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

UFS Vice-Chancellor’s vision for 2016: R100 million before September
2016-03-03

Description: Official opening 2016 Tags: Official opening 2016

At the official opening of the University of the Free State (UFS), held on 19 February 2016 on the Bloemfontein Campus, Prof Jonathan Jansen, Vice Chancellor and Rector, announced that his priority for the year is to raise R100 million. Deserving students who cannot afford to study will receive bursaries through the Student Bursary Fund Campaign.

Staff will also have the opportunity to contribute to the fund.

Prof Jansen thanked staff for their hard work in the midst of what he described as “by far the most difficult year for admissions, registration, accommodation, and student finance”. The heightened expectations of students after FeesMustFall and the limited capacity of the university to meet the desires of students took its toll on staff.

Because of the incredible strain taken by staff members, both emotionally and physically, the Vice-Chancellor gave staff the assurance that they will receive spiritual, emotional, and health support.

“Never before have I seen such dedication from all our staff to hold the university together in these trying times,” Prof Jansen said.

“Because of you, we have a record intake of first-year students into the UFS. We have had about 5 000 students on average in the past three years and, as of today, we are nearing 7000 first-years with the strong possibility that we will enroll several thousand more students, once the new South Campus registrations come on line later this year. By mid-2016, we will exceed our own target of 8 000 students,” said Prof Jansen.

He stipulated that it is not only good for the finances of the university but also for the youth of the country who can access a quality university in central South Africa where the safety of its staff and students is a priority.

Another highlight at this event was announcing Dr Christian Williams from the Department of Anthropology as the winner of the 2016 Distinguished Scholar Book Prize for his book, National liberation in postcolonial southern Africa: a historical ethnography of SWAPO’s exile camps.

Amidst the sad episodes of violence and destruction on campuses around South Africa, Prof Jansen highlighted how the UFS will – through a seven-point approach - manage the university during these difficult times:
1.    Doing everything within our capacity to meet the needs of staff and students
2.    Upholding the right to peaceful protest in our democracy
3.    Acting swiftly against any unlawful actions by students or workers
4.    Upholding the authority of the unions (only UVPERSU and NEHAWU)
5.    Finding humane and just solutions to the problem of outsourcing
6.    Not placing the UFS at financial risk by making irresponsible decisions
7.    Maintaining an open door policy.

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