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

Researcher part of project aimed at producing third-generation biofuels from microalgae in Germany
2016-05-09

Description: Novagreen bioreactor  Tags: Novagreen bioreactor

Some of the researchers and technicians among the tubes of the Novagreen bioreactor (Prof Grobbelaar on left)

A researcher from the University of the Free State (UFS), Prof Johan Grobbelaar, was invited to join a group of scientists recently at the Institute for Bio- and Geo-Sciences of the Research Centre Jülich, in Germany, where microalgae are used for lipid (oil) production, and then converted to kerosene for the aviation industry.

The project is probably the first of its kind to address bio-fuel production from microalgae on such a large scale.  

“The potential of algae as a fuel source is undisputed, because it was these photoautotrophic micro-organisms that were fixing sunlight energy into lipids for millions of years, generating the petroleum reserves that modern human civilisation uses today.  However, these reserves are finite, so the challenge is marrying biology with technology to produce economically-competitive fuels without harming the environment and compromising our food security.  The fundamental ability that microalgae have to produce energy-rich biomass from CO2, nutrients, and sunlight through photosynthesis for biofuels, is commonly referred to as the Third-Generation Biofuels (3G),” said Prof Grobbelaar.

The key compounds used for bio-diesel and kerosene production are the lipids and, more particularly, the triacylglyserols commonly referred to as TAGs.  These lipids, once extracted, need to be trans-esterified for biodiesel, while a further “cracking” step is required to produce kerosene.  Microalgae can store energy as lipids and/or carbohydrates. However, for biofuels, microalgae with high TAG contents are required.  A number of such algae have been isolated, and lipid contents of up to 60% have been achieved.

According to Prof Grobbelaar, the challenge is large-scale, high-volume production, since it is easy to manipulate growth conditions in the laboratory for experimental purposes.  

The AUFWIND project (AUFWIND, a German term for up-current, or new impetus) in Germany consists of three different commercially-available photobioreactor types, which are being compared for lipid production.

Description: Lipid rich chlorella Tags: Lipid rich chlorella

Manipulated Chlorella with high lipid contents (yellow) in the Novagreen bioreactor

The photobioreactors each occupies 500 m2 of land surface area, are situated next to one another, and can be monitored continuously.  The three systems are from Novagreen, IGV, and Phytolutions.  The Novagreen photobioreactor is housed in a glass house, and consist of interconnected vertical plastic tubes roughly 150 mm in diameter. The Phytolutions system is outdoors, and consists of curtains of vertical plastic tubes with a diameter of about 90 mm.  The most ambitious photobioreactor is from IGV, and consists of horizontally-layered nets housed in a plastic growth hall, where the algae are sprayed over the nets, and allowed to grow while dripping from one net to the next.

Prof Grobbelaar’s main task was to manipulate growth conditions in such a way that the microalgae converted their stored energy into lipids, and to establish protocols to run the various photobioreactors. This was accomplished in just over two months of intensive experimentation, and included modifications to the designs of the photobioreactors, the microalgal strain selection, and the replacement of the nutrient broth with a so-called balanced one.

Prof Grobbelaar has no illusions regarding the economic feasibility of the project.  However, with continued research, optimisation, and utilisation of waste resources, it is highly likely that the first long-haul flights using microalgal-derived kerosene will be possible in the not-too-distant future.

Prof Grobbelaar from the Department of Plant Sciences, although partly retired, still serves on the editorial boards of several journals. He is also involved with the examining of PhDs, many of them from abroad.  In addition, he assisted the Technology Innovation Agency of South Africa in the formulation of an algae-biotechnology and training centre.  “The chances are good that such a centre will be established in Upington, in the Northern Cape,” Prof Grobbelaar said.

 

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