Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
16 August 2024 Photo Supplied
Dr Peet van Aardt
Dr Peet van Aardt is the head of the UFS Writing Centre and the Coordinator of the Initiative for Creative African Narratives (iCAN).

Opinion article by Dr Peet van Aardt, Centre for Teaching and Learning and Head of the UFS Writing Centre, University of the Free State. 


The use and permittance of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT at the University of the Free State (UFS) should be discouraged, writes Dr Peet van Aardt.

A decade ago, academics were encouraged to find ways to incorporate social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter in their teaching. Seeing as students were spending so much time on these platforms, the idea was that we need to take the classroom to them. Until they found out young people do not use social media to study, but rather to create and share entertainment content.

During the late 2000s, News24.com, the biggest news website in Africa, went on a mission to nurture and expand what was known as “community journalism” because everybody started owning smartphones, the news outlet’s leadership thought it was the opportunity to provide a platform for people to share photos, videos and stories of news events that took place around them. Until they realised that the vast majority of people didn’t want to contribute to journalism; they merely wanted to consume it.

Lest we assume students will use AI in a responsible and productive manner, at the UFS Writing Centre we find that students over-rely on ChatGPT in their assignments and essays. We should do everything in our power to discourage its use because it threatens what we do at a university on three levels.

It’s an educational issue

There are five main academic literacies we want to teach our students: reading, writing, speaking, listening and critical thinking. When students prompt ChatGPT to write their essay for them, immediately the reading and writing literacies are discarded because the student does not write the essay, nor do they read any source material that would help them form an argument. Critical thinking goes out the window, because it is merely a copy-and-paste job they are performing. And speaking? We see in the Writing Centre that students who use ChatGPT cannot discuss their “work”. The student voice is being killed.

There are lecturers who take the approach of motivating students to use prompted content from ChatGPT in order to critique and discuss the AI output. This is fine, should the students be operating at a level where their academic literacies have been established. In short: for postgraduate use it might be acceptable. Undergraduate students need to go through the process of becoming scholars and master their subject matter before they can be expected to critique it. It is basic pedagogy, and our duty as staff at the UFS, because it aligns with the Graduate Attribute of Critical Thinking.

It’s a moral issue

In addition to the academic literacies we attempt to instil in our students are attributes of ethical reasoning and written communication. The fact that AI tools “scrape” the internet for content without any consent from the content creators means that it is committing plagiarism. It is theft – “the greatest heist in history” as some refer to it. Do we want our students to develop digital skills and competencies on immoral grounds? Because often this is the reason given when students are encouraged or allowed to use AI: “The technology is there, and therefore we must learn to go with the flow and let the students to use it.” By this reasoning one can make the argument that the UFS rugby team (go, Shimlas!) must use performance-enhancing substances because it will make the players faster, stronger and “the technology is there”.

Academics also face a moral dilemma as there seems to brew a view that fire should be fought with fire: that AI can assist and even lead in tasks such as plagiarism detection, assessment and content development. But fighting fire with fire just burns down the house. Let us not look to AI to lessen our workload.

It’s an economic issue

Technology in education should be used to level the playing field. Companies develop online tools with a primary goal of making money – despite what the bandwagon passengers in the East and West promise us. Their operations cost a lot of money, and so they release free versions to get people hooked on it, and then they develop better products and place them behind a paywall. What this then means is that students who can afford subscription costs get access to the premium product, while the poor students get left behind. How can we assess two students who cannot make use of the same version of a tool? This will widen the gap in performance between students from different economic backgrounds. And consider the deletion of the authentic student voice (as alluded to earlier), these AI tools just represent a new platform for colonisation and therefore have no place in our institution.

OK, so what?

Lecturers who want advice on how to detect overreliance on AI tools can have a look at this video, which forms part of the AI Wayfinder Series – a brilliant project by the UFS’s Interdisciplinary Centre for Digital Futures and the Digital Scholarship Centre. These centres also have other helpful resources to check out.

But as an institution we need to produce a policy on how to deal with the threat and possibilities of AI. (Because in society and in certain disciplines it can make a contribution – just not for undergraduate studies in a university context.) Currently, a team that includes staff from the Faculty of Law and that of Economic and Management Sciences is busy drafting guidelines which departments can implement. Then, after a while, a review of these guidelines-in-practice can be done to lead us on the path of establishing a concrete policy.

If we as educators consider the facts that the use of AI tools impede the development of academic literacies (on undergraduate level), it silences local, authentic voices and it can create further economic division among our student community, we should not promote its use at our institution. Technology is not innovative if it does not improve something.

Dr Peet van Aardt is the Head of the UFS Writing Centre and the Coordinator of the Initiative for Creative African Narratives (iCAN). Before joining the UFS in 2014 he was the Community Editor of News24.com. 

News Archive

Workplace discrimination and unfair practices explored in new book
2017-09-13

 Description: Denine read more Tags: Denine Smit, Labour law, employee relations, bullying, vulnerability, research, Damain Viviers 

Dr Denine Smit
Photo: Supplied

Two law scholars, Dr Denine Smit and Dr Damian Viviers, from the Faculty of Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) recently launched a book titled Vulnerable Employees, which was inspired by their interest in researching, creating awareness and providing a legal exposition in relation to employees who are vulnerable and experience prejudice and dignity violations in the workplace. These include workplace bullying, appearance-based discrimination, those who are gender fluid or have mental-health conditions.
“Dr Viviers, who is also a former student of mine, and I, have been working together for years and share a common understanding in relation to our various topics of interest. We often share the same train of thought. This is how we came to work together to produce this book,” said Dr Smit.


Research focused on employee challenges in the workplace

The book expands on the field of knowledge regarding certain categories of employees who, as a consequence of various mutable, immutable and semi-immutable characteristics, as well as behavioural experiences, are rendered vulnerable in their employment relationships. The book draws on various social, psychological and other empirical considerations, as well as comparative legal research from foreign and international law, in order to expand on the legal position under the South African legal framework governing these conditions. While the book first and foremost constitutes a compendium of research to be used for this purpose, it also serves as a practical guide for all legal practitioners, human resources managers, other labour stakeholders and the judiciary.

Book draws strength in other academic fields
Vulnerable Employees was launched on 28 July 2017 at the UFS library, to an audience of academics and students, with a panel discussion made up of the authors and two other panellists. One of the panellists was Dr Katinka Botha, a leading psychiatrist in the Free State who has a wealth of experience in this field. “Her selection as a panellist was motivated by the various significant inter-disciplinary considerations and intersections between psychology, psychiatry and law, contained in the book,” said Dr Smit. 
“Dr Botha’s expertise was invaluable in shedding light on mental-health considerations during the panel discussion.” 
Mr Lesley Mokgoro, the other panellist, is a leading labour law practitioner, as well as director and head of the Dispute Resolution Practice Group at Phatshoane Henney Attorneys. “His years of experience working with all role players in the employment domain, as well as his extensive legal knowledge and expertise, made him uniquely qualified to serve on the panel and deliver an opinion of the practical and academic value of the book,” said Dr Smit.


Workplace policies key to securing employee rights

There are a number of growing trends in the workplace that could shape the practice of labour law or workplace policies. Dr Smit said the need for employers to regulate workplace culture, particularly in relation to bullying, harassment and unfair discrimination, in line with the South African legal framework, was a fundamental need in all workplaces. Effective workplace policies may be used to clearly outline the relevant “dos and don’ts” to employees, as well as the procedures and processes that may be followed in order to address such conduct. Workplace policies serve to advance legal certainty and efficiency, since the rights and obligations of all role players are clearly demarcated, or should be, in terms of a well-drafted and considered policy. 
The book is one of several publications produced by Dr Smit in collaboration with Dr Viviers on the topic of workplace discrimination and the law. The two scholars are working on another book to be published at the end of 2017.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept