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

Research by experts published in Nature
2011-06-02

 
The members of the research group are, from the left, front: Christelle van Rooyen, Mariana Erasmus, Prof. Esta van Heerden; back: Armand Bester and Prof. Derek Litthauer.
Photo: Gerhard Louw

A  research article on the work by a team of experts at our university, under the leadership of Prof. Esta van Heerden, and counterparts in Belgium and the USA has been published in the distinguished academic journal Nature today (Thursday, 2 June 2011).

The article – Nematoda from the terrestrial deep subsurface of South Africa – sheds more light on life in the form of a small worm living under extreme conditions in deep hot mines. It was discovered 1,3 km under the surface of the earth in the Beatrix Goldmine close to Welkom and is the first multi-cellular organism that was found so far beneath the surface of the earth. The worm (nematode) was found in between a rock face that is between 3 000 and 12 000 years old.

The research can shed some new light on the possibility of life on other planets, previously considered impossible under extreme conditions. It also expands the possibilities into new areas where new organisms may be found.

These small invertebrates live in terrestrial soil subjected to stress almost for 24 hours They live through sunshine, rain, scorching temperatures and freezing conditions. Through time they developed a means to cope with harsh conditions. Terrestrial nematodes (roundworms, not to be confused or related to earthworms) are among those very tough small invertebrates that deal with those conditions everywhere. After insects they are the most dominant multi-cellular (metazoan) species on the planet having a general size of 0,5 to 1 mm and are among the oldest metazoans on the planet, Nature says in a statement on the article.

They inhabit nearly every imaginable habitat form the deep seas to the acid in pitcher . Some nematodes simply eat bacteria and these are the ones we study here. Terrestrial nematodes have developed a survival stage that can take them through hard times (absence of food, extreme temperatures, too little oxygen, crowding, and more).

At the head of the research was Prof. Gaetan Borgonie of the Ghent University in Belgium and a world leader in the discipline of nematode research. He was brought into contact with the South African research leader, Prof. Esta van Heerden, who set up a cooperation agreement with the University of Ghent and Prof. Borgonie. Prof. Van Heerden manages the Extreme Biochemistry group at the UFS and the research was funded by several research grants.

The search for worms began in earnest in 2007, but it was soon clear that the sampling strategy was insufficient. A massive sampling campaign in 2008-2009 in several mines led to the discovery of several nematodes and the new nematode species Halicephalobus mephisto. It is named after the legend of Faust where the devil, also known as the lord of the underworld is called Mephistopheles.

Nature says special filters had to be designed and installed on various boreholes. Unfortunately, there is no easy way of finding a magic formula and designs had to be adapted by trial and error; improving existing designs all the time. The work of the UFS Mechanical Workshop, which manufactured, adapted and helped design it, was crucial in this respect. Filters were left on the holes for varying periods, sometimes for a few hours and sometimes for months. Prof. Derek Litthauer from the UFS played a big role in sampling, filter designs and coming up with ideas for names for the new nematode with Prof. Borgonie.

Research showed that the nematodes can live in the deep for up to 12 000 years. Three students – Armand Bester, Mariana Erasmus and Christelle van Rooyen from the UFS – did the work on this.

The importance of multi-cellular animals living in the ultra-deep subsurface is twofold: The nematodes graze on the existing bacterial population and influence their turnover. Secondly, if more complex multi-cellular organisms can survive in the deep subsurface on earth, this may be good news when looking for life on other planets where the surface is considered too inhospitable (e.g. Mars). Complex life forms can be found in ecosystems previously thought to be uninhabitable. Nature says this expands the possibilities into new areas where new organisms may be discovered.

Future research will focus on selective boreholes to look for more metazoans, so that a better idea of the complexity of the ecosystems there can be obtained. It will also look for metazoans in the deep subsurface on other continents to determine similarities and differences.

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