I think your examples about the accountant or the GP are excellent. I remember reading a piece about why airline pilots could command such high salaries. It wasn't because they knew how to fly a plane which apparently, and I'm not a qualified pilot, isn't that difficult to learn. They are paid a high salary because they know what to do when something goes wrong. I think the same applies to surgeons. Pupils/ students are still learning and I agree it's the process that's important. I'm not au fait enough with AI to know how 12 year old might use that to write an essay but I've certainly had experience of primary aged youngsters cutting and pasting from online sources and presenting this as research. Sadly sometimes without even reading it and certainly not really understanding it. It does often impress parents though because there's a lot of it to show.
I think there is also a hypothetical third pupil, who uses the AI not to write their essay directly, but who works hard to go much deeper in the time available, and in doing so produces work of a quality that surpasses the first pupil’s and achieves a greater level of understanding than the second pupil. I admit that realistically this will be difficult for a pupil using a chatbot to achieve; in most cases the temptation to get the chatbot to do valuable legwork will be irresistible. But I do think that the careful use of AI, perhaps through the use of some intermediary app to encourage good habits, would enrich the learning process for pupils.
"I think there is also a hypothetical third pupil, who uses the AI not to write their essay directly, but who works hard to go much deeper in the time available, and in doing so produces work of a quality that surpasses the first pupil’s and achieves a greater level of understanding than the second pupil."
Suppose this is true - and I am dubious that it is, but let's say it is for the sake of argument.
How would you be able to tell the difference between pupil 2 & 3 just by looking at their work? EG how do you tell the difference between the pupil who produces superb work and gains no understanding, and the pupil who produces superb work and has gained understanding?
This is the fundamental issue if we let students use AI in their assessments. It makes it impossible to use performance in the assessment to make any kind of useful generalisation about the student's wider capacities.
I think your examples about the accountant or the GP are excellent. I remember reading a piece about why airline pilots could command such high salaries. It wasn't because they knew how to fly a plane which apparently, and I'm not a qualified pilot, isn't that difficult to learn. They are paid a high salary because they know what to do when something goes wrong. I think the same applies to surgeons. Pupils/ students are still learning and I agree it's the process that's important. I'm not au fait enough with AI to know how 12 year old might use that to write an essay but I've certainly had experience of primary aged youngsters cutting and pasting from online sources and presenting this as research. Sadly sometimes without even reading it and certainly not really understanding it. It does often impress parents though because there's a lot of it to show.
Yes, totally agree.
I think there is also a hypothetical third pupil, who uses the AI not to write their essay directly, but who works hard to go much deeper in the time available, and in doing so produces work of a quality that surpasses the first pupil’s and achieves a greater level of understanding than the second pupil. I admit that realistically this will be difficult for a pupil using a chatbot to achieve; in most cases the temptation to get the chatbot to do valuable legwork will be irresistible. But I do think that the careful use of AI, perhaps through the use of some intermediary app to encourage good habits, would enrich the learning process for pupils.
"I think there is also a hypothetical third pupil, who uses the AI not to write their essay directly, but who works hard to go much deeper in the time available, and in doing so produces work of a quality that surpasses the first pupil’s and achieves a greater level of understanding than the second pupil."
Suppose this is true - and I am dubious that it is, but let's say it is for the sake of argument.
How would you be able to tell the difference between pupil 2 & 3 just by looking at their work? EG how do you tell the difference between the pupil who produces superb work and gains no understanding, and the pupil who produces superb work and has gained understanding?
This is the fundamental issue if we let students use AI in their assessments. It makes it impossible to use performance in the assessment to make any kind of useful generalisation about the student's wider capacities.