this book for? And why should people read it?

Michael Sankey: The book is for a range of people. It’s for those who are interested in becoming more involved in the notion of a virtual university or a university that leverages online technologies to help their students. This includes administrators and teachers. Additionally, it’s for governance bodies within institutions. The book provides a detailed process by which an institution can benchmark itself against current practices and suggests ways to enhance their processes using the recommendations in the book.

Affordances of Virtual Learning

Stefanie Panke: We all have a pretty good sense of what a university looks like when it’s campus-based. Do we have the same strong notion of what a university is in a digital space?

Michael Sankey: Since Covid, we’ve gained a clearer idea of what a virtual university might resemble. However, we haven’t fully realized it yet. Our rapid response to Covid meant that everything was put online swiftly. A virtual university, to mirror a traditional one, needs a different approach than just uploading lectures. Different pedagogies are required for what would normally be face-to-face. The emergence of technologies like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and the newer Learning Management Systems provide more tools for this purpose. While the Learning Management System was central in higher education for many years, we now have various tools linking to it through LTI and APIs. This allows for alternative methods to what we do face-to-face, making the concept of a virtual university more tangible.

Stefanie Panke: Often we talk about virtual universities and online learning from a deficit perspective. Are there aspects of the digital environment that make you genuinely excited about being online and teaching online?

Michael Sankey: Absolutely. When I first entered academia, I was at the University of Southern Queensland in Australia, primarily a distance education institution. A large majority of its students only came to the campus for events like graduation. I began teaching online back in 2001, so I’ve been in this space for over two decades. There was literature before the online era that indicated distance education didn’t disadvantage students; in fact, it offered certain benefits, especially for different demographic groups. This perspective has since transitioned into the realm of online education. People opt for online education for various personal reasons, often driven by their unique motivations, different from those who go directly from school to face-to-face higher education.

What’s intriguing is how Covid began blurring the lines. It necessitated a shift online for everyone, regardless of their initial preference, tying in with economic shifts. In Australia, many students now juggle work and study, often clocking in more than 25 hours a week at their jobs. This leads to an inclination towards blending distance and online courses, resulting in physical classrooms having fewer attendees, but course enrollments remain stable. This trend was gradually emerging pre-Covid, but the pandemic fast-tracked it. Contrary to expectations, there hasn’t been a massive shift back to face-to-face learning in regions like Australia and New Zealand post-Covid. With low unemployment rates in Australia, many people can find jobs, leading them to favor work and part-time study over full-time education. This makes the idea of a virtual or distance education university quite appealing and efficient for many.

LMS or Productivity Tools?

Stefanie Panke: You’ve been in distance education and online education for decades and you’ve had experiences with many different technologies. From your perspective, what developments have really made a difference?

Michael Sankey: Over the years, there’s been a recurring dialogue that the Learning Management System (LMS) might become obsolete. Indeed, I discuss the future of the LMS in one of my book chapters. What’s noteworthy is the proliferation of tools that now complement or integrate with the LMS. AI and productivity tools have been game-changers.

In Australia and New Zealand, even K-12 students are now familiar with tools like Microsoft Teams and Slack. When they step into the professional world, they continue using these productivity tools for collaboration, communication, and interacting with colleagues and clients. Yet, there’s an odd hiatus during university years where the primary tool is an LMS, which isn’t as prevalent before or after their tertiary education.

With tools like Microsoft Teams becoming more integrated into LMS platforms like Blackboard, Moodle, and Canvas, there’s a push towards using these tools for collaborative education. For instance, instead of using a traditional discussion forum within an LMS, which can often be restrictive, students can collaborate more dynamically in a platform designed for productivity, like Teams. This shift isn’t just about technological preferences; it’s about preparing students for real-world collaboration and interactions.

Many students today enter higher education with work experience and practical insights. It’s crucial for educators to harness these experiences and facilitate peer sharing and learning. The idea is to shift away from viewing students as mere recipients of knowledge. Instead, we should consider them as contributors, and collaborators, capable of being productive from the get-go. Most people, when they get out into the workforce, are working with other people. And so we need to, as educators, train our students to work with other people.

Traditional group work in academia has often been criticized. However, it’s not just about group assignments; it’s about fostering genuine collaboration, where students work together to understand concepts and create new knowledge. The emergence of AI tools, like Microsoft’s Co-pilot, places a plethora of information at students’ fingertips. They no longer need to exclusively rely on libraries or databases. With this readily available foundational knowledge, they can focus on building upon it and generating new insights. This is the transformative potential of technology-enhanced learning.

Social Media and AI

Stefanie Panke: What are your thoughts on AI in terms of its influence on student learning, communication, and engagement? And more broadly, on society at large? I remember initially viewing social media very positively, especially during the web 2.0 trend where user-generated content was expected to bring people together in a global village. However, at least from my perspective, this hasn’t panned out as I’d hoped across various platforms. Especially recently, social media doesn’t seem to be a very positive space. So, with AI, do you see dystopian or utopian futures?

Michael Sankey: It’s interesting. First, my comment on the social media side of things: I’ve been using Twitter for years, since around 2013. More and more, I grew sick of it and deleted my account. Now, I mainly communicate my ideas on LinkedIn, as it’s more of a professional community. I align my social media use with professional communities of practice. I am a strong proponent of the portfolio as a mechanism by which I portray myself as an academic and as a researcher. I have what I refer to as a “cloud of influence,” centered around my portfolio and linked to other platforms like YouTube, WordPress, LinkedIn, and SlideShare. The mix of that that cloud is irrelevant, because each person will have their own preferences

With the rise of AI, control dynamics are changing. Previously, I had control over the information I shared, and people would find me based on what I posted. Now, they can use AI tools, some of which excel in research, to locate information. Many of the newer tools do deep research and provide real references, and there are new ones every week.

I utilize ChatGPT for productivity—it provides a foundation to build upon, it isn’t truth. I rely on my decades of experience in higher education to discern and interpret the information. It’s crucial for students to learn this skill as well. Blackboard, for instance, recently launched an AI tool for creating courses. I’ve used it to structure a course on micro-credentials, adapting the content it suggested. While I leverage AI, I ensure that I steer its direction.

I mentioned the notion of productivity and how we use base-level information to build and extend information, thereby broadening the reach of education. So, I don’t have a problem with AI. My issue lies with some of the ethical implications of AI and the sources it draws upon for its information, which are, in many cases, biased and have ethical underpinnings that are not solid. Always to make sure the output is what you’re expecting. You are still the knowledge expert, and you need to be responsible.

Lessons Learned

Stefanie Panke: Thank you very much. My very last question. Looking back at this journey of editing a book, shepherding so many contributors through this process, working with so many reviewers, and collaborating with the publisher, what were your best moments? What were your worst moments? What are some lessons learned? Would you recommend doing it? What is the value of edited volumes such as this?

Michael Sankey: The quality of an edited volume is its breadth. Unlike a special issue in a journal which might have 10-12 articles, this volume has 31 chapters. It provides an opportunity to explore a breadth of understanding. I see this particular case as almost a handbook for administrators and educators. It allows university administrators to take a deep dive into the different elements associated with maintaining quality practice within online education.

As you indicated, managing it is not a light undertaking; there are many people to negotiate with and guide through the process. It doesn’t come without its challenges—problems, concerns, contributors pulling out, timing issues, and more. I’ve been in education for a long time and have faced similar challenges as a contributor, so I understand life can get in the way sometimes.

It was a pleasure working with Hank and Rachel, the other two editors. Starting this process alone was overwhelming, but collaborating with two experienced editors was beneficial. We were able to bounce ideas off each other, divide tasks, and progress effectively. My suggestion is, don’t try to do it alone. While being an editor brings credibility, writing the chapters offers more fulfillment. I co-authored two chapters with the other editors and I have a couple of chapters with another colleague who I have been writing with for many years.

Sharing our ideas is truly rewarding. Seeing the book published is exhilarating. We’ve released chapters as open content along the way, which felt great. It’s always nice to receive appreciation on platforms like LinkedIn. Yet, being able to hold up the print edition and get a photo with the book which we will do soon after its publication on October 20^th, is really nice. The three of us editors plan to celebrate in Brisbane.

Video Interview

Watch the full interview recording.

About

The post Technology-Enhanced Learning and the Virtual University – An Interview with Michael Sankey appeared first on AACE Review.

Sima Ahmadi is a PhD student at Kent State University. She recently completed her Master of Arts in Education at the Asian University for Women (AUW). In her thesis, she analyzed the role of technology in creating access to K-12 education for girls in Afghanistan. Sima Ahmadi’s work showcases efforts and strategies that Afghan girls and women are employing to continue their education, such as secret classes and online learning platforms, despite facing restrictions and bans from the Taliban. She collected and analyzed survey data from 100 students and teachers in four online schools.

Nonprofit organizations need financial security and require sufficient human capital and digital resources as well as implementation capacity to offer online education. Examples include Education Bridge for Afghanistan (EBA), Sabar Afghan Online School, Learn Afghan School, School of Leadership, Afghanistan (SOLA), Shamama School, and Roshini-e-Omid Online Program. In addition, numerous small and large schools and online classes have sprung up to support girls’ education.

Sima argues that there is an urgent need to study the potential of technology integration in K-12 schools to provide quality education for girls, address the broader factors influencing educational outcomes, and examine the long-term impact of technology integration in the Afghanistan education system. Sima sees online learning technologies as the most promising option to provide access to students who are deprived of in-person learning but cautions against overly optimistic expectations. In the interview, we discuss if online learning is a sustainable, practical response to the education ban for girls and women, and what role international organizations and educators can play.

Can you please describe the extent to which education in Afghanistan has been disrupted for women and girls?

Girls’ and women’s education in Afghanistan has faced significant disruptions since 2020, first with the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused access to education restrictions for all learners across the country. Second, since September 2021, more than two million secondary school girls have been denied access to education. Girls and women in Afghanistan are in a state of utter chaos, having been deprived of basic social life rights, which has resulted in an increase in mental illness, anxiety, depression, early marriage, and the brain drain of young women from the country.

Many female teachers have stopped teaching as a result of the uncertainty surrounding their employment and safety. These disruptions have negatively affected the educational opportunities of girls and women, hindering their ability to pursue careers and contribute to the country’s development.

Electronic devices and Internet services can be prohibitively expensive for students and their families. Is online learning a scalable solution for Afghanistan?

I believe that online learning can be a valuable educational tool and can be used as an appropriate temporary alternative option to provide access to education for girls who have fallen behind in school, assuming that educational institutions such as nonprofit national and international organizations have the necessary resources and capacities. I am not optimistic about its long-term viability due to numerous challenges, including affordability, connectivity, accessibility, electricity, and capacity.

In the study, 87% stated that they experienced challenges during their online classes. The majority reported limited access to technology devices and internet connectivity as the most formidable barriers to technology usage in online learning. The affordability issue was ranked as the second major challenge. Electricity is another challenge in many regions of Afghanistan that inhibits students’ access to digital resources. Additionally, a lack of skills and training can also be a hurdle for accessing and understanding educational content in online learning settings. Furthermore, maintaining motivation and engagement with remote learning is another challenge. Students’ motivation and learning outcomes can be reduced when there is no face-to-face interaction for the longer term.

Furthermore, it should be considered that only a small percentage of girls benefit from online education, while the vast majority do not have access to it. Due to challenges, I don’t think that online learning can be considered a sustainable solution for educating Afghan girls.

Which regions and organizations did you include in your research?

The study’s participants were students and teachers who have experience in online teaching or learning from a few regions of Afghanistan, including Kabul, Qandahar, Helmand, and Herat, aiming to investigate how technology integration affects education provision in emergency situations. There are teachers and students from four online schools, such as Education Bridge for Afghanistan (EBA), Learn Afghan School, Sabar Afghan Online School, and Roshini-e-Omid Online Program, that were included in this research.

What strategies for remote learning and blended learning environments do the organizations you surveyed employ? Are there best practices you can highlight?

I can say that each of these organizations has its own approaches and strategies based on the program’s specific objectives, resources, and capacities. For instance, the Roshini-e-Omid Program and EBA provide synchronous online classes for school learners, where students and teachers join classes via Zoom. Students have access to the learning materials through Google Classrooms, WhatsApp, and other social media, which are convenient for learners’ access. Learn Afghan and Sabar Afghan Online Schools focus on asynchronous online learning by providing learners with subject-based videos, learning applications on specific school grades and subjects, school books, and other learning materials.

Regarding the digital tools and platforms, the majority of the survey participants from these schools indicated that they use online learning platforms like Zoom and Google Classroom as means of communication and learning platforms. Social media was shown to be another platform that 87% of participants utilize to facilitate the process of learning and teaching. WhatsApp, Telegram, and Facebook are the most common applications that teachers and learners use to stay connected with each other.

Do teachers receive enough training and support for robust digital pedagogies?

There may be rare institutions in Afghanistan that provide basic digital pedagogies, which I am not even sure about, but in 95% of cases, I can assert that there are no capacity-building programs for teachers on digital pedagogies. Research participants determined the lack of digital development training for teachers as one of the important challenges that hamper effective online learning for girls. However, I should mention that teachers from the four participating schools in the study are mostly volunteer teachers and graduate students who have a good understanding of digital pedagogies.

What are the lessons that international organizations can learn from your research?

The findings of this study highlight a number of crucial lessons that international organizations and stakeholders should take into account when using technology to support education in Afghanistan in the absence of in-person schooling.  According to the survey data, access to basic technologies like computers, laptops, smartphones, and tablets has helped many girls gain access to education since 2021. Thus, international organizations can concentrate on ensuring that these crucial tools are available to improve girls’ and women’s access to education. Additionally, the study suggests that teacher training and capacity building are essential for the effective integration of technology in education. International organizations can support programs that train teachers to use technology effectively as a teaching tool and make sure they are adequately equipped to provide instruction in emergency situations.  They should consider how technology can be gradually integrated into the educational system while also building resilience in the face of ongoing challenges.

Overall, the most important lesson for international organizations is that technology can be a powerful tool for supporting education in emergencies, but its successful implementation requires a comprehensive approach that addresses access, training, and sustainability. Recognizing these lessons allows organizations to better design and implement programs that benefit education in conflict-affected areas such as Afghanistan.

For girls who have access to online education, what does a typical school day look like?

I can say that it depends on girls’ individual circumstances in their homes, the specific resources available to them, and the type of online learning, whether it is synchronous or asynchronous. For instance, many synchronous online education programs provide scheduled virtual classes. Afghan girls join their classes at specific times, just like traditional in-person classes, but they do not need to walk outside their homes to school. These virtual classes assign homework and activities to them, and they will dedicate time to doing those assignments, like in-person schooling. Some of the girls mentioned that they would meet their classmates in person to study together and do group work activities.

Additionally, the participants highlight the flexibility of online learning as an advantage for Afghan learners. An interesting finding of this research implies that Afghan girls with access to technology can benefit from online learning besides doing home chores and overcoming cultural and religious barriers. Students stated that they can access lessons anytime and engage in discussions, fostering a flexible and interactive learning experience.

Do you see dangers in moving education for girls and women solely online?

I believe that education is complex because it encompasses multiple aspects such as social interaction, behavior, emotional well-being, and cognitive development. Considering the challenges of effective online learning in Afghanistan, I think implementing online education for all girls in Afghanistan is not possible at this moment. Additionally, the lack of capacity in digital pedagogies and a scarcity of knowledge for students on how to efficiently use the available technological resources if they have access to them may be harmful rather than efficient. This is because we know that education is not only having knowledge but also having social skills, and practicing them in society is the main focus of learning, particularly for school learners. Therefore, being merely in a virtual world for the purpose of learning will have negative consequences such as isolation and lack of social interaction skills in the real world, as well as leading to physical health problems. This is why it has always been emphasized that technology must be thoughtfully integrated within a broader, multifaceted educational approach, for which there is no expertise in Ed-Tech in Afghanistan. Therefore, I perceive that online learning can be a suitable alternative solution to maintain students’ connection to their lessons and keep them motivated for a period of time, but moving education solely online is not an efficient approach to delivering quality education in Afghanistan.

What constraints do Afghan students and teachers encounter when attempting to use technology for education?

According to the study results, they face a number of significant challenges when attempting to use technology for education. The major issues are divided into four categories: connectivity, affordability, electricity, and accessibility. The difficulty in connecting to the internet and the limited availability of technological devices are both widespread problems. For example, many rural areas lack reliable internet access, making it difficult for students and teachers to engage in online learning. Another significant barrier is affordability, which prevents many students from accessing online education due to the high costs of purchasing technology devices and internet access. Moreover, the lack of regular access to electricity in various regions of Afghanistan hampers students’ access to educational content, as homes may not have a consistent power supply. Additionally, a lack of skills and training poses challenges for accessing and understanding educational content in online learning settings. Furthermore, maintaining motivation and engagement is challenging without face-to-face interaction or traditional classroom dynamics. Overall, these constraints highlight the numerous challenges that Afghan students and teachers face when utilizing technology for education in emergency situations.

In light of Afghan girls being denied access to basic social life, you emphasize the importance of examining the impact of technology on their social and emotional well-being. In your view, can online education foster mental well-being and resilience? Perhaps even provide hope and inspiration?

I think it can act as a double-edged sword. Technology is only a tool, and it depends on the human user to what extent they effectively take advantage of that tool for education. As I mentioned before, being in a virtual setting long-term can lead to anxiety and isolation. That said, given the current situation of the country, online education can provide a lifeline of learning opportunities, empowering girls with a sense of purpose and hope for a brighter future. Online teachers can provide basic psychosocial support for students. For example, they can be active listeners for their learners, conveying the success stories of women who overcame the same challenges and teaching them how to be a role model for their generation and community by persisting toward their goals, training them on how to have goals in their lives, and seeking opportunities to help them get closer to their goals, connecting students with resources to address emotional needs and stress, while also fostering a sense of belonging and community. These approaches can reduce anxiety and boost self-confidence while learning digital skills can boost self-esteem and create optimism for future opportunities. Moreover, by breaking down social barriers, online education allows girls to connect with peers, share experiences, and collaborate, reducing feelings of isolation and cultivating a sense of inspiration and resilience in the face of adversity. Therefore, Afghan girls who pursue online schooling may gain a sense of empowerment, self-confidence, and a belief in their ability to overcome challenges. This empowerment can contribute to mental well-being and resilience. Because of this, I recommend that institutions that offer online education should take advantage of the opportunity to concentrate on applying strategies to help learners find inspiration, resilience, and hope.

If I look back on my mother’s and grandmothers’ generations, it is incredible how opportunities for education have expanded and what I have the privilege to take for granted. I am deeply sorry this is not the trajectory for women in Afghanistan presently. Is there anything you want educators internationally to know? What can teachers do to help?

I appreciate you taking the time to conduct this interview. I, as an Afghan woman who has no right to work and be educated in my home country, would like to use the opportunity to solicit educators and individuals worldwide to stand in solidarity with Afghan girls and women during this challenging time. International teachers can play an important role in advocating for the rights and education of Afghan girls by raising awareness of the gravity of the situation in their professional communities and via social media. They can take part in fundraising activities to support organizations that help Afghan girls get an education and access resources, and, finally, they can stay aware of the women’s rights situation in Afghanistan.

About

Sima Ahmadi is a Ph.D. student in Educational Technology at Kent State University. She holds a master’s degree in Education, along with a graduate degree in Leadership Development and a bachelor’s in Computer Science. Her research interests include cutting-edge educational technologies, computational thinking, adaptive and blended learning systems, and Extended Reality in education. Currently, She is working as a graduate research assistant and has over six years of experience in the Computer science field and in implementing Education in Emergencies (EiE) Projects with humanitarian INGOs in Afghanistan. As a first-generation student, she aims to set an example for her community by pursuing higher education and inspiring others to believe in their dreams. Sima aims to become an Ed-Tech expert, enhance the Ed-Tech concept in Afghanistan, and integrate technology into the country’s education system.

The post Online Education as a Lifeline of Learning Opportunities for Afghan Girls and Women: An Interview with Sima Ahmadi appeared first on AACE Review.

Prof. Dr. Rick West from Brigham Young University is a prominent figure in the field of educational technology, known for his contributions to open education, learning communities, micro-credentials, instructional design and creativity. Many of his writings can be found on the platform EdTechBooks, an online publishing tool and catalog that features open-access educational materials. I recently had the pleasure of welcoming him as a guest speaker to our hybrid classroom at the Asian University for Women (AUW), and we used the opportunity to conduct a follow-up interview.

EdTechBooks is a collaborative space for educators and experts to freely share their knowledge, resulting in a vast repository of open educational resources think Amazon, but with free books. Peer review and user feedback mechanisms signal reliability and credibility of the open-access books. An award-winning, highly influential title by Rick West is Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology – now available in a new edition, edited together with Heather Leary. A large part of Rick West’s work focuses on helping students understand their place in the field of instructional design and educational technology. This is exemplified by titles such as Failing Forward, where seasoned professionals share stories about failure and rejection, and the book Becoming an LIDT Professional. As Rick explained it: “Our books have been changed into other languages, used around the world, for example in the Philippines. They’re used all over the world because they’re modifiable. You can translate them, you can adapt them. You can change them. They use a Creative Commons license. We think that we’re changing the world of education a little bit by having these kinds of books”.

Another recurring theme of Rick’s work are open badges, recognizing the diverse skills individuals acquire throughout their learning journeys. He introduces the concept of open badges which were developed by Mozilla in 2012 to address this need. These digital badges serve as a flexible and comprehensive way to acknowledge learning achievements, going beyond traditional degrees to include smaller, more specific accomplishments. Importantly, badges can be awarded by various entities, such as universities, employers, or community organizations, making them accessible to a broad range of learners. The key advantage of open badges is their portability and transferability, enabled by the Open Badge standard. Learners can collect and display their badges in a comprehensive learner record, providing a data-rich and shareable representation of their skills and achievements.

In a new project, Rick addresses a significant pain point in education, namely the limited accessibility of high-quality assessments due to cost and retrieval issues. To tackle this problem, he is working on the “open assessments, instruments, and measures for educational research” (open AIMs) initiative. The project goal is to create a repository where individuals can submit their assessments for review and publication. These assessments are openly accessible, allowing anyone to use and translate them.

In the interview, we talked about open education, social media, generative AI, and the value of writing and scholarship.

“I just want to figure out what this field is all about”

Stefanie Panke: Curt Bonk described you as one of the up-and-coming superstars in educational technology. What brought you to the EdTech field and to the specific topics that are recurring themes in your work, such as learning in communities, designing for openness, and solving real-world problems?

Richard West: I came to this field somewhat accidentally. I was a journalist, working as a sports writer, and saw the world of journalism changing due to the rise of the Internet. While working in journalism, I helped with technical aspects like page layout design and multimedia design for newspapers. I loved education and technology, especially figuring out ways to make information consumption easier for people. A friend introduced me to the field of educational technology, and I pursued my Master’s degree at Brigham Young University.

On my first day, I remember hearing students talking about complex topics they wanted to study, such as virtual worlds and blended learning. When it was my turn, I said, “I’m Rick West, and I just want to figure out what this field is all about.”

That feeling of being overwhelmed yet knowing I belonged in the field influenced my scholarship. A large part of my work focuses on helping students understand the field’s history and current topics. For my dissertation, I explored communities of creativity and how we develop collaborative networks to support creativity. My interest has always been on social relationships and their impact on learning. As our field has moved more towards online learning, I’ve explored how to keep online learning social, ensuring people don’t feel isolated and still feel connected to their institution, peers, and instructors.

Recently, a lot of my work has been centered on open education. Open education offers solutions to problems in education and leverages the opportunities provided by the Internet. I’ve been involved in open education through open textbooks, open badges, and open recognition. Thinking about backward design, where you start with the end goal and work backward, the ultimate end in education is the credential. Re-envisioning credentials with an open mindset can impact the entire educational process.

“Education is so much more than just content”

Stefanie Panke: I’m an adjunct professor in two graduate programs where I teach international students. In this context, I meet a lot of absolutely terrific young people who get the rare chance of obtaining a graduate degree. Many of them are first-generation students, and they’re fully aware of the privilege that this degree entails. Are open educational resources and open access textbooks enough to promote equity in education on a global scale? Or are they just one ingredient, and if so, what else do we need?

Richard West: I’ve been pondering this question quite a lot. Open content, encompassing open textbooks, open educational resources and open articles, is undoubtedly crucial. Education requires content. But there’s a misconception; we’ve grown comfortable with the notion that producing an open textbook or article means we’ve fulfilled our commitment to open education. But education is so much more than just content. In my work, I’ve been conceptualizing an open educational framework. Building on the work of David Wiley, I believe this encompasses open content, open recognition, and open practices. We need openly discussed, shared, and established criteria for what we expect people to learn. It’s also about open assessments. Often educators want to gauge learning, but assessments are hidden behind paywalls. We need these instruments to be accessible. And finally, the credentials students receive should be open, which is why I delve into open badges and open micro-credentials. Education isn’t only content; it’s about assessment, feedback, credentials, pedagogy, and relationships. All these components need to be open for us to truly embrace open education. That’s the direction I’m exploring.

“I don’t think our digital literacy is currently very strong”

Stefanie Panke: Currently, everybody is all aflutter about generative AI. You’re somebody who thinks very broadly about the online education space, so I wanted to get your take on it.

Richard West: There are new technologies all the time, and a lot of them are interesting, but not necessarily Earth-shattering. I remember when I was a grad student, I did a conference presentation on blogs and wikis, the new vocabulary of teacher education. I thought this was going to change the world.  Looking back, it was significant, and blogs and wikis have done a lot of good, but I don’t know that they changed the world. Sometimes we oversell technologies, and I was guilty of that as well. But every now and then there are technologies that really do change the world. The Internet was one. Obviously, education just isn’t the same after the Internet. I think generative AI is going to be another. We’re going to look back 10 years from now and wonder, “How did society work before generative AI?” Just like I often think, “How did I ever get anything done without email?”

I think generative AI is going to be transformative. For good and for bad. Some of the negatives have been discussed quite a bit. Generative AI is really good at creating things very quickly, but a lot of it isn’t very good. We have to do a better job of judging what is good and what’s not good. What’s true and not true. Because generative AI makes things up, it isn’t very accurate. It’s also not very equitable on occasion in the things that it produces. This output will presumably get better as the algorithms improve. But still, I think we’re going to need a higher level of digital literacy to use this material effectively. That concerns me because I don’t think our digital literacy is currently very strong. We’re already in our echo chambers, not really listening, reading, or hearing a wide variety of opinions. We tend to only consume content that aligns with our beliefs. So we’re prone to being deceived or simply not accessing good information because our perspectives aren’t broad enough. Generative AI might amplify these echo chambers, making it harder to discern truth from falsehood.

However, there are also positives. Generative AI is going to allow us to do things that we couldn’t do before. For example, I’m terrible at graphic design. Even though I’m familiar with tools like Photoshop, I just don’t have the artistic eye. That’s always been a limitation for me, especially in education where visuals are crucial. So, I’ve often had to rely on others to create graphics. Now, I can use prompts to generate visuals. If you give AI the right prompts, it can produce impressive results. This technology allows me to better showcase my strengths while compensating for my weaknesses. This might empower instructional designers to be more independent by leveraging generative AI to enhance their skills. That will be exciting in many ways.

“We shouldn’t assume it’s always going to be beneficial”

Stefanie Panke:, I certainly do remember the early days of the Internet. Another example that was, I think, a game-changer in our society, was social media. As you mentioned, blogs and wikis may not have changed the world, but Wikipedia certainly did. What can we learn from our past about how we might adjust the parameters for adopting generative AI? If you consider both the Internet and social media, are there things we should have done differently as educators? Are there areas where we should have done more safeguarding or more exploration?

Richard West: That’s a really good question. I haven’t had a chance to deeply ponder that, but I will share since you brought up social media, that I think we’re learning that we perhaps jumped too quickly into it. I’m not particularly concerned about adults or educators, but I am worried about how we introduced social media to young people. There’s strong evidence suggesting that early exposure to social media can lead to higher levels of depression and anxiety, especially among young women. So, perhaps platforms like Facebook and Twitter weren’t really designed for teenage brains. Maybe we shouldn’t have adopted them so hastily, and we should have exercised more caution until we understood the potential impact. Now, I don’t know how you put the genie back in the bottle. It seems that here in the United States, there’s an effort to move cautiously. At least, the creators of ChatGPT, along with others like Elon Musk, are calling for a measured approach, so there seems to be a desire to go slower. The question is, can we prevent the market from moving quickly?

So, as educators, what do we do? I believe we need to use these tools, to explore and understand them. It’s crucial to figure out how to implement them into our practices and our teaching. But we shouldn’t assume it’s always going to be beneficial. At times, our field can be too forgiving of technology’s faults. We get caught up in the allure of a shiny new technology without considering its negative aspects. We need to be honest with ourselves about the challenges and negatives. We need to question when we should be using these tools with younger minds. As much as possible, we need to be genuinely reflective practitioners. As a field, we can recognize the potential of this technology and at the same time ask: What does it really mean for us? And what precautions are necessary when integrating it?

Stefanie Panke: What regulatory challenges do you see around AI and how should those be addressed? What role do you think regulations will play in making this technology accessible, safe and productive?

Richard West: That’s a tough question. I know that regulating anything in the commercial market can be difficult and problematic, especially in the case of new technologies. Other countries may not be regulating to the same degree, so we don’t want to fall behind in terms of understanding the technology.

I don’t have a definitive answer, but I think we need to be particularly careful with children. We can explore generative AI as adults, but we need to slow down for the youth until we better understand it. I don’t think we should stop using these tools, but we need to be cautious and reflective about how we use them. We need to be open to regulations if they are needed, or at least to good policies and practices that help us use these technologies in ethical and responsible ways.

“I don’t want to be too quick to throw away the benefit of having us do this work ourselves”

Stefanie Panke: How do you think generative AI will specifically affect the open movements?

Richard West: I do a lot of work with open education, and I ponder if AI could play a role. For instance, I’ve spent the last year and a half revising one of our textbooks, gathering a lot of chapters from really smart people. Could I have used generative AI for some parts? Obviously, it’s not good enough yet. Could it be good enough in the future? It probably could be. But I don’t know if that’s the world we want. I believe we learn a lot – I know I do – through writing. And if we eliminate the act of writing and conducting research, we might end up with less knowledgeable professors in our classrooms. We learn by writing, and we expand our understanding by engaging in research. This process of learning and discovery is how we become educated, and it’s how we educate our students. We assign them writing tasks for this very reason. There’s inherent value in the practice of writing and scholarship. I don’t want to be too quick to throw away the benefit of having us do this work ourselves.

However, AI can assist in areas like brainstorming or providing a synthesis of vast amounts of data. While I’m hesitant about letting AI author content fully, it can undoubtedly aid in brainstorming and fact-checking. One potential advantage is translation. While AI translations aren’t perfect, they can achieve maybe 80%. Correction is easier than starting from scratch. This might simplify localizing open textbooks or content for specific regions, enhancing the learning experience for students globally. Imagine open textbooks on EdTechBooks with a button to localize content for Germany, Nigeria, or the Philippines, powered by AI. Maybe that will be possible in the future.

Stefanie Panke: Thank you! If people want to learn more, how can they find your work?Rick West: A good starting point is my website https://richardewest.com/. I’m also on Twitter @richardewest Usually all the ‘Rick West’ handles were taken, so, even though I go by Rick West, you will find me under Richard E. West on these different social media places. And finally, you can also go to https://edtechbooks.org/ and find my work there.

Video Interview

Watch the complete video interview.

About

Rick West is a professor in the Instructional Psychology & Technology department at Brigham Young University. He teaches classes on instructional design, research writing, and K-16 technology integration. His research focuses on understanding learning communities and assessing their learning, performance, and innovation. Rick West has analyzed Communities of Innovation and has explored methods to enhance online collaborative learning. Additionally, he investigates the role of open badges and micro-credentials. With over 100 publications that have amassed 6500+ citations (Scholar), his contributions to educational research are significant. He’s a recipient of awards from the American Educational Research Association, the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, and the McKay School of Education. Moreover, as an evaluator, Rick West consults for diverse programs across K-12 schools, higher education, grants, and healthcare.

The post Rick West on Open Education, Equity, and Responsible Use of Generative AI appeared first on AACE Review.

“Mobile is incredible, but combined with AI, it’s a game-changer”. Visual created with Microsoft Bing Image Creator

Dr. Helen Crompton is an Associate Professor of Instructional Technology, at Old Dominion University (ODU). She is the Director of the Virtual Reality Lab and the Technology Enhanced Learning Lab (TELL) at ODU and the Executive Director of the Research Institute of Digital Innovation in Learning (RIDIL). She is a consultant for various governments and bilateral and multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Bank on educational technology topics. She also consults for the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Helen Crompton brings both curiosity and empathy to impactful topics such as mobile learning, robotics, and now, generative artificial intelligence in education. Her service and patience are seemingly endless: Right before our interview she shared with me that she had given five hours of talks and trainings that day. In our conversation, she  urges educators to shape AI usage through informed practice. Education faculty in particular need to be well-versed in generative AI tools. They owe this to their students and the broader community. However, given the rapidly evolving landscape of education technology, Helen acknowledges that it is natural to feel apprehensive. The interview is brimming with ideas for channeling generative artificial AI as a positive, equalizing force in education while being mindful of barriers and problems.

“The future of education will look different”

Stefanie Panke: My first question is, how did you first encounter AI? What were your initial impressions, and what made you think it’s a transformative technology?

Helen Crompton: That’s an easy one. Throughout my journey in education and technology, I’ve encountered two major game-changers. The first was mobile technologies. The ability to contextualize learning with mobile devices allowed for a more immersive experience without being tethered to a desk. The second was AI. Around 2017, the International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE) asked me to design a course on integrating AI into the classroom, specifically for K-12 teachers. I delved deeper into AI and was amazed. Mobile is incredible, but combined with AI, it’s a game-changer. Many see only the frontend of AI, but there’s also the backend that enhances tools like Google Translate. It was terrible a while ago, and then with artificial intelligence, it was suddenly super powered. It did so much better. So that’s the back we don’t know about. We just see programs working so much better.

Stefanie Panke: You’ve touched on teacher training and teacher education. Specifically, how should education programs, especially master of education programs, adapt to prepare their students? What steps should they take to ready pre-service teachers, or those teachers seeking additional qualifications, for an AI-saturated K-12 classroom environment?

Helen Crompton: Faculty members have to know about ChatGPT. It’s clear that many educators, even those in ed-tech, are nervous about venturing into AI. It’s vastly different from other technologies. However, It’s not something you can ignore, and say ‘that’s for them, not for us’. Faculty have to know about it and have conversations with their students. It’s essential to adequately prepare faculty. Bring in speakers, organize trainings. Explain it to faculty, because faculty can’t suddenly be expected to know all of this. I was in AI for a while, and I didn’t expect ChatGPT. It was the shocker to me. So we really need to prepare faculty, who can then in turn prepare the future teachers and the in-service teachers.

One of the significant changes is not just about using programs; it’s understanding that ChatGPT has fundamentally shifted how we approach education. If you’re a faculty member who assigns end-of-term papers, realize that these papers could now be written by ChatGPT – unless you’re prepared for this, and have discussed with your students what’s acceptable and what isn’t. At the same time, why are we still doing term papers?  Instead, consider more critical thinking activities. Given that ChatGPT is a conversational agent, we could involve it in debates or use it to draft papers, but then invest time critiquing that output. Why did AI opt for that perspective? What influenced ChatGPT’s response? Did it exhibit bias? The future of education will look different, and we must adapt rather than clinging to old methods.

Stefanie Panke: I’ve cited you in every talk and training I’ve given on this topic with the following statement: This is a historic moment in time you will remember as a before and after, just like the rise of the Internet”. Now, I recall starting university in the late 1990s. Back then, accessing the Internet was confined to a single room where we queued to use it. AltaVista was the go-to search engine, and I remember faculty being somewhat dismissive, thinking that perhaps they could ignore this ‘Internet phase’. Given the transformative potential of AI, echoing the rise of the Internet, what practices do you foresee undergoing dramatic changes?

Helen Crompton: Okay, great question. I tend to say the Gutenberg printing press, the Internet and now ChatGPT, these are the main points of change. So how can education be different? What does it look like going forward? It can look two ways: One absolutely positive, one absolutely terrible. It could be that educators ignore ChatGPT and think everything is okay. And that learners go ahead and use AI to do the work. So basically, learners could get qualifications and whole degrees using ChatGPT where they do nothing and they become unthinking. Well, I say ‘learners’, but they’re not really learning, they are just getting by. So we could have this reality.

Or, we could completely rethink education. As an educator, I now have the tool to do things differently, using critical thinking, having learners debate, have students use AI in support of learning. Imagine you have a classroom with 20 or 30 students. AI allows them to individually refine skills. It’s like talking to someone who is giving you continuous feedback. The educator is very much part of this process, but educators cannot be working with students one on one unless they have a lot of help, which is nice, but certainly not the standard. We can do education as it should be done. We can have transformative, equitable education.

“This is so simple to use”

Stefanie Panke: For teachers, faculty members or K-12, who have never used a generative AI tool before, what would be the first introductory step or prompt they could use to begin understanding the potential?

Helen Crompton: What’s nice is that this is so simple to use. It’s easier to use than a Google search. When you go into Google search, you have that search bar in the middle, and you can ask it questions. It then comes up with a set of websites you have to look at. ChatGPT has the same search bar. You can type in the same question, but instead of directing you to various websites, it provides you with the answer. Someone asked me about any age limits for using it. Technically, students can use it the moment they can write, unless they use the voice-to-text feature on their phones. No special skills are required for this tool. There are advanced techniques like prompt engineering, which allow you to refine your questions. Teaching students to craft questions is a valuable skill. It’s a critical thinking exercise in itself. If you think about Bloom’s taxonomy, creating questions is at the top level. Understanding what you want to ask is essential because you need to think about the information you’re seeking. But, in essence, just play with it, and you’ll quickly grasp how to use this tool. Don’t let anyone be deterred by the idea of artificial intelligence. Even without a computer science background, I would argue that this is one of the easiest technologies to use. Beyond understanding prompt engineering to frame better questions, you can use it right out of the box.

“A one-on-one tutor, very knowledgeable, with infinite patience, available 24/7”

Stefanie Panke: That is so encouraging. Can you maybe comment on a few pedagogical possibilities? Will AI help bridge or deepen the digital and the education divide?. Will it help us give more people access to quality education?

Helen Crompton: What’s really beneficial about it is that, unlike virtual reality where you need to purchase headsets and other equipment, or things like game based learning that require investment, once you have the Internet – which efforts are being made, in collaboration with the United Nations, to make universally accessible – you instantly have access to AI. Furthermore, it’s being developed in numerous languages worldwide. Some might worry about the preservation of less common languages, but the tool can quickly adapt and learn even pocket languages, potentially even helping in preserving them.

Imagine two schools. One school has a lot of money. They have all these staff around the teachers that do marketing, that do writing for them; design flyers, offer editing. You have people doing all this stuff, like a personal assistant. Let’s say, in this school, you have a personal assistant next to you, where you can say, “Oh, just write this, or do this.” That’s great. But there are a lot of schools that do not have any of that. For those schools, ChatGPT has filled these roles. So now the school with less money has the same access. However, the big difference is they don’t have to wait for any person to go away and write. Teachers can just watch it appear straight in front of them and be able to edit there in real time, saying, “Oh, it’s a great email. I need it a bit shorter. I need it to cover this.” And it does all that, with no extra charge. It’s amazing in that way. That’s thinking about it from the educator and school level.

Now, look at it from the student level. What we see every day is that not every student goes home to a family where mom and dad are college-educated, who can share all sorts of information with them, perhaps take them out on trips to see things. They don’t all have that.

Some students have support at home where someone can say, “Oh, you don’t understand that? Let me explain it for you. Let me help you.” That’s marvelous. But then there are students who go home to fantastic, loving parents, and when they show the homework, the parents say, “Oh, I’m sorry, I can’t help you. I’d love to help you, but I can’t.” That’s not great. These students might want to get into college, but they don’t have the same opportunities. Programs like ChatGPT can act as a literal one-to-one tutor. So imagine that—imagine having the money to pay for a one-on-one tutor, very knowledgeable, with infinite patience, available 24/7. That’s what ChatGPT is now providing these students, leveling that playing field. The parents can sit alongside the student while they use ChatGPT and say, “Oh, that’s great. I didn’t know that. I’ve learned something.”

“Remember there’s no real person on the other side who cares”

Stefanie Panke: What are some of the concerns that you have around AI and children? AI in education you mentioned that educators cannot choose to ignore this tool. Educators have a role here, a responsibility, and the duty to be informed, to be at the forefront, and to pass this knowledge on. I can imagine that AI literacy is something that will become a huge topic for all ages and all education levels. What do you think students will need to know to navigate an AI-saturated world? And what are some concerns that you might have?

Helen Crompton: Students need to be digitally literate. That means understanding all kinds of information technologies, not just AI. They need to know how to use these tools and how to be aware. Generative AI, for instance, is powerful. It creates things. But as much as it’s powerful, it can be used for harm. For example, a generative AI could listen to someone’s voice, replicate it, and ask for information they shouldn’t be receiving. We have to prepare students for these telltale signs, just as we do with phishing emails. AI has become so advanced that it can look and sound like us, and not just in static images but in video, too. Deep fakes targeting celebrities and political figures are prevalent. We have to instill in our students a critical awareness. In the Internet age, we joked, “If it’s on the Internet, it must be true.” But now, even seeing isn’t believing. In addition to the dangers of disinformation, we also face issues with tools like ChatGPT. There is the propensity for the AI to “hallucinate” or generate answers that sound correct but aren’t. For instance, if you ask ChatGPT for the world record for crossing the English Channel on foot, it may provide an answer that’s obviously false, but sounds plausible. And while AI can be a valuable tool, students need to understand they’re talking to a machine. They shouldn’t share personal information, and they must remember there’s no real person on the other side who cares. Especially concerning mental health issues, it’s vital to ensure students know the boundaries.

Stefanie Panke: Thank you so much. Each of these topics warrants a much longer discussion, but I want to respect your time. I truly appreciate the work you’re doing in raising awareness and helping educators navigate this new terrain. For those interested in your work, where can they learn more?

Helen Crompton: You can see my work on Google Scholar. I also have a Squarespace website. Generally, I’m easy to find on the Internet.

Video Interview

Watch the complete video interview:

About

Dr. Helen Crompton is a Professor of Instructional Technology at Old Dominion University Virginia USA. She is the Director of the Virtual Reality Lab and the Technology Enhanced Learning Lab (TELL) at ODU and the Executive Director of the Research Institute of Digital Innovation in Learning (RIDIL). She is a highly experienced researcher, educator, author and presenter in the field of educational technology. She draws from over 20 years in education and a PhD in educational technology and mathematics education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Crompton has won numerous awards in the USA and her home country England, and is ranked among the top 2 percent of scientists in educational technology (cf. Ionnidis, 2022). Dr. Crompton has worked with UNESCO and ITU, two divisions of the United Nations, and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Dr Crompton has presented at national and international conferences on the topic of educational technology and published articles, book chapters, and white papers in this field.

The post “You have to know about it because your students will be using it.” An Interview with Helen Crompton appeared first on AACE Review.

How will AI reshape university campuses? Visual created with Bing Image Creator

Mark McNeilly is a Professor of Marketing and Organizational Behavior at UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School, and co-chair of the Generative AI Committee at UNC Chapel Hill. In the interview Mark McNeilly and Stefanie Panke discuss the implications, advantages, and challenges of generative AI in both higher education and the workplace. Mark McNeilly’s advice for faculty is clear: Start using AI tools! Faculty should embrace AI tools like ChatGPT to help with tasks such as writing emails, creating meeting agendas, and formulating lesson objectives. Instructors should test AI on their assignments and exams to anticipate how students might use it. AI can be integrated into course delivery and can assist in content creation, brainstorming, summarizing, and more. Investing time to experiment will allow faculty to understand both strengths and limitations. Despite the hype around AI, McNeilly believes that it’s not going to replace universities or professors anytime soon.

Interview (Edited Text Version)

Stefanie Panke: Thank you so much for agreeing to this interview. To get us started, I would love to know what first brought you to the topic of AI and education. What sparked your interest?

Mark McNeilly: Sure. I come from a technology background. Before transitioning to academia, I worked at IBM for many years and later served as a marketing executive. Having an interest in technology and, as a marketing person, being used to explaining technology in ways that people can understand, I was naturally drawn to AI. When I first came across ChatGPT in November, I was amazed by its capabilities and saw immense possibilities. In January, I began contacting colleagues within UNC to discuss the potential applications and implications of AI.

Stefanie Panke: Can you talk about the role of the Generative AI Committee at UNC Chapel Hill and the steps the committee is taking to prepare students and faculty for an AI-infused world?

Mark McNeilly: I serve as a co-chair of the UNC Generative AI Committee alongside Dean Stan Ahalt, the Dean of the School of Data Science and Society at UNC. Our primary focus is on providing resources and guidance for students and faculty. We’re creating training programs and consolidating all our resources on a website available to the UNC community and the public (https://provost.unc.edu/generative-ai-employee-resources/). Our goal is to offer guidance on how to use AI ethically and appropriately, while also considering the strategic leverage of AI in teaching and research.

Stefanie Panke: Which AI tools do you frequently use?

Mark McNeilly: I often use ChatGPT, especially the GPT-4 version because of its improved performance and features. I also use Bing’s tools, which offers Internet connectivity and image creation capabilities. I also use Midjourney to create images for presentations and for my Substack newsletter, Mimir’s Well, where I write about AI and other topics.

Stefanie Panke: That brings me to my next question. I wanted to get your opinion on transformations in the job market. Which sectors do you believe will be most impacted? Are we doing enough, and what should we be doing to prepare our students for these changes?

Mark McNeilly: There will indeed be many sectors affected. Take the legal profession, for instance. It’s set to experience significant disruptions due to AI automation. This has both pros and cons. On one hand, automation can eliminate tedious tasks and enhance productivity and creativity. On the other hand, it might disrupt many jobs, even eliminating some while creating new ones. Legal is just one of the industries that’s poised for major changes. Generative AI might eliminate some lower level jobs there. However, it will also introduce new legal challenges, leading to potential job creation. For instance, companies specializing in generative AI may end up hiring more lawyers than programmers due to legal challenges arising from content use and data scraping. Beyond legal, sectors like healthcare, sales, marketing, and most office jobs are also likely to be impacted. According to a Goldman Sachs study, between 25 to 50% of tasks in cognitive jobs might be affected by these changes.

Stefanie Panke: I have talked to students who expressed concerns that generative AI will undermine the value of their academic achievements. Since a machine can theoretically pass exams and submit a thesis, they’re worried their degrees might become meaningless. How would you address these concerns?

Mark McNeilly: It’s essential to recognize that the rise of AI will alter what we value in the workforce. David Brooks from the New York Times remarked that in the age of AI, we should major in being human. While AI might take over certain tasks, it will amplify human attributes. We’ll always need domain-specific knowledge, imagination, and the drive to ask the right questions. Furthermore, traits like extroversion, charisma, and the ability to build networks will become even more critical.

One area where we’re probably failing in higher education is ensuring students are adaptable and resilient and able to cope with uncertainty because the future is going to be even more dynamic.

In the end, yes, generative AI skills are essential, but it will take years for this new technology landscape to fully evolve. 80% of the people I talk to have either never tried it or tried it once or twice and quit. So there’s a very small group of people who are actually using AI. The majority are still unfamiliar with it, and there’s significant inertia within organizations. There’s a huge amount of bottlenecks and challenges in organizations to get people to adopt AI. I expect it’s several years probably for this whole thing to play out.

Stefanie Panke: In a recent article you posted on Substack, you discussed three paradoxes of AI: It acts as both a great equalizer and a significant divider. It has inhuman capabilities, yet sometimes it’s better at emulating human behavior. It’s a force of both creation and destruction. Could you elaborate on how you formulated these three lenses for looking at AI?

Mark McNeilly: The impact of AI really varies depending on the type of job. For instance, there was a study concerning customer service roles. When AI tools were introduced, the performance of novices improved significantly, nearly reaching the level of the experts. The experts showed little to no improvement. In this context, AI served as a great equalizer, bridging the gap between newcomers and seasoned professionals.

In some domains, like coding, novices found it took them longer to complete tasks using AI compared to veterans in the field. The seasoned coders leveraged AI to further enhance their efficiency. In this way, AI can serve as an inequalizer. The outcome largely depends on the nuances of the job and the specific skills that are required. This raises questions about how employers will adapt to these shifts, influencing their hiring and potentially letting employees go.

When considering the “better human than humans” paradox, AI often outperforms us in accuracy, speed, and breadth of domain knowledge. For instance, an AI can exhibit more “human-like” traits than some professionals, displaying better bedside manners than certain doctors due to its infinite patience and 24/7 availability. It can assist in creative tasks, such as generating analogies or brainstorming. However, for highly specialized tasks, AI currently cannot match human expertise. Though it has vast memory and can be cost-effective, AI remains a significant investment.

Lastly, the creator and destroyer dichotomy is analogous to the Hindu deity, Shiva, representing creation, destruction, and transformation. Generative AI, as implied by its name, has the capacity to innovate – it can produce new content, tools, use cases, and even new jobs like AI engineers. Conversely, it will also lead to obsolescence in certain jobs and tools, reshaping entire industries.

It’s going to transform our world. We’re still starting out, it’s going to take a lot of time, but it’s pretty clear that these transformations are going to occur and that they’re going to be massive in their impact.

Stefanie Panke: What advice would you give other faculty, especially those who have not touched any AI tools yet or belong to that large group of people who have used it once or twice and then thought, “Oh, that’s not for me.”

Mark McNeilly: You have to realize that we are all prompters now. Start using tools like ChatGPT, at least version 3.5. Begin by using it as a search alternative for some things. Test it against traditional search. Consider using it to help draft emails or meeting agendas. Also, set aside specific times to start using it. Begin testing your assignments and exams with it to gauge its performance, then adjust as needed. Incorporate guidelines in your syllabus regarding AI use, and hopefully, your university provides guidance on that, too. The AI committee at UNC has been working on this (https://provost.unc.edu/student-generative-ai-usage-guidance/). Think about how you can use it to improve your teaching and how your students can benefit from it in their assignments. For example, ask it for lesson objectives or a 10-question quiz on a subject you’re teaching. You can also use it to summarize articles, request analogies on a topic, or even seek out examples relevant to what you are teaching. Experiment with it. See how it can assist you, and integrate it into your courses.

Stefanie Panke: Thank you so much for your insightful answers. If people want to follow your work or learn more, where can they find you?

Mark McNeilly: My Substack is primarily focused on AI. My latest piece is on how AI will impact universities and professors. And despite the hype, I don’t believe AI will replace us anytime soon. If people want some reassurance, they can read my article titled, “Why Universities and Professors Aren’t Going Away Anytime Soon.”

Video Interview

Watch the full-length video interview:

About

Mark McNeilly teaches in the areas of marketing and organizational behavior in the full-time MBA and online MBA@UNC programs. He serves as a faculty advisor for the STAR program and executive coach in the Leadership program. Professor McNeilly served as a global marketing executive and has several years of experience with both IBM and Lenovo in the IT industry. His business background includes branding, strategy, marketing, market intelligence, management, manufacturing and personnel. He is the author of a popular strategy book based on Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” titled “Sun Tzu and the Art of Business: Six Strategic Principles for Managers” as well as “George Washington and the Art of Business: Leadership Principles of America’s First Commander-in-Chief,” both from Oxford University Press.  Professor McNeilly received his MBA with honors from the University of Minnesota and his BS in finance from the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse.

The post ‘We’re all Prompters Now!’ An Interview with Mark McNeilly appeared first on AACE Review.

Alec Couros promotes playful, creative, and curious, yet critical exploration of AI: These images are examples of AI-generated avatars he has shared on social media

Alec Couros is a distinguished professor of educational technology and media and the Director of the Centre for Teaching and Learning at the University of Regina. He is an expert in the field of educational technology and very early on has been working on concrete examples for integrating AI into education. He has given several talks on the topic of AI in teaching and learning, including a session offered by the CTL in January 2023. In his trainings and talks, he explores the potential and implications of using generative AI, such as ChatGPT, in teaching and learning. He provides instructors with the tools, resources, and ideas needed to better understand and embrace generative AI in the classroom. At the same time, Alec Couros is cognizant of the threats AI poses for society by increasing cybercrime and by making it exceedingly difficult to discern facts from fiction.

In the interview we explore topics such as the role of AI in assessment, the potential for AI-generated learning content, the shifting role of instructional designers, the importance of media and information literacy, and the ethical considerations and imperatives surrounding AI technology, specifically critical thinking, intellectual property, trust-building, and equitable access.

Alec points out that traditional assignments and assessments will need to change: “We won’t be able to detect AI generated writing anytime soon”. Assessments will need to focus more on process-oriented and AI-assisted approaches. He warns against creating a silo in higher education where people work and write different than in the real world: “We have to learn how to learn. But we have to also learn how to learn with AI”. Alec views the integration of AI from the perspective of universal design for learning, aiming to offer tools that are advantageous for all students and are both standardized and easily accessible. He points out that while certain vendors might have higher costs, there are open-source alternatives that are worth exploring. These options could potentially deliver AI solutions that could be implemented across campuses in the near future.

Alec brings up the intriguing (and scary) idea that AI could potentially generate new educational content, such as courses or lectures, in the style of a specific professor based on their past lectures and publications. This would involve using AI to analyze an instructor’s existing body of work, including published papers and recorded lectures, and then synthesizing that information to create new educational materials that mimic the instructor’s style, approach, and expertise. This raises questions about the implications for preserving and extending an instructor’s influence even after their retirement or passing. It also prompts considerations about intellectual property rights, ethical concerns, and the potential impact on the authenticity of education.

AI can assist in generating various learning materials and artifacts be it instructional videos, questions, quizzes or interactive content, making it easier and faster to develop educational resources that align with sound instructional strategies. Alec predicts that the role of instructional designers may shift towards supervising and ensuring the accuracy and pedagogical appropriateness of AI-generated content: “supervising the content that’s developed, making sure that it’s logically sounds, and it’s pedagogically sound”.

Alec highlights the concern that AI can be used by cybercriminals to create sophisticated phishing emails and scams, emphasizing the need for public education to enhance media and information literacy: “Seeing is no longer believing. … If we understand that and we can help students and the general public to have a skeptic’s mindset… we’ll have a better society.”

Video Interview

Watch the complete interview here:

Edited Text Version 

Getting Started with AI

Stefanie Panke: What initially sparked your interest in AI, and what led you to take swift action in compiling these early training resources?

Alec Couros: AI has been present for decades in various forms. My engagement with AI began through social media and the early internet era, dealing with algorithms and smart devices. In late 2022, I discovered ChatGPT on an online Reddit forum. While it quickly gained popularity, I recognized its potential for personalized assistance in education, aligning with my focus on personalized learning, particularly from my experience with social media. The interest in educational technology, particularly from the personalized learning perspective, was what drew me in. It felt like there was instant promise. Now, a few months later, the world has changed, and things are rapidly evolving.

Stefanie Panke: I’m curious about the AI tools you’re currently using. Could you share what’s open in your browser tabs right now?

Alec Couros: I’m currently using Midjourney for images, experimenting and having fun on social media. Perplexity is quite interesting for its research assistance. Of course, ChatGPT with its plugins and code interpreter is a significant one. Here I am using the advanced pro version. I also use Bing on my Edge browser occasionally, and every now and then, I will use Google Bard, though I still find the results quite poor in comparison. Occasionally, I explore tools like Synthesia to create avatars or WellSaid Labs for voice generation. I’m also using Tome, which helps create small presentations. I’m constantly using tools for various purposes, some for practical reasons and others to push the limits and understand these tools better, so I can guide others who might use them.

Stefanie Panke: In my role as digital pedagogy coach I’ve noticed a significant divide among faculty. Some, like you, are early adopters and tech-savvy, while many others, across different subjects, have yet to use any AI tools. To overcome the fear barrier, I often emphasize how these tools can enhance efficiency and productivity in their teaching. Are there specific tools you find effective for faculty, and how do you suggest they approach AI in terms of gaining teaching benefits and efficiency gains?

Alec Couros: You’re right, productivity and efficiency are important aspects of these tools. I’ve found that some administrative tasks can be streamlined using AI. These tools can help automate certain tasks, freeing up more time for creative and engaging aspects of teaching. I’ve experienced increased efficiency by using AI tools for tasks like sending messages to campus and conducting preliminary research on articles.  It’s given me more time to do to to do things that I that I I typically use a lot of labor for. So I I often hear the expression ‘outside outsource your labor, not your thinking’. For instance, in preparing for my teaching, I can quickly update my syllabus and improve it with assistance from tools like ChatGPT or Claude. Spending time with my children co-creating stories and exploring early literacy to middle and high school literacy with AI has been a lot of fun. This approach aligns with the idea of outsourcing labor but not critical thinking.

AI in Higher Ed

Stefanie Panke: That’s a great perspective! In a recent conversation with master students about AI, I heard the concern that generative AI might devalue academic credentials. Since AI can complete tasks such as applying for programs, passing tests, and submitting essays, this will potentially undermine the significance of degrees. How do you respond to these concerns?

Alec Couros: Our assessments and assignments must evolve. Faculty should understand that detecting AI-generated writing won’t be feasible in the near future. OpenAI ceased work on their text classifier tool designed to distinguish between human and AI concepts. Other platforms like Turnitin focus on reducing false positives, which implies lingering issues. These tools are susceptible to manipulation, rendering long-term effectiveness questionable. We need to shift towards process-oriented assessments with AI assistance, offering insights into AI-supported learning, so we don’t have to create this silo of higher ed, where we are learning and working in a way that we don’t do it in the real world. We have to learn how to learn. But we have to also learn how to learn with AI. Rethinking creativity and evaluating student work’s authenticity become essential factors in this context.

A the same time, we have to think about equity issues. Obviously, we’re going to have students in the classroom who have varied levels of access to some of the AI tools. Some can afford the premium products, others cannot. Those who can afford the premium products will have an even greater advantage on top of the socioeconomic advantages that they already have within that equation. So we have to be thoughtful about how we actually make the class equitable, and make the tools equitable in our assessments and in the way that we rethink learning. We have to kind of think from a universal design for learning aspect is, try to provide tools that will benefit all learners and make them standard and accessible, and I think we we can do that. Some of the vendors, of course, will be more expensive, but there are open source solutions that we can look at, so that we can potentially provide AI solutions across campus in the in the very near future.

Information Literacy, Deep Fakes and Trust Networks

Stefanie Panke: What I love about your work is that it is optimistic and playful around technologies, but not uncritical. So I’ve also learned from your postings and from your social media postings and your writings around AI that you are definitely concerned, that AI will allow cyber criminals to create extremely sophisticated phishing emails and elaborate scams.

Alec Couros – CTL: There’s been studies on how generative AI amplifies disinformation and false information it to a greater extent. Deepfakes, for example, complicate the authentication of individuals, which I’m familiar with due to my encounters with catfishing scams. It just gets easier and easier to take anyone’s face, anyone that’s successful on the Internet. I can put you into any situation. I can make a video of you and so on. There are really very few safeguards to detect this. Companies have been talking about digital watermarks, but it’s going to be very difficult to do, because there’s no standard protocol for the way that these tools are developed.

Seeing is no longer believing. Ultimately the safeguards need to rely on better public education. This always comes down to media and information literacy education. If we  can help student and the general public to have a skeptics mindset we will have a better society.

Stefanie Panke: How will we evaluate the information that we encounter online in a future of AI saturated content?

Alec Couros – CTL: We can’t fit knowledge into checklists anymore. There are people like Michael Caulfield who put together a really great free book called “Web Literacy for Student Fact Checkers.” He looks at better strategies, such as lateral reading, for instance, and not focusing so much on the artifact, but focusing much more on the source. I think that van be applied to audiovisual media: What is the source of these images? Are they credible sources? Focusing more on the communicator rather than the communication, that’s going to be really important. If we spend time trying to analyze the accuracy of every single artifact that emerges, we’ll never get anywhere, and we’ll always have doubt. So we have to learn how to find trusted sources. There will be technologies down the road that will be controversial but will provide an added layer of trust. If you look at OpenAI’s venture into Worldcoin, where people are doing retinal scans, it has some benefits to it, but there are also many privacy implications about having your retinal scan available to a company to identify you across the network. So there are always issues with that because our biometrics are going to play a big part and they can be compromised and used in very bad ways. At the same time, they’re also essential to authenticating trust through networks.

Future of Instructional Design

Stefanie Panke: Let’s talk about the job market. How will AI change the field and profession of instructional design? And what other job sectors will have similar severe transformations? Are we doing enough to prepare our students for this?

Alec Couros : So instructional design is an interesting area. It’s a place where we are seeing types of tools that are assisting in the development of learning artifacts and learning tools that used to be created exclusively by instructional designers. But now it can be done through AI. For example, someone can upload an instructional video, and you can create a number of artifacts from that video that will align with sound instructional strategies or reinforcement strategies around the content itself. I think the shift for instructional designers is less about the actual development of content and much more about AI supervision, reviewing the content that AI develops, making sure that it is logically and pedagogically sound.

I think we’ll see more of that. The accuracy and pedagogical appropriateness will be increasingly entrusted to instructional designers, while deferring more to AI capabilities for the mechanics of developing artifacts, especially for e-learning courses.

When you think about academics, consider what’s happening in Hollywood. The concept of generating new episodes for shows like South Park, Seinfeld, or Friends using AI is analogous. AI can place human actors in novel situations they’ve never encountered or agreed to. Extending this idea to e-learning, we might reach a point where retired instructors could have AI-generated courses created using their expertise, even if they’re no longer available.

Generating new content, courses, or updating existing courses based on an instructor’s published papers or previous artifacts is indeed feasible. Instances where students continue learning from videos after a professor’s passing have been documented. This raises questions about personnel, licensing rates, content ownership, and the exclusivity of rights. Both instructors and universities, along with their respective unions, need to consider how to license content when developed by instructors that may extend beyond the purpose and creation of discrete artifacts.

I think there are incredible applications for that type of thing. But at the same time we have to think about whether the output is accurate, respectful, whether this is ethical practice, whether the intellectual property aspects are covered.

The practices around distance learning in particular are going to be muddied by AI.  We’re going to have to rethink what it means to to work in an instructional design and online learning setting.

Stefanie Panke: Thank you so much. This was  extremely insightful. For people who want to learn more, where can they find you, follow you and read about your work?

Alec Couros: You can find me on Twitter (@courosa), LinkedIn (Alec Couros), or email me at couros@gmail.com. My website is couros.ca.

About

Dr. Alec Couros is widely recognized as an international leader in the field of educational technology as well as a pioneer in the area of open education. In his 31 years as an educator, Alec has worked as a teacher, youth worker, educational administrator, IT coordinator, consultant, and professor, with employment in K-12 schools, youth justice facilities, technical institutes, and universities. Thanks to this wide spectrum of experiences, Alec has built a reputation as a leading and influential keynote speaker in the areas of digital citizenship, networked learning, social media in education, media literacy, and open education, and he has given hundreds of workshops and presentations across North America and around the world. In addition to his work as an internationally renowned speaker, Alec is a professor of educational technology and media in the Faculty of Education, University of Regina, Canada.

The post “Outsource your labor, not your thinking”: Interview on Generative AI in Education with EdTech Expert Alec Couros appeared first on AACE Review.

An artistic impression of Johannes Cronje and ChatGPT answering interview questions. Created with Microsoft Bing Image Creator

Johannes Cronjé is a Professor at Cape Peninsula University of Technology in South Africa, where he teaches and researches digital teaching and learning in the Information Technology Department. He has supervised more than 140 Masters’ and Doctoral students and published more than 65 peer-reviewed papers on topics such as mobile and blended learning, academic writing, and instructional design. He is a popular keynote speaker at conferences and visiting professor at several universities around the world. As an advocate for open education he offers a free online doctoral program on his website: https://sites.google.com/site/johannescronje/doctor-doctor

As an academic writing coach, Johannes Cronjé was instantly intrigued by the potential of generative AI – in his own words ‘I am completely blown away by how well ChatGPT writes’. He demonstrated the potential in a video in December of last year:  How I wrote a conference call in one minute with ChatGPT Artificial Intelligence.  It did not end with the call for papers: In February of this year, Prof. Cronjé organized the ‘Teaching and Learning with Artificial Intelligence Symposium’ at CPUT.

He is also a pioneer in triangulating the affordances, limitations and boundaries of AI in writing. As an example, he instructed his students  to write a structured literature review using ChatGPT, and used one of the papers to demonstrate how important it is for the author to remain in control of the process: ChatGPT and Literature Reviews.

I am intrigued by the transformative challenges and questions AI poses for the Humanities. In 1935, Walter Benjamin wrote his famous essay about the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Benjamin argued that with reproducibility, both uniqueness and distance are erased; an artwork becomes viewable and possessable at any time and in any place.  Since then, we have seen the Internet, Non-fungible Token art by Bleeple and now the generative power of Dall-E, Midjourney and Bing. What does this mean for the “aura” of art, and what does it mean for the integrity of writing and research?

I think AI is the next technology to help level the playing field. In the same way as the etching press made copies of art available, generative AI “art” is making “original” art available to anyone.  Where techniques of mass production have made good art and good design available to almost anyone, AI now makes unique pieces available to anyone. As far as the “aura” of art is concerned I think we must distinguish between the emotional and economical value of art. Somehow the value of Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” is determined not by market forces, but by a system of galleries and collectors that play in the extremely high value market. But that art that sparks joy, that you just must hang on your wall – it will spark joy regardless of how it was produced. The Marxist in me has a problem with the “aura” anyway – if it speaks of exclusivity. I live in a country that has an almost four-hundred-year history of exclusivity. I am about inclusivity. In the same way as large breweries have made beer available cheaply to the masses, while at the same time opening the way to the craft beer market for people who want something exclusive, AI generated art has the potential to make more people aware of the aesthetics of their visual environment, and when more people put AI images on their walls, more people may possibly want to by hand-crafted art.

As a pioneer could you share some practical insights from your experiment where students wrote structured literature reviews using ChatGPT? How do you strike a balance between leveraging AI tools and maintaining the author’s control in the writing process?

Yes. It was a fascinating experiment. I constructed a series of exercises whereby students searched for appropriate literature using Research Rabbit. I then got them to group their results into themes and make mind maps. Finally they had to convert those into fully fledged literature surveys – and to list the prompts that they used. The results were fascinating. Some students used a single prompt: “Write me a literature survey about X and include 20 citations in Harvard format”. For them ChatGPT produced vacuous text conforming to the format of a structured literature review and containing numerous fake references. Others went through the process step by step, using prompts such as “Give me the proper outline of a literature survey”, “Write an introduction for a literature survey on X”, “Summarize this article”, “Rephrase this paragraph” and “Convert these references into Harvard style”. Interestingly enough, the grading rubric held up. Students who used simple prompts produced essays that showed no rigour, no originality, and most importantly, no internal consistency.  The introduction promised certain things that were not realized in the body or in the conclusions. The citations were fake. Students who followed the process and used ChatGPT to assist them with writing using the sources they found from Research Rabbit fared much better. Those students stuck to their mind map structures. They organized their thoughts themselves, and they used ChatGPT to improve their language, as well as to create introductions and conclusions that followed the sequence of the main text. Such students scored highly on the rubric. Here is a short video to show how I graded one paper:  https://youtu.be/d8xp9dugeOU

For me the main value of the exercise was to show that my students, many of them who speak English as a third, or “another” language, were suddenly able to produce coherent text in which they expressed their own ideas and insights with the assistance of ChatGPT – in the same way as they would have done had they worked with the close assistance of a consultant at the University language center.  Thus, in this way ChatGPT liberated them from the cultural and historical constraints placed upon them.

In your video demonstration of using ChatGPT to write a conference call in one minute, you showcased the capabilities of AI in generating content extremely quickly. How do you see AI shaping the future of academic writing? More specifically, how will it change peer review and journal policies?

I expect that we will begin in the same way as with the introduction of the motor car. We will have a man with a red flag walking ahead of it. We have already seen this with some institutions trying to ban AI generated text all together. And then we saw the immediate rise of AI detection software, coupled with creative ways of bluffing the software by using a series of paraphrasers. In grading my students’ work I learnt very quickly that I did not need software to detect AI – my ordinary abilities of detecting actual stupidity worked well enough. In working with my own graduate students developing academic papers and even theses I have found that AI tools are excellent in suggesting titles, writing abstracts, and re-formulating convoluted paragraphs. The end products of such mundane tasks are usually not flagged by AI writing detectors – mainly because the content is fresh and original – it’s just the syntax and grammar that had been improved.

My take on the ethics of using AI in the production of academic research output is that you should be able to ask AI to do anything that you ask a research assistant to do.  If ethically you would be required to acknowledge the work of the assistant, then you need to acknowledge the AI.

So, I believe that in peer-reviewed journals, it would reduce the times that “reviewer 2” calls for having the work corrected by “a first-language speaker of English”. It will also put more pressure on reviewers to check for originality of thought, since it is possible to ask AI to reproduce a complete paper using another style of writing, different organizing principles, etc. In short – you can plagiarize an entire paper, have it peer-reviewed, checked for plagiarism, etc, and get away with it…

As you organized the ‘Teaching and Learning with Artificial Intelligence Symposium,’ could you share some key takeaways and discussions that emerged during the event?

Some of the key issues:

• AI Lies. It lies a lot, and it lies convincingly. Students are bad lie detectors.
• Students struggle to develop good prompts.
• The best way to deal with AI is to follow a constructivist approach whereby students work with Ai to produce outcomes.

Video recordings and slideshows presented are available for free from the conference website at https://sites.google.com/site/capelearning/

What AI tools are open in your browser right now and what do you use them for?

Hahah.  I have quite a strict protocol about my browser, and there is nothing open now. However, my quick-access menu points to ChatCPT. Bing opens automatically should I use Edge. I use ChatGPT as a general assistant:  “Please change this from passive to active”, “Please change this from 1^st person singular to third person feminine”, “Please rewrite this passage removing redundancies and grouping similar concepts together”; or even “Please draft a multiple-choice test from this text. Indicate the correct answers with *”. I have the free versions of QuillBot and Writefull installed in MSWord, and Google Assistant hangs around in the background, and I use Dall-e to make pictures for slideshows or websites if required.

As a supervisor of graduate students, I tend not to use much software anyway, but I encourage them to use Elicit and Lateral in their literature searches, VOS viewer for visualizing data, and then generally to explore and report back to their peers on their usefulness.

How do you observe the adoption and integration of AI in higher education across different regions? Are there any notable trends or disparities that you’ve noticed?

I think it is one of the technologies that has most equitably distributed itself in the shortest time. My colleagues at universities in India, Ghana, Ethiopia, Norway, Finland, and Canada all use it equally well and with equal healthy skepticism. My colleagues in the US, though, are a little more conservative and are still trying to get it banned.

Overall, do you think artificial intelligence will increase or decrease opportunities for universities in South Africa and similar emerging economy countries?

I once heard it said that it is not AI that will take our jobs, but people working with AI that will. I think there is much truth in this. After all, I will not have laser treatment of my eyes if the doctor does it by hand. Yes. The equalizing effect will work both in emerging and mature economies, but I worry about instances where AI might learn and therefore emphasize our existing biases.

For graduate students who are unsure who to use AI effectively, are there some resources you can recommend?

My collection of resources is here:  https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xqob3f9wee75cc0/AAB6eqRo0VnlFgtxZewBy5yNa?dl=0

I also recommend Dr Andrew Stapleton’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@DrAndyStapleton 

Finally, what are your next endeavors in the field of AI and academic writing?

I am working with a graduate student to develop an automated research proposal writer that will run as an API off ChatGPT.  The app will begin by asking some coaching questions about what motivates the student, then come around to the field of specialty, then ask the student to reflect on their current reality and help the student to get to the best possible match between their situation and a possible research project. Once the match has been established, the AI will assist the student to write the proposal using appropriate literature and the correct format and style.

Here are Chat GPT’s answers to questions 1 and 2: (actually much better than mine…)

Question 1: The advent of AI and digital technologies has indeed brought about transformative challenges and questions for the Humanities, particularly in the realms of art, writing, and research. The concept of “aura” in art, as famously discussed by Walter Benjamin in his 1935 essay, has undergone significant changes in the age of mechanical reproduction, and now AI-driven generative technologies further alter our understanding of it.

Benjamin argued that the “aura” of an artwork is the unique and authentic presence that is tied to its originality and historical context. With mechanical reproduction, such as through photography or printing, an artwork’s uniqueness and distance from the viewer are diminished because multiple copies can be easily created and disseminated. This mass reproducibility detached the art object from its original context, changing the way it was perceived and experienced.

The internet and the recent developments in AI art, represented by Non-fungible Token (NFT) art by artists like Bleeple and generative models like Dall-E, Midjourney, and Bing, further challenge the traditional notions of aura. NFT art, which uses blockchain technology to create unique tokens for digital art pieces, attempts to restore some level of uniqueness and scarcity in the digital realm. On the other hand, AI generative models create new artworks that often challenge the idea of authorship, as they are not created by human hands but by algorithms.

In the context of writing and research, AI poses both opportunities and challenges. AI language models like GPT-3, for instance, can assist researchers and writers by generating content, providing insights, and even automating certain aspects of the writing process. However, this raises questions about the integrity of research and the role of human creativity and critical thinking.

The challenges lie in ensuring that AI-generated content is accurate, unbiased, and ethically sound. Plagiarism and the potential to manipulate information are concerns that need to be addressed. Additionally, the human touch in writing and research, which involves emotions, lived experiences, and subjective insights, might be lost in the process of relying solely on AI-generated content.

In conclusion, the rise of AI-driven technologies in the fields of art, writing, and research has profound implications for the concept of “aura” in art and the integrity of scholarly work. While these technologies offer exciting possibilities, it is essential to approach them thoughtfully, critically, and ethically to strike a balance between the convenience they provide and the preservation of authenticity and human creativity. As the technology continues to evolve, we must continually evaluate its impact on our understanding of art, knowledge, and humanity itself.

Question 2:  As an AI language model, I don’t have personal experiences or the ability to conduct experiments. However, I can provide insights based on how AI tools like ChatGPT can be utilized in the context of structured literature reviews and maintaining author control.

Preparing the research question: Before using AI tools like ChatGPT, it’s crucial to have a well-defined research question or topic. Clearly outline the scope and objectives of the literature review to ensure that the AI-generated content aligns with the author’s intentions.

Using AI as an assistant: AI tools like ChatGPT can be valuable assistants in the literature review process. They can help researchers find relevant sources, suggest potential subtopics, and even provide summaries of existing research. However, it’s essential to treat AI-generated content as a starting point rather than a finished piece.

Setting clear guidelines and constraints: Authors should provide clear guidelines and constraints to the AI model. This can include specifying the preferred style, tone, and depth of analysis. By doing so, authors retain control over the direction and presentation of the literature review.

Reviewing and editing: While AI-generated content can be a time-saver, it’s crucial for authors to review and edit the material thoroughly. AI may not always understand the nuances of the topic, and human oversight is essential to ensure accuracy and coherence.

Citing sources and plagiarism checks: Plagiarism is a significant concern when using AI tools for writing. Authors should ensure that proper citations are included for all AI-generated content and use plagiarism detection software to verify originality.

Integrating human insights: AI can process vast amounts of information, but it lacks the depth of human understanding and insights. Authors should incorporate their own critical analysis, interpretations, and personal perspective to enrich the literature review.

Ethical considerations: Researchers must be mindful of the ethical implications of using AI in scholarly work. It’s essential to acknowledge the contributions of AI tools appropriately and be transparent about their usage in the research process.

Limitations of AI: AI language models like ChatGPT are powerful, but they have limitations. Authors should be aware of these limitations and not rely solely on AI-generated content. Using AI as one of several tools in the writing process can lead to more robust and well-rounded literature reviews.

In summary, leveraging AI tools like ChatGPT in writing structured literature reviews can be beneficial for researchers, but it requires a balanced approach. Authors should use AI as an assistant, set clear guidelines, review and edit the content, and integrate human insights to maintain control over the writing process and produce high-quality, original work.

Let’s agree to disagree on that last point. I prefer the human answers, that never end with ‘In summary’, and are more poignant and fun! Thank you!

About

Johannes Cronjé  is a professor of Digital Teaching and Learning in the Department of Information Technology at the  Cape Peninsula University of Technology.  Prior to that he was the Dean Informatics and Design. He has supervised more than 140 Masters’ and Doctoral students and published more than  65 peer reviewed papers. He is a sought-after international keynote speaker and has been a visiting professor at seven universities internationally.   Full CV

The post Written and Read by AI? An Interview with Johannes Cronjé appeared first on AACE Review.

Barsha Tamang is the co-founder and CEO of Lokopakar, a youth development organization. The organization is offering programs for youth, in particular adolescent girls, in Nepal. The goal is to raise awareness among young people for different pathways in education and overcome the feeling of not being capable. Many Nepal high school students who come from an indigenous background see going abroad and working in low-skill jobs to earn money as their only career path. Most are unaware of their options for attaining higher education and other potential career paths that lead to skilled, higher-wage employment.

Barsha herself is a first-generation female student in her family and the first woman to finish a Master’s degree in her village. She was raised by a single mother who instilled in her the value of education.

Lokopakar recently started a platform and community for first-generation students in Nepal, to help students connect with each other, learn life skills, and network with older students. Among other things, the organizers run a design thinking challenge called ‘Ready Set Design’. In the interview, we talk about design thinking,

What inspired you to start Lokopakar?

Lokopakar aims to create an encouraging atmosphere for students to grow, learn, and thrive without being held back by self-doubt or fear. Lokopakar help disadvantaged youths overcome the feeling of not being enough.

Learning in a fun and safe environment brings greater joy to the learning process compared to approaching it with fear. Overcoming the fear of inadequacy and hesitation to try new things has been a personal goal of mine. This led me to explore ways to change my mindset about learning, and that’s when Lokopakar came into existence – an initiative aimed at addressing feelings of inadequacy and providing a secure space for learning.

Throughout my life, I’ve always strived to achieve more and give my best in everything I do. However, the fear of not being good enough and the possibility of failure often held me back from taking risks. Looking back, I realized that early experiences and missed opportunities shaped my perspective. I wish I had access to such supportive environments from a young age.

In my pursuit to help others not miss out on the opportunities I did, I have been passionate about reaching out to students and providing them with the support they need. Witnessing their success and happiness in their learning journey has been my inspiration to establish Lokopakar and continue this transformative journey.

Over the years, I have worked with thousands of students through various grassroots projects like Scitrek and ThinkInk. My co-founder and I always knew that we wanted to make a positive impact in the field of education, especially in the lives of students who often feel inadequate – particularly girls. I, too, have experienced these emotions. Recognizing the lack of safe spaces where personal stories can be shared and skills can be learned inclusively, Lokopakar was born as a platform to provide a secure environment for youth to express themselves and learn from one another. All our programs are designed to help young individuals overcome their feelings of inadequacy.

What are the biggest challenges that first-generation students in Nepal face and how does Lokopakar help students overcome these challenges?

During our sessions at three public schools, we discovered that 50 out of 59 girls were first-generation students. These students, particularly girls, face daily challenges in their coursework, especially with getting homework help and with seeking consultation and support from teachers. These daily challenges turn into ongoing problems, as they struggle to navigate school and high school while trying to find the right resources and individuals to support them. Furthermore, there are long-term challenges related to mapping their education and career journey, as well as creating a successful future for themselves.

First-generation students often lack the necessary support, as their immediate family and peers may not have the experience and knowledge to guide them, having not pursued higher education before. Without adequate support, many of these students face failure, and rapid dropout, and may end up disengaging from the education system altogether.

Lokopakar is the first organization dedicated to supporting first-generation students in Nepal. We address a range of challenges, from helping with homework through peer groups to guiding them in career mapping using various tools. Our activity-based programs aim to facilitate the learning process for these students, focusing on crucial life skills such as public speaking, communication, critical thinking, and goal setting. These skills have a lasting impact on the lives of first-generation students.

In addition, we connect experienced first-generation students with current first-generation students, allowing them to share their experiences and reduce the learning curve. The idea of mentorship among public school students is new. We find it is particularly effective for first-generation students. Lokopakar aims to create a larger community of first-generation students and foster a strong support system through mentorship and shared experiences.

‘I want to study pharmacy but I did not know anyone who had done pharmacy but I was connected to a pharmacist sister by Lokopakar, talking with her I now know what I should study and how I should plan ahead. I also figured out we had similar interests in singing and we talk about that too’. – Supriya Manandhar, Banepa.

One of the support goals of your organization is breaking the English language barrier. Can you explain why this is so important?

Through our work with thousands of students in public schools, we discovered that many of them struggle with feelings of inadequacy and lack confidence in the English language. The feeling of not being good enough in English not only hampers their learning of the English language but also directly impacts their confidence level and how they approach their everyday life.

The majority of these students are first-generation learners, and this fear of not being good enough leads them to compare themselves with students from private schools. This harmful comparison prevents them from seizing opportunities and setting ambitious goals for themselves.

In a survey by Lokopar, out of 85 students, 80 lacked confidence in reading, writing, and speaking English. Additionally, 83 out of 85 were actively seeking programs or sessions to improve their English language skills beyond just treating it as a subject. The students really want to learn but they do not know where to start. We provide guidance and resources for improving English to build a mindset that helps them overcome their fear of the English language.

In Nepal, the High School Leaving Exams (SLC) hold immense importance as they are considered a crucial milestone. Over 90% of students who fail these exams do so in subjects like Maths, English, or Science. The SLC results significantly impact the opportunities and choices available to students. Since many aspire to study abroad or secure better job prospects, English proficiency becomes a crucial barrier. If students are not fluent, they miss out on potential opportunities.

At Lokopakar, we focus on laying a strong foundation for students to learn the English language independently, fostering their confidence in using it effectively. This not only empowers them to seize present-day opportunities but also opens doors for the future. As their proficiency and comfort with the English language grow, so do their life opportunities.

‘My favorite subject is English because all the answers are in the passage, but I feel afraid to speak in English because I feel I will make mistakes and my friends will laugh about it’ – Bhawana Ghimire.

Can you talk some more about your work with local schools, specifically the design thinking challenge called ‘Ready Set Design’?

For the past 8 years, I have been conducting Ready Set Design, especially for public school students both physically and virtually. The design thinking challenge is a 90-minute session where students identify problems and work on their solutions creating prototypes.

The education system in Nepal leans heavily towards theory rather than practical application, leaving little room for hands-on activities. Personally, I have always believed in giving students the opportunity to view things from different perspectives and approach learning in a practical manner, even with limited resources. In Nepal, every school faces resource constraints, but our program strives to empower students to think outside the box and empathize with stakeholders, and solve real-world problems. This approach encourages them to generate innovative ideas and take ownership of their learning.

To give an example: One group of students made a duster out of the old clothes found in their home to solve the problem of scarcity of dusters in the class. They even created a rotation roster for making dusters so that it will not be a burden to one student alone. This shows that students can implement solutions and understand planning tools.

‘The activity helped me learn teamwork and how we can solve our own problems with the resources we have, rather than depending upon others for the solution’. – Yungdung Sangmo, Dolpa.

How do you measure the impact of Lokopakar’s work?

A shy girl Manaswi turned to a cohort coordinator where she led 30 girls in her cohort.

When we asked Kriti to say her name in English she refused it. After attending one session she started using full sentences in English and now without hesitation speaks in English.

Students raise their hands to come to the front and speak when they did not even look up from their desks during the first session.

They gained confidence with a huge smile on their face.

These students are what matters, and these stories, beyond any numerical measures, is what documents the impact of Lokopakar’s work.

The steps we have taken might not yield immediate visible results, but they are paving the way for a transformative shift in our mindsets for the future. Our ultimate goal is to instill a unique perspective called ‘Soch – perspectives,’ which encourages thinking, visualizing, and acting in unconventional ways without the fear of failure.

We gauge our impact by observing the continuously evolving perspectives of the students, and in the process, we find our own views and thoughts evolving as well. Witnessing these changes and growth in both the students and ourselves brings a profound sense of personal satisfaction. Knowing that we are contributing to positive changes in the future of these students is an achievement that holds great significance for me.

What advice would you give to other first-generation students who are interested in pursuing higher education?

There are plenty of opportunities that exist but we are unaware of them, because of our limited circle and no one to guide us. Education connects us globally and provides access to individuals who can open up a world of opportunities and networks for us.

Pursuing higher education and moving towards your passion can be terrifying but there are individuals who have been through a similar journey. They can show the path and help in this journey.

There are times when one may not see the importance of education and find the motivation to continue it. But education provides knowledge and skills that help you achieve your goals. It will provide valuable connections and networks that lead to opportunities and growth. Education not only helps you as an individual but also helps bring positive change to your parents and community as a whole.

About

Barsha Tamang is Cofounder of Lokopakar, Nepal based company founded in 2019 for Youth development focused on adolescent girls. Lokopakar has worked with over 4500+ girls in Nepal and Nigeria. Barsha ideated ‘Strength TogetHER’ – safe space and support platform for girls to share their experiences and stories to develop a sense of “I am Enough”. Before Lokopakar, she has been involved with different innovative programs including Scitrek – practical science lessons for rural schools, ThinkInk – design thinking for students and Sukarmi – girls financial independence project through social data collection. She strongly believes in creating an inclusive social support system to help each other grow. Barsha was a mentee of Mission Director of USAID in a Women Leadership Mentorship program by the UK Embassy. She was awarded Princess Helen Shah Inspiration Women Award, prestigious award for young inspiring Women. She is also an alumni of Aspire Leadership Program 2022. Barsha loves hiking and trekking. She likes meeting new people and dogs. She enjoys nature and loves taking pictures of it.

The post Supporting First-Generation Students in Nepal: An Interview with Barsha Tamang about Design Thinking, Youth Advocacy, and ESL appeared first on AACE Review.

Great keynotes, fantastic food, interactive workshops, interesting talks, and a lively poster session: 300 participants from 40 different countries enjoyed a truly joyful conference week. The computer science department at the University of Vienna provided the perfect venue for informal encounters, informative presentations, critical debate and collegial discussions. As Liandi Van den Berg and Robyn Bunt stated during their excellent conference presentation on faculty learning communities of practice: “Digital transformation necessitates higher education institutions to embrace a change process where faculty need digital dexterity”. The conference certainly was an opportunity to increase dexterity – not only in virtual settings, but also in terms of pedagogies, learning design, and learning sciences.

Manu Kapur opened the conference with a fantastic keynote on productive failure

Conference Themes

While unsurprisingly ChatGPT was a major draw, attendees could choose among diverse innovative pedagogy and technology talks. AI in Education, Making and Design Thinking, Immersive Virtual Worlds, Micro-credentials and Open Pedagogy were four themes with strong representation. This summary highlights selected talks, posters and workshops for each theme.

AI in Education

I had a wonderful time facilitating a workshop on ‘AI in Education’ on the first day of the conference. I wasn’t sure what to expect and was pleasantly surprised to have almost 40 participants who were highly engaged and a wonderful, appreciative and inquisitive audience. Workshop material is accessible here: go.unc.edu/ai

Among the many talks on AI, Martin Ebner’s literature review stood out to me, as well as the exciting work by Fawzi Benmessaoud from Indiana University on FazBoard, an AI assistant and digital canvas.

Three AI-related contributions were among the award winners:

• AI in the Classroom: An Evaluation and Design Framework for Educational Chatbots 
• Everyone is Talking: Artificial Intelligence + Chatbot for Improving Oral Proficiency in EFL Classrooms 
• Evaluation of the Potential Usage of ChatGPT for Providing Easier Reading Materials for ESL Students 

Micro-credentials and Open Pedagogy

Keynote by Mark Brown on ‘rewilding’ education

The conference ended on Friday with a thought-provoking keynote by Mark Brown that discussed different policy frameworks and value orientations for the use of micro-credentials and open pedagogy.

An excellent contribution on micro-credentials came from South Africa. Marieta Jansen van Vuuren and Robyn Bunt described the use of badges for professional development recognition. I had the pleasure to present on the implementation of badging and pathways within the public leadership and recognition program for elected officials at UNC School of Government.

Robyn Bunt on Badging

Jason Caudill from King University (US) shared his experiences with the design of a multi-course graduate concentration utilizing only OER texts for the learning materials: Developing A Multi-Course Online Graduate Specialization with Open Education Resources Together with Israt Jahan Oeeshi I had another open pedagogy paper as part of the conference, documenting the’Strong Schools’ course at the Asian University for Women (AUW). During the poster session, I enjoyed meeting instructional design colleagues from the Open Learning Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University.

Tinkering, Making & Design Thinking

Anna Iarotska with participants and organizers after her keynote

She was my favorite conference keynote – and competition for this title was stiff: The entrepreneur Anna Iarotska shared her team’s journey from a local hackerspace in Vienna to the technology hub of Shenzhen, China and finally to a large roll-out of the tinkering robotic kit RoboWunderkind at public schools across the United States.

Three papers discussed Design Thinking in education: Thilo Harth and I talked about our playful pedagogy workshops at Muenster University. In a parallel session, JeeEun Jang, Yujung Lee & Seyoung Kim explored Design Thinking in the context of education in emergencies: Development of Refugee Education Content Using Design Thinking. One of the final sessions shared a case study with pre-service teacher candidates (Design Thinking Approach to Developing Measures to Improve Prospective English Teachers’ Digital Competences).

A paper by Martin Ebner and colleagues offered a perspective on integrating making into the curriculum: Makification – Bridging the Gap between Formal and Maker Education. Kevin Oliver presented a study conducted on makerspaces and design studios across the University of North Carolina (UNC) state university system in the United States: Characterizing Higher Education Innovation in the Context of the Campus Makerspace/Design Studio

Immersive Virtual Worlds

Corinna Stiefelbauer presenting her poster on immersive technologies at WU Vienna

Virtual worlds, augmented reality, and metaverse applications were covered with numerous high-quality contributions. One example: The Best Poster award for Innovating Teaching and Learning with Immersive Technologies at WU Vienna was unanimously awarded by the conference committee. Attendees looking for an in-depth overview were well served with the workshop by Jose Garcia Estrada and Sebastian Rauh “Digital Shadows and Digital Twins as Exercise for Integrating XR in Higher Education”.

Another award-winning poster documented the journey of developing and delivering training courses in virtual worlds. Arkio was used as an immersive and collaborative spatial design platform for learners to design an office building in a virtual environment. Pacelab WEAVR was used as the software to create and use procedural training in a fully immersive virtual environment. Learn more: An empirical study of using Arkio and Pacelab WEAVR for immersive learning in vocational training

Awards and Proceedings

The following papers and posters were recognized with an award:

You can access the award papers as open access in the conference proceedings. Even better: access the entire archive of 35 years of EdMedia proceedings on LearnTechLib. A wealth of information to research trends and trajectories- and perhaps the material of your next conference contribution.

My Personal Conference Tips

• Attend at least one workshop – the longer format will offer you a deep dive that the typical conference presentation cannot convey.
• Spend ample time at the poster session – the interactive ‘walk-and-talk’ format is a great way to review a lot of material and chat with presenters while standing and walking around – a nice break from sitting all day.
• Attend a keynote conversation – the keynote conversations at EdMedia follow the keynote talk. This format allows you to ask questions and have in-depth discussions with renowned experts.
• Enjoy the community – AACE is where you meet your friends. This conference is a closely-knit community.

See you next year!

Congratulations to the organizers, presenters, reviewers, and attendees to an excellent gathering. A special thank you to the local conference chair Edgar Weippl. Next year’s conference will take place in the first week of July, the location to be announced soon.

The post 35 Years of EdMedia: Joyful 2023 Conference in Vienna, the Quality of Life Capital appeared first on AACE Review.

“The organizational culture and discipline sub-cultures influence the art of the possible”.

Professor Mark Brown is Ireland’s first Chair in Digital Learning and Director of the National Institute for Digital Learning (NIDL). The NIDL is a research institute at Dublin City University (DCU) that was founded in 2013. The NIDL’s mission is to lead the development of new digital learning technologies and practices that can transform lives and societies. The NIDL Digital Learning Research Network brings together researchers from around the world to collaborate on digital learning research. Professor Brown’s research is a deliberate effort to ensure his work has a critical edge, is globally connected and locally relevant, with a strong emphasis on transforming lives and societies.

The NIDL team has a number of research and development projects related to the use, implementation and evaluation of micro-credentials in higher education. Can you describe the focus and scope of NIDL’s research?

Our team is engaged in a wider range of externally funded projects that range from the macro policy level to more meso-level and micro-level initiatives. For example, at the macro-level, we recently completed a major report on different quality assurance approaches around the world to digital education on behalf of the OECD. In Ireland, we have a related contract with our National Quality Assurance Agency to lead the development of new quality assurance guidelines for digital education, applicable to both universities and private education providers. Another project called ENCORE+ funded by the European Commission and led by the International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE), involves the development of a European Network for harnessing the potential of Open Educational Resources (OER) for education and business. These are just three examples of projects we are currently actively engaged in researching. Another interesting project funded by the European Commission is called “Hacking Innovative Pedagogies (HIP), where we are trying to rewild traditional models of higher education. We have recently published our first report which conceptualizes the digital education ecosystem like an Atlas.

What fascinates you about micro-credentials and where do you see transformative potential as well as barriers?

The micro-credentialing movement is partly driven by the wider unbundling movement and has the potential to be highly disruptive and transformative. Depending on how educators respond to powerful change forces, micro-credentials potentially challenge the old 19^th Century model of recognition and the even the traditional status of university qualifications. However, it’s much more likely that micro-credentials will be positioned as merely supplementary to existing macro-credentials (i.e., university degrees) and have minimal impact on the currency of what counts as a credible credential. So, the fascinating aspect of the micro-credentialing movement is this tension and the battle to redefine the traditional credential ecology. You can read more about what’s happening in this space at the Micro-credential Observatory that I personally maintain to track the latest policy developments and research publications in the area.

How should higher education institutions respond strategically to micro-credentials?

The first question that educational leaders need to ask is whether micro-credentials are a good fit for their institution. The answer to this question should not be taken for granted and it really depends on answering a related question of “why micro-credentials?”. What are the strategic drivers for your institution? Are they to expand access to lifelong learning, to help people upskill for the changing nature of work or to introduce a new revenue stream for your institution? Irrespective of your answer to these questions, the right leadership, institutional structures, and business models will be crucial. For this reason, I recently published an article with a couple of colleagues which alerts educational leaders to the types of questions they need to be asking in response to micro-credentials.

Do you remember your own first digital badge?

Yes, and it was dropped in my trash box within minutes of receiving the email with the attached badge. Why? Well, the digital badge had no currency. I was not required to undertake any assessment to earn the badge and it was simply awarded as recognition of my participation in a professional learning event. Compared to my macro-credentials completed over several years at reputable universities, the badge had no status.

The NIDL project OpenGame aims to contribute to the uptake of Open Education Resources and Open Education Practices among educators in Higher Education. What are some of the persistent barriers for the widespread adoption of OER and Open Pedagogy?

This is a good question and is the focus of a forthcoming special issue of the journal Open Praxis, where I have a short opinion piece. Watch the journal for news of this special issue. I could talk at length but in many respects the major barriers are similar to those for other digital innovations in education. Firstly, the organizational culture and discipline sub-cultures influence the art of the possible. To quote Peter Drucker, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast. Secondly, educators’ traditional mindsets and pedagogical beliefs play a crucial role in mediating how any new digital technology, including OER is used or not in their classrooms. A related point is that if instructors see education as merely delivering content to learners, then the easy default option is to adopt traditional resources such as [digital] textbooks as they often come with pre-packaged online tests and quizzes that make automated assessment easy for them. This example also reveals an inherent flaw in the OER movement as access to free content does not confer any transformative pedagogical advantage. Put another way, content alone does not transform pedagogy. Finally, we should not overlook the political economy of “EdTech” as the big commercial platforms and providers continue to dominate the development of many educational solutions. In this regard, the battle for openness is part of a much larger social practice.

NIDL is a formal editorial partner of the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, a top ranked open access journal. As someone with many decades of experience, how has open access scholarship changed and shaped the field of learning sciences and educational technology?

As someone with a personal commitment to open scholarship, I believe we now have many more places and spaces to disseminate our work. Indeed, one count of the publications in the field of EdTech, identified over 270 journals, with the majority now open access. However, this raises a problem of quality and also the reality that no one person could possibly stay abreast of everything that is being published weekly, monthly or yearly. A related concern is a difficulty of finding sufficient time for deep reading as we struggle to keep on top of the daily morass of emails whilst zooming between meetings and managing our busy schedules. Arguably, quick, hasty and casual modes of reading limit the opportunity to expose yourself to the limits of your own imaginings and to open yourself up to transformative possibilities that come through deep reading and critical reflection. Moreover, reading is arguably the foundation of being an author, which Van Petegem, et al. (2021) identify as one of the key dimensions of being an open scholar in the broadest conception of the term. It also helps to ensure that our practical actions and educational interventions are grounded in theory and contemporary research, crafted from the shared experiences of other educators.

This line of discussion raises the question of whether today’s educators are spending less time slow reading reputable peer-reviewed works? Instead of finding time to read and peruse through scholarly journal articles purposefully, are they now relying on and devoting more of their attention to short information bytes contained in tweets, popular blog posts and audio/video playlists? Currently, there is limited evidence to answer this question or substantiate whether there is reason for concern, and it should be noted that privileging only one source of scholarship and new knowledge runs the risk of academic elitism. After all, new channels of online professional learning available through social media are not mutually exclusive from traditional forms of scholarship. This point recognizes that today’s evolving open scholar needs to be “…agile or flexible enough to jump around, to find the right balance and maybe to combine different aspects together in… daily practice” (Van Petegem, et al., 2021, p.31).

To partly address some of the above concerns, for the past 7 years, our team has identified and curated an annual top 10 “good reads” in digital education published in open access journals. This selection arises from a review of several hundred articles. Our 2022 top 10 “good reads” deliberately contains a collection of papers that many educators may not have seen through their normal reading channels. We seek to profile open scholarship that presents alternative or contrasting viewpoints in response to the growth of digital education – for better and worse. For example, our No 1 article in 2021 was a critical analysis by Professor Neil Selwyn on the environmental impact of digital education.

Would you agree that open access journals are comparatively more accepted than open textbooks, and if yes, do you have an explanation about why that is?

I think some of my comments in response to the previous question apply but it depends on the context and your philosophy. I’m an educator who remains inspired by the famous scene in the movie “Dead Poets Society” where the students were challenged to rip out pages from the textbook. For me, Education is not something that can be pre-packaged in a textbook as it’s about exploring the unknown rather than the known. With so much open content available the challenge is to navigate a path that empowers learners to assess the quality of the information and to discern fake news from that which helps to develop more critical thinkers, critical consumers and critical citizens.

The NIDL Ideas Lab served as an innovation incubator for higher education. How do you think AI tools will impact creative and innovative spaces in higher education and innovative pedagogies?

I guess this is the $64,000 dollar question. Everyone seems to have an opinion on the impact of generative AI. I’m trying to be a little more circumspect in my commentary since the emergence of ChatGPT. The history of EdTech is littered with false promises and overinflated hype and hope. It’s easy to be seduced by the claims about AI but we need to peel back the technologically deterministic language. Transformation never happens in a straight-line. I fear that we will attempt to tame AI rather than seek to harness its transformative potential. After all, the traditional exam remains a strong feature of the education landscape, despite what we know about the importance of Assessment for Learning. There are also very serious ethical and moral questions arising from what might be possible with AI in the future. The crucial issue is that educators must be around the table in shaping future developments, which is an important gap found in a major literature review on AI in education.  So, I don’t have a crystal ball that can predict the future but if we are not around the table trying to shape it, then we may find ourselves on the menu!

You recently co-authored an article on ‘Hacking Innovative Pedagogy’. Can you explain how higher education can move away from industry-driven solutions towards ‘rewilding’ online education – and why is this a good idea or even an imperative?

The concept of ‘rewilding’ borrows from ecology where there is a worldwide movement to return or repopulate endangered species (plants and animals) to the wild and their natural environment. While we need to be a little cautious about borrowing ecological concepts and applying them to education, the idea is that traditional educational models, with and without technology, need to be uncaged if we truly wish to achieve the goal of developing more creative, innovative and imaginative learners. In higher education, metaphorically speaking the Learning Management System (LMS) has become the cage. How can we encourage educators to explore and push new boundaries at the edge of innovation? How do our institutions enable this type of learning innovation at the edge whilst ensuring our digital platforms are safe, secure and reliable? We don’t have the answer to this question, but the project has been designed to explore some of these edge innovations and their potential to scale up without caging them in institutional rules, regulations, and requirements. There is an implicit tension underlying this project, which we see akin to searching for the light through the gaps.

Your work centers the experiences of faculty and students in digital learning environments – during the Covid Emergency shift towards online and beyond. What advice do you have for digital delivery programming in higher education that balances digital well-being for students and instructors?

The importance of the ‘Pedagogy of Care’ as it is sometimes referred to is one of the legacies of the COVID crisis. In the case of faculty, my advice is that we need systemic strategies and solutions that address the intensification of workload amplified by our practices and expectations surrounding new digital technologies. How many universities have adapted or developed new academic workload models that reflect the new reality of our digital work lives? We have to grapple with and define the nature of academic work for the digital era. Tinkering around the edges is insufficient. On a personal note, my email signature asks readers when sending messages outside of normal working hours to respect the “right to disconnect” principles and related code of practice for employers and employees.

My single piece of advice concerning learners, is to ensure that we ask them and engage them around the table, so their voice is heard. This is precisely what we did when we developed a free online course on learning how to be an effective online learner. Indeed, the course, “A Digital Edge: Essentials for the Online Learner” was even co-facilitated by learners for learners. We should not assume that we have all the answers to supporting their digital wellbeing as there is much we can learn from students.

About

Mark Brown, National Institute for Digital Learning, Dublin City University, Ireland

Bio: Professor Mark Brown is Ireland’s first Chair of Digital Learning and Director of the National Institute for Digital Learning (NIDL) at Dublin City University, Ireland. Mark is a Senior Fellow of the European Distance and eLearning Network (EDEN) and also serves on the Management Board of EDEN Digital Learning Europe. Additionally, Professor Brown serves on the Supervisory Board of the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU). Originally from New Zealand, Mark continues to maintain strong “down under” links and, until recently, was Vice-President of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia (ODLAA). In 2017, the Commonwealth of Learning (CoL) recognised Mark as a world leader in the Open, Distance and Digital Education field. Shortly before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Professor Brown was Chair of the 2019 ICDE World Conference on Online Learning in Dublin. In 2020, Mark contributed to the European Commission’s Higher Education Consultation Group on developing a EU-wide policy response to the growth of micro-credentials. In 2021, Mark completed a state-of-the-art literature review on the global development of micro-credentials on contract with the European Commission. In 2022, the OECD commissioned Professor Brown to review quality assurance processes for new blended, hybrid and online learning models worldwide. Mark also has a similar contract with Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) to develop new Statutory Quality Assurance Guidelines in this area. Mark offers a unique international perspective and has over 800 scholarly publications in his fields of interest. For more information, see: https://www.dcu.ie/nidl/director-nidl

The post Microcredentials, Open Learning and Transformative Ideas for Higher Education: An Interview with Mark Brown, Keynote Speaker at EdMedia2023 appeared first on AACE Review.