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

“Aren’t auntie and them hungry yet?” Country folk worried about NSH hikers
2014-05-15

About 5 km short of Wortelfontein Guestfarm in the Northern Cape, Rachel Swart is sitting on the porch of her peasant house when four people come walking down the dirt road.

Guests on foot are not a regular sight in this region, because you must understand, Wortelfontein is situated where Hanover lies far behind you and Richmond is still a very long way off.

 

The four people on the dirt road are the hikers from the University of the Free State (UFS) on their way to Cape Town (on foot) to create awareness for food-insecure students at the UFS.

Adele van Aswegen, Ronel Warner, Ntokozo Nkabinde and Nico Piedt are already on the road for more than two weeks as part of the No Student Hungry bursary’s (NSH bursary) fundraising efforts. The bursary provides assistance to students at the UFS who often do not have enough to eat.

On day 12 of their walk, the plan was that our hikers would stay at Wortelfontein Guestfarm, but unfortunately they took the wrong turnoff. It is precisely at this point where they met Rachel.

“I will show you where Wortelfontein lies. One can easily get lost here,” says Rachel decidedly and points to the straight main road. She ties her baby skilfully behind her back with a towel and tackles the next 5 km together with our hikers.

“It is this kind of support and encouragement that keep us on the road,” says Adel.

Everywhere along the road people are stunned and concerned about the four’s trip and immediately offer their help.

Near Trompsburg, an elderly couple who just heard about the hikers at church, stop next to them and offer them a lift to the next town. They are thankful for the gesture, but have to decline the offer.

Between Trompsburg and Springfontein, Doug offers to take them to Springfontein. Once again they decline the offer.

There was also the uncle who wanted to buy them cool drink and the road workers who cheered them on.

In Colesberg a group of children asked worriedly: “Aren’t auntie and them hungry yet?”


These boots are made for walking ... to Cape Town (Article of 02 May 2014)


Daily updates:
(You can also follow us on @UFSweb for daily tweets)

Day 21: 21 May 2014
15:09
42 km
Leeu Gamka Hotel

Day 20: 20 May 2014
13:39
20 km
Alida, Springfontein

Day 19: 19 May 2014
12:31
27.6 km
Teri Moja Game Lodge

Day 18: 18 May 2014
First rest day
Nagenoeg Guesthouse, Beaufort West

Day 17: 17 May 2014
19:30
62.3 km
Nagenoeg Guesthouse, Beaufort West

Day 16: 16 May 2014
13:00
14 km
Taaibochfontein

Day 15: 15 May 2014
16:03
32 km
Travalia, Three Sisters

Day 14: 14 May 2014
18:33
43 km
Joalani Guest Farm
 
Day 13: 13 May 2014
17:30
33 km
Die Rondawels
 
Day 12: 12 May 2014
16:49
40 km
Aandrus B&B in Richmond
 
Day 11: 11 May 2014
39 km
Wortelfontein (Magdel and Christiaan)
 
Day 10: 10 May 2014
15:44
34 km
Hanover Lodge
 
Day 9: 09 May 2014
40.8 km
Camping between Colesberg and Hanover
 
Day 8: 08 May 2014
15:25
33.7 km
Colesberg, The Lighthouse Guesthouse

Day 7: 07 May 2014
15:08
23 km
Orange River Lodge

Day 6: 06 May 2014
15:57
51.06 km
Gariep Forever Resort

Day 5: 05 May 2014
12:18
28 km
Rondefontein

Day 4: 04 May 2014
15:27
35 km
Trompsburg: Fox Den

Day 3: 03 May 2014
17:30
46.74 km
Edenburg Country Lodge (Hotel)

Day 2: 02 May 2014
11:44 am
15.3 km
Tom's Place

Day 1: 01 May 2014
32 km
Leeuwberg

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