| ▲ | ChicagoBoy11 a day ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes, but as a K-12 administrator, I sadly have to tell you this is just about one of the more substantive things I have seen. Yes, it's 95% fluff, but there is a real admission here that the guidance really ought to accept that there will be a whole host of tasks/assignments that kids engage in where the assumption SHOULD be that they basically will leverage AI, and that for their own benefit, resources should be set aside to promote experiences -- both in the context of assessments but also even in the social sphere -- there the influence of AI will be very purposefully prevented. That is an actual stake in the ground, I think (as far as it goes in context like this). I think I would have been hard-pressed to have predicted that there would be such a revolutionary technology where the explicit ask of MIT faculty would be to prevent its influence in the school. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | testfoobar a day ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I really do worry for our younger students - and I don't envy your job at all. It seems as if all of teaching and student evaluation needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with AI as a default assumption. Local high schools have added in class timed, hand written, essays for classes like AP US History. I particularly like Chicago Law School's policy on AI. E.g. Law students writing a "Substantial Research Paper" will have to defend it orally: "We will be adding one additional requirement, which is that all students will be required to engage in an oral discussion of their SRP with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting. This discussion will occur after a complete draft (or final version) of the paper has been submitted to the professor. The discussion could take place one-on-one, or as a class presentation in the style of an academic workshop. Either way, the oral exchange will involve the student answering questions that probe the reasoning of the paper and the implications of its arguments." | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | plasticchris a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It will only get harder. From the trenches in tech it’s hard enough to get people who should know better to put in the work to understand the ai output. For education I can’t imagine. You might have to resort to actual discussion in classrooms instead of homework, with the accompanying need for both more educators and higher quality therein. Which isn’t going to be easy when education is fully under regulatory capture (at least for K-12 in the USA) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||