{"id":1285,"date":"2023-10-03T10:36:42","date_gmt":"2023-10-03T14:36:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/openlab.bmcc.cuny.edu\/inquirer\/?p=1285"},"modified":"2023-10-19T14:55:49","modified_gmt":"2023-10-19T18:55:49","slug":"about-chatgpt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/openlab.bmcc.cuny.edu\/inquirer\/2023\/10\/03\/about-chatgpt\/","title":{"rendered":"About ChatGPT"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Image by frimufilms on Freepik<\/figcaption><\/figure>\r\n

Rifat Salam, Social Sciences, Human Services and Criminal Justice Department<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n

But even when the essays are a good synthesis of other essays, written by humans, they are not human. Frankly they, they creep me out precisely because they are so competent and yet so very empty\u2026The essay does not invoke curiosity, or any other emotion. There is a voice but it is mechanical\u2026That\u2019s because real voice is more than grammatical patternmaking.<\/p>\r\n

–Tressie McMillan Cotton, NYT, 12\/20\/22<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

While generative artificial intelligence (GAI) technology has been around for some time, ChatGPT\u2019s introduction in November 2022 and its rise to prominence is what brought it to most of our attention.\u00a0 I\u2019ve observed the use of GAI by students for a number of years, particularly in discussion board posts but the sophistication of ChatGPT and the quality of its products far surpasses its predecessors and professors who assign any kind of writing have to pay attention. As one of the co-coordinators of Writing Across the Curriculum at BMCC, I knew that this was an issue that faculty who teach Writing Intensive sections would be especially concerned about so we proposed a WAC\/WI Refresher workshop in spring semester 2023.\u00a0 In this article, I\u2019ll discuss my first encounters with GAI and what we discussed in the workshop.<\/p>\r\n

At the end of fall semester 2022, coinciding with the introduction of ChatGPT, I noticed a small number of submissions which seemed oddly generic, didn\u2019t address assignment prompts nor did they meet the minimum requirements in the grading rubric.\u00a0 Very much like the quote from Tressie McMillan Cotton, the submissions felt oddly hollow, only tangentially addressing the assignment guidelines and fitting a template rather than reflecting ideas generated by authentic learning in the class. Anyone could have written it, and you did not need to have taken Professor Salam\u2019s Understanding Technological Society class at BMCC to know this. Indeed, if you did take the class, do the readings and complete the learning activities, you would not have written these essays. They did not meet the requirements on the rubric and received failing grades, with copious feedback explaining why.\u00a0 I did not accuse the students of plagiarism or using AI\u2014I did not need to. The majority of students submitted their own work, imperfect but full of evidence of learning. It will not surprise you to learn that those alleged AI submissions came from students who rarely attended class and when they did, their presence was cameras off with no participation.<\/p>\r\n

So what are the implications for teaching and learning in the GAI era? In WAC, we have had multiple workshops over the years about creating \u201cplagiarism-proof\u201d assignments, and the same basic principles apply for addressing GAI. I have come to think of it as creating \u201chuman-oriented\u201d assignments or more specifically, assignments that reflect the learning of the actual human students who take my classes.\u00a0 Here are some highlights from the workshop:<\/p>\r\n