Questions around the place of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence tool created by OpenAI, in higher education have been much debated amongst academic leaders. In an interview featuring three academic leaders, Bryan Alexander (Senior Scholar at Georgetown University) , Suzanne Tapp (Assistant Vice Provost at Texas Tech University), and Jenny Lee (Chief Strategy Officer at Anthology) explored the implications of AI chatbots in teaching and learning and how it pertains to academic integrity.
The panelists expressed that faculty often view AI tools such as ChatGPT from one of three perspectives: to fight against them (due to a fear regarding plagiarism) or embrace them outright, or merely retain an open-minded view of the technology and its implications. Alexander was certain that the “plagiarism arms race” could be seen in full steam, and Tapp provided some insight into faculty’s fears surrounding AI tools too. Lee offered input on the potential for ChatGPT to be used as a tool for student support in higher education settings.
ChatGPT is an AI-driven chatbot that has advanced capabilities that enable open-domain conversations between users and computers. It is often used in research, educational press settings and other applications involving educated conversations with user engagement. The company OpenAI is a research laboratory focused on artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies, aiming to grandly impact future computer technology by developing solvable challenges and advancing global collaboration. Jenny Lee is the Chief Strategy Officer at Anthology, a platform dedicated to helping both faculty and institutions grow and thrive through improved student success solutions.
In order to best leverage the benefits of ChatGPT, while adequately addressing the worries of integrity, Lee explained that it is important to remain mindful and approach each situation from varied perspectives. Faculty must weigh the challenges and rewards and decide what is the best option for individual students and contexts. The power of this tool for improving student learning, support, and guidance should be kept at the center of the conversation in order to best assess the tool’s potential for higher education.
