Title: The Promise and Limitations of ChatGPT in Higher Education
In early 2023, the introduction of ChatGPT/AI into the realm of higher education sparked great excitement and potential for educational transformation. This artificial intelligence platform was hailed as the harbinger of a revolution in teaching and learning. However, experiences and feedback from students have unveiled that ChatGPT falls short of being the transformative force it was initially anticipated to be.
During the fall semester of 2023, I integrated ChatGPT into three undergraduate classes using various approaches. Each day, a ChatGPT question was included in the syllabus to encourage discussion. If no students volunteered to answer, I instructed them to consult ChatGPT for insights. Additionally, I encouraged students to utilize ChatGPT in generating preliminary ideas for their take-home essays or papers, for research purposes, or to create outlines and summaries of lectures. Furthermore, I created additional lesson plans with ChatGPT and compared them to those I had prepared myself.
To my disappointment, my students expressed underwhelming or generally unimpressed sentiments towards ChatGPT as a valuable teaching and learning tool. Consequently, I decided not to incorporate any of the ChatGPT-generated lesson plans, as they were poorly organized, superficial, and often contained incorrect facts or issues.
Many students had already been using ChatGPT even before my classes, finding it minimally useful in generating preliminary ideas or producing outlines that identified key points or issues. However, they strongly criticized ChatGPT for its lack of sources or references to external materials, asserting that search engines like Google outperformed it in this regard. In fact, numerous students found it helpful to use ChatGPT alongside Google or other search engines.
Bias and inaccuracies were persistent concerns voiced by my students. They were acutely aware of ChatGPT’s propensity to generate false information and make up facts. They recounted the notorious case of a New York attorney who relied on ChatGPT to compose a legal brief, only to have it fabricate fictional cases. As some students aptly put it, garbage in, garbage out seemed to be the underlying principle of ChatGPT.
Although the ChatGPT revolution in higher education has not lived up to expectations, my students and I derived ten valuable rules that may guide future experiments with AI in the classroom:
– ChatGPT is useful for gathering ideas, brainstorming, and creating outlines.
– It assists in initiating assignments but loses its value midway through the work.
– ChatGPT should be utilized as a starting point, not a primary source.
– It can provide differing perspectives or opposing views.
– Proofreading, spell-checking, and summarizing readings are areas where ChatGPT can be beneficial.
– When using ChatGPT for assignments, proper attribution is essential, and fact-checking is necessary.
– ChatGPT has limitations in terms of sources, addressing normative issues, and providing substantive knowledge.
– Role-playing scenarios can enhance ChatGPT’s effectiveness.
– It can be helpful for reviewing and summarizing class content.
– Students should be critical of biases and limitations inherent in ChatGPT.
In conclusion, while ChatGPT has not revolutionized education as anticipated, it can serve as a valuable tool in specific scenarios within higher education. Its ability to initiate discussions, assist in brainstorming, and provide a starting point for assignments can be advantageous. However, students must exercise caution, adhere to ethical guidelines, and supplement ChatGPT’s information with rigorous research and critical thinking. Only then can AI truly contribute to transformative education experiences.
