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

Sarah, our own champion
2008-11-05

 
Sarah Shannon at the Paralympic Games in Beijing

 

Sarah Shannon, a second-year student in the Postgraduate Certificate in Education, has been involved in disability sport on national level for the past 12 years. Sarah has cerebral palsy.

In 1996 she participated at the South African National Championships for the physically disabled for the first time, entering for several sporting codes and winning five gold medals. In swimming she participates in the S3 class together with other swimmers that have comparable abilities to hers.

In 1997 she decided to focus on swimming competitively. She participated in her first national championships for swimming that year. After that (1998) she represented South Africa on international level at the International Paralympic Committee’s (IPC) Swimming World Championships in New Zealand where she ended 4th in the 50m backstroke and 7th in both the 50m and 100m freestyle in her class.

In 1999 she represented South Africa in Johannesburg at the 7th All Africa Games and won a silver medal for the 50m freestyle and a bronze medal for the 100m freestyle.

In 2000 she was part of the South African team at the Sydney Paralympic Games where she reached the finals and finished 7th in the 50m backstroke and 8th in the 50m freestyle. Northern-KwaZulu-Natal also awarded her the Junior Sportswoman of the Year award in 2001. In 2002 she participated at the South African Senior National swimming championships for KwaZulu-Natal in the multi-disability category.

In 2005 she completed the Midmar Mile. She also represented South Africa at the world championships for athletes with cerebral palsy in Boston in the United States of America. She won two gold medals for respectively the 50m freestyle and the 50m backstroke and two silver medals in the 100m and 200m freestyle. She was also nominated to represent South Africa as athlete’s representative on the world committee of CPISRA (Cerebral Palsy International Sports and Recreation Association). In this year Sarah also received the KwaZulu-Natal Premier’s Sportswoman with a disability award of the year.

In 2006 she qualified for the IPC world championships but could not attend.

In 2007 she represented South Africa once more at the Visa Paralympic World Cup in Manchester in the United Kingdom where she broke the South African record in the 50m backstroke, finishing 7th in the 50m freestyle and 6th in the 50m backstroke.

She was also part of the very successful Team South Africa to the Paralympic Games in Beijing. She reached the finals in both the 50m backstroke and 50m freestyle. She finished 7th in the 50m freestyle and 6th in the 50m backstroke in personal best times for both events. She has been participating in the able bodied South African National Swimming Championships since 2002. She is currently ranked 2nd in the world for short course items and 11th for the long course items. She is truly our best swimmer in the S3 class.
 

 

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