"#1) Winners never cheat and cheaters never win. # 2) If you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying hard enough. Funny enough, I kind of subscribe to the combination of the two seemingly incongruent maxims. The obsession with how generative AI helps students “cheat” is boring"....Cheaters "only hurt themselves"
So much to unpack there.
"boring" maybe. But the hand-wringing and worry are certainly not misdirected. Trying to evaluate student learning without any valid way to is (lowkey) frustrating and (highkey) despairing.
1. AI has totally changed the value & measures we've used for a long time to evaluate and assess
2. It's supercharged access to answers (some times with explanations, but almost always answers)
3. Cognitive offloading and its risks are starting to come into focus
4. Inertia of large systems (with embedded large edtechnology systems) is real
On the one hand: AI is an amazing accelerant for learning.
On the other, it is a teleportation device to answers (learning not required).
"#1) Winners never cheat and cheaters never win. # 2) If you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying hard enough. Funny enough, I kind of subscribe to the combination of the two seemingly incongruent maxims. The obsession with how generative AI helps students “cheat” is boring"....Cheaters "only hurt themselves"
So much to unpack there.
"boring" maybe. But the hand-wringing and worry are certainly not misdirected. Trying to evaluate student learning without any valid way to is (lowkey) frustrating and (highkey) despairing.
1. AI has totally changed the value & measures we've used for a long time to evaluate and assess
2. It's supercharged access to answers (some times with explanations, but almost always answers)
3. Cognitive offloading and its risks are starting to come into focus
4. Inertia of large systems (with embedded large edtechnology systems) is real
On the one hand: AI is an amazing accelerant for learning.
On the other, it is a teleportation device to answers (learning not required).
A few clicks, as ever, ≠ learning.