ChatGPT and other generative AI writing tools continue to dominate many discussions for academic institutions. The mindset still ranges from banning it to embracing it. The Center for eLearning Initiatives, other offices at Penn State, other institutions, and tech companies have all been working to make thoughtful decisions about how to navigate the impacts being felt from this technology. Turnitin is one company that has created several resources to aid faculty. In this post, we will share two resources for how to think about revising assignments that we think are very helpful for instructors.
Guide for approaching AI-generated text in your classroom
The first resource from Turnitin that we’d like to share is titled Guide for approaching AI-generated text in your classroom. It provides a list of 11 strategies for educators to consider. All of these strategies are worth reviewing by opening the document linked above. We will highlight just a few of the 11 strategies.
One strategy that Turnitin suggests is “set expectations with students” for what you consider to be acceptable or problematic in using language generating tools for assignments. Students interact with many faculty who all have different expectations. Some instructors may incorporate AI-generated language into an assignment. Others may have a strict zero tolerance policy. It is only fair to be open with students about your specific expectations because it is likely to be different based on the individual instructor. Turnitin suggests having an open discussion so that students know your expectations.
Another strategy that Turnitin suggests is to “check your prompts.” The strategy has two benefits – you get to see the tool in action while also determining if your assignment prompt may need revision. By trying the tool specifically for assignment prompts you use in your course, you will begin to experience the process your students might use. You will also be able to determine if the assignment prompt is easily responded to by the AI. If it does seem that the AI writing generator can give a pretty good response, you may want to consider revising the assignment. (The rubric mentioned in the next section could be a helpful tool for you if you find yourself in this situation.)
The last strategy that we will highlight from Turnitin is “assess the process, not only the product.” It can be very helpful to student learning if the focus is on the students’ writing process rather than on the final product. Scaffolding the assignment by asking students to submit outlines and drafts can help shift student focus toward their learning throughout the process and not just on the final grade on the final writing submission.
AI misuse rubric
The next resource from Turnitin that we’d like to share is titled AI misuse rubric. This resource is a rubric that instructors can use to self-assess student assignments to identify how the assignment might benefit from revision to lessen the opportunity for student use of AI. The goal of the tool is to help instructors to answer the question: How high is the potential for AI misuse on your writing assignment? The rubric has four traits that are specific to the capabilities and limitations of AI. These traits include: student voice, critical thinking/reasoning, sources/citations, and personalization. This rubric provides guiding questions to help instructors reflect on how they might improve their assignment prompt. If you’d like to discuss the application of this rubric to an assignment in your course with an Instructional Designer in the Center for eLearning, please feel free to request a consultation.
Conclusion
Education has always been an ever-evolving field. New challenges to the way we teach and approach student learning will always present themselves. We hope that the resources above can help instructors to navigate the most recent challenges presented by generative AI writing tools. If you’d like to discuss these tools with an Instructional Designer, please contact the Center for eLearning Initiatives to set up a consultation.
