Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

AI Tools in Higher Education: Go prompt yourself

16 August 2024 Photo Supplied

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

UFS to investigate implementation of quality-monitoring system for SA food industry

2006-02-07

Some of the guests who attended the workshop were from the left Prof James du Preez (Chairperson: Department of Biotechnology at the UFS); Prof Lodewyk Kock (Head: South African Fryer Oil Initiative (SAFOI) at the UFS)); Mrs Ina Wilken (Chairperson: South African National Consumer Union (SANCU)); Prof Herman van Schalkwyk (Dean: Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences at the UFS) and Mr Joe Hanekom (Managing Director of Agri Inspec).
Photo: Stephen Collet

UFS to investigate implementation of quality-monitoring system for SA food industry

The University of the Free State (UFS) will be investigating the implementation of a quality-monitoring service for the South African food industry.

This was decided during a workshop to discuss the external quality monitoring in the edible oil industry of South Africa, which was recently held at the UFS.

Major role players in the fast-food sector like Nando's, Spur, Captain
Dorego's, King Pie Holdings, Black Steer Holdings, etc and various oil
distributors like Felda Bridge Africa, Refill Oils, PSS Oils and Ilanga Oils attended
the workshop. Also present was Mrs Ina Wilken, Chairperson of the South African National Consumer Union (SANCU) and key-note speaker of this workshop. She represented the consumer.

These role players all pledged their support to the implementation of this quality- monitoring system for the whole food industry.

The decision to implement this system follows the various malpractices reported in the press and on TV concerning food adulteration (eg the recent Sudan Red Scare), misrepresentation (eg olive oil scandal exposed in 2001) and the misuse of edible frying oils by the fast-food sector.

“One of the basic rights of consumers is the right to safe food. Consumers must be protected against foods and food production processes which are hazardous to their health. Sufficient guarantee of the safety of all food products and food production processes should be implemented. It does not help to have adequate food standards and legislation and there is no manpower to do the necessary investigation or monitoring,” said Mrs Wilken.

The South African Fryer Oil Initiative (SAFOI), under the auspices of the UFS Department of Microbial, Biochemical and Food Biotechnology, currently monitors edible oils in the food industry and makes a seal of quality available to food distributors.

“Last week’s decision to implement the quality-monitoring system implies that we will now be involving also other departments in the UFS Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences who are involved in various aspects of the food chain in an endeavor to implement this quality monitoring system,” said Prof Herman van Schalkwyk, Dean: Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences at the UFS and one of the main speakers at the workshop.

Prof van Schalkwyk said that the main aim of such a system will be to improve the competitiveness of the South African food industry. “It is clear that the role players attending the workshop are serious about consumer service and that they agree that fraudulent practice should be monitored and corrected as far as possible. Although some of the food outlets have the capacity to monitor the quality of their food, it may not seem to the consumer that this is an objective process. The proposed external monitoring system would counteract this perception amongst consumers,” said Prof van Schalkwyk.

The workshop was also attended by representatives from SAFOI and Agri Inspec, a forensic investigation company collaborating with inter-state and government structures to combat fraud and international trade irregularities.

Agri Inspec has been working closely with SAFOI for a number of years to test the content of edible oils and fats. “Extensive monitoring and control actions have been executed in the edible oil industry during the past four years to ensure that the content and labeling of oil products are correct. Four years ago almost 90% of the samples taken indicated that the content differed from what is indicated on the label. This has changed and the test results currently show that 90% of the products tested are in order. However, to maintain this quality standard, it is necessary that quality monitoring and educational campaigns are continuously performed,” said Mr Joe Hanekom, Managing Director of Agri Inspec.

“The seal of quality presented by SAFOI should also be extended to include all the smaller oil containers used by households,” Mrs Wilken said.

The SAFOI seal of quality is currently displayed mainly on some oil brands packed in bigger 20 liter containers, which include sunflower oil, cottonseed oil, palm oil etc which are used by restaurants and fast food outlets. “Any oil type is eligible to display the seal when meeting certain standards of authenticity. In order to display the seal, the distributor must send a sample of each oil batch they receive from the manufacturer to SAFOI for testing for authenticity, ie that the container’s content matches the oil type described on the label. This is again double checked by Agri Inspec, which also draws samples countrywide from these certified brands from the end-user (restaurant or fast food outlets). If in breach, the seal must be removed from the faulty containers,” said Prof Lodewyk Kock, Head of SAFOI.

“It should however be taken into account that oils without a seal of quality from the UFS can still be of high quality and authentic. Other external laboratories equipped to perform effective authenticity tests may also be used in this respect,” said Prof Kock.

“It is also important to realise that any oil type of quality such as sunflower oil, cottonseed oil, palm oil etc can be used with great success in well controlled frying processes,” he said.

Further discussions will also be held with the Department of Health, the SA National Consumer Union and Agri Inspec to determine priority areas and to develop the most effective low-cost monitoring system.

More information on the UFS oil seal of quality and oil use can be obtained at www.uovs.ac.za/myoilguide

Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel: (051) 401-2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
6 February 2006

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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