In principle, this is not all that difficult a problem to overcome (and indeed in some ways has been overcome before, in math-ier related disciplines back in the days when electric calculators were first introduced—then, too, calls for bans were rife). Just change the method of assessment. The essay is not the only way to measure critical thinking and judgment. In the early days of the university, this was done through the practice of disputation. It is still done in universities through things like oral examinations and written, invigilated testing. We can bring all that back, or at least weight these elements more heavily for assessment purposes. Professors can also spend more time working out what kinds of questions AI has difficulty answering (this piece from British academic Alice Evans is very good on that). All this is possible.
The challenge is that the essay, whatever its other pedagogical merits, is an extremely efficient assessment technology. A student goes out and spends 10 hours on a paper, which a professor can read and mark in 10 minutes (all times approximate, don’t @ me). For decades now, we have been working on the assumption that only with these kinds of student work-to-instructor-assessment time ratios can we offer courses that result in actual mastery of a particular corpus of work in the social sciences and humanities at a mass level. The alternatives to essays I have listed above, whatever their pedagogical merits, are more time-intensive for professors. Pretty much all of the methods listed above mean extra work on the part of professors relative to the work we ask students to undertake. And I think there is a real question about whether or not we can ask them to adopt all this without reducing other parts of their workload or reducing class sizes. For humanities, where student-teacher ratios are already falling rapidly, that’s not necessarily a big challenge, but in social sciences and especially business, where ratios are already sky-high, that’s a bigger challenge, and one we have yet to really face up to.
La IA y los LLM solo representan una amenaza para la educación y el desarrollo intelectual de los estudiantes si los académicos no actualizan sus métodos de evaluación. Pero en muchas disciplinas, esto casi con certeza implica un cambio en la función docente del mundo académico, un cambio que las instituciones tendrán serias dificultades para adaptarse si permanecemos en la era actual de “Nadie Quiere Pagar por la Educación”. Si las universidades e instituciones de educación superior no se adaptan, la educación que imparten se volverá deficiente y es poco probable que produzca los graduados que la sociedad necesita, un resultado que solo puede reducir la estima que se tiene por las instituciones. Y eso sería realmente desastroso.
En resumen, en la era de la IA, lo más importante es centrarse en cómo se evalúa a los estudiantes. Pero, igualmente, si se centra en la evaluación sin considerar la economía de la enseñanza, no se está tomando el asunto en serio. Este es un problema muy complejo y merece mucha más atención de la que recibe actualmente. |
0 Comments