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

DF Malherbe Memorial Lecture
2005-05-19

DF Malherbe Memorial Lecture: Language and language activism in a time of transformation (summary)
Proff Hennie van Coller and Jaap Steyn

Language activism necessary for multilingualism
The awareness is growing that language activism will be needed to bring about a truly democratic multi-lingual society. What is quite clear is that a firm resolve must continuously resist the concentrated pressure on Afrikaans-medium schools (and universities) to allow themselves to be anglicised through becoming first parallel medium, then dual medium, and finally English medium institutions.

Proff Hennie van Coller and Jaap Steyn said this last night (Wednesday night) in the 24th DF Malherbe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State. Prof van Coller is head of the Department Afrikaans, Dutch, German and French at the UFS. Both are widely honoured for their contributions to Afrikaans and the promotion of Afrikaans.

They discussed three periods of transformation since 1902, and said about the current phase, which started in 1994:  “Besides all institutions and councils having to be representative of South Africa’s racial composition, places of education were required to open their doors. Quite rapidly this policy has had the result that schools and universities may be solely English medium, but not solely Afrikaans medium. Afrikaans medium institutions — if they claim the right to remain Afrikaans — are quickly branded racist, even though their student body may include all races.

“Education departments are presently exerting great pressure on Afrikaans medium schools to become double or parallel medium schools.  Parallel medium education is an equitable solution provided it can be sustained. Established parallel medium schools, such as Grey College in Bloemfontein, have catered even-handedly for English and Afrikaans speakers for decades. But the situation is different in the parallel medium (and still worse in the double medium) schools that spring up usually at the behest of a department of education.

“Afrikaans schools are converted almost over-night into parallel or dual medium schools without any additional personnel being provided. Depending on the social environment, a parallel medium school becomes reconstituted as a dual medium school on average in five to eight years, and dual medium school becomes an English-only school in two to three years. Some Afrikaans medium schools have become English medium in just three years.

“Though the Constitution recognises mono-lingual schools, officials in the provinces insist that Afrikaans schools become dual or parallel medium; English medium schools are left undisturbed. One must conclude that the tacit aim of the state is English as the sole official language, despite the lip-service paid to multi-lingualism, and the optimistic references to post-apartheid South Africa as a ‘rainbow’ nation.”

They said a recent study has shown that the 1 396 Afrikaans schools in the six provinces in 1993 have dwindled to 844. The fall off in the Free State is from 153 to 97; in the Western Cape from 759 to 564; in Gauteng from 274 to 155; in Mapumalanga from 90 to 3; in the North West from 82 to 13; and in Limpopo Province from 38 to 12.

They said the changes at universities, too, have been severe, as university staffs well know. Ten years ago there were five Afrikaans universities. Today there are none. The government demanded that all universities be open to all, which has meant that all universities have had to become English medium. And no additional funding was forthcoming for the changes. The government policy amounts to a language “tax” imposed on the Afrikaans community for using Afrikaans.

“Only when all schools (and universities) are English will the clamor cease. Academics and educationists are beginning to speak openly of forming pressure groups to save Afrikaans schools, and of using litigation as one of their methods. 59% of Afrikaans parents have said they would support strong action if Afrikaans were no longer a medium of instruction at schools.”

 

 


 

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