Engaging students in learning outside the classroom can often be a challenge, but podcasts might be a simple yet versatile tool we’re overlooking.
As the number of commuting students rises across institutions, we recognise that students are time poor. There is, however, the potential of using travel time as an opportunity for students to work but also relax and many students use their commute time as an opportunity to prepare for teaching. Podcasting is one of the ways we can design our pedagogy to fit the busy lives of commuter students.
Think about how you listen to podcasts, most likely while you’re doing other things like driving, cooking or walking. There’s a versatility to it.
How many of the learning resources we offer allow students to learn on-the-go?
Education on-the-go
Most podcast listeners will tell you the convenience of audio-centric and on-the-go content is key to their success. BBC data suggests that about three in four podcast listeners do so while doing something else, so even podcasts that have a video option available need to be planned and created with an audio-only format in mind.
Offering that versatility also comes at a cost. It’s important to recognise the fact that students might be on a busy bus, or looking for the timetable for their next train connection. We probably won’t have a student’s full attention, and that means that we need to carefully consider the kind of educational content that’s going to work in this format.
Successful podcasts tend to be focused on experiential storytelling. They are usually fluid and conversational, so don’t be afraid to lean into that. Storytelling gives us emotional responses, helping students connect abstract ideas to real-world implications. A podcast will be much more successful if you give depth and meaning to something a student has already learned, rather than delivering the learning itself.
Let’s take data analysis as an example. Instead of focusing on the technical process of analysing data, you could discuss stories of the impact of data bias or ethical dilemmas in data usage. Give your students food for thought rather than core learning, use it to turn the numbers into narrative and give a deeper meaning to your classroom content.
It can also be a good idea to supplement your podcast with a short interactive activity, either online or at the start of your next learning session. Ask students to reflect on the podcast and their key takeaways from it. It can be a great starting point to encourage deeper learning.
A how to guide
Another core aspect of successful podcasts is authenticity. You don’t want your podcast to sound like a job interview. Natural conversations foster a sense of authenticity, which is key to keeping listeners engaged. A key part of this comes from the way you prepare for a podcast. Discussion points as opposed to questions allows both you and your guest to think more holistically about the topic and can make a huge difference when it comes to making the conversation flow authentically.
We’ve found it’s best to give more flexibility and aim for shorter episodes. Splitting a conversation up into bitesize chunks gives students the option to listen to all episodes in one go, or a bit at a time. Starting with a few episodes, around 12-20 minutes each, will offer your students a lot more flexibility than a single 1-hour long podcast.
Thankfully the technical and logistical aspects of recording podcasts have developed rapidly over the last few years and it’s very easy to get started. Advancements like text-to-speech editing and speech enhancement let you record fully online and get incredible results without any technical knowledge or high-end equipment. A lot of podcasting software now produces automatic text transcription supporting accessibility and allowing students to engage with the content in multiple formats.
And by framing these resources as useful for students to “listen to on-the-go,” gives students permission to use and access resources in ways which work for them during their busy lives. It recognises commuter students and acknowledges busy student lives and gives them a new innovative way to engage with their studies.
Getting started
If you’re interested in giving it a go, here are some ideas to get you started.
A conversation about a specific assessment: contact a student who did well on an assessment last year and ask if they would be happy to share their experiences. Students can get ideas and inspiration from how they have approached it, what worked well and what they would do differently.
Interviews with industry experts is another way to frame a podcast. Working professionals don’t always have the time to travel to campus and prepare a lecture for your students. That might be different if they just had to join an online call for a natural conversation. Recording it as a podcast also gives you a reusable resource for future cohorts.
Student Q&As where students can submit their own questions about a topic or assessment and discuss them in a podcast. This could be an idea to explore on your own, with another lecturer, or with professionals in the industry.
It’s clear that using podcasts as a form of education comes with a lot of challenges, but it also offers a vast world of opportunities and flexibility for students. Where students face further challenges to engage and attend classes, it is worth considering how educational podcasts may be a mechanism so that resources work around busy and complex student lives. For commuting students, a great deal of time is spent on public transport and in maximising their time, providing resources that are engaging, useful and timely is a step in the right direction. And in designing resources specifically with commuter students in mind it recognises their experiences and allows them to engage authentically.
And to make podcasts work for commuter students in an educational context we need to be realistic about the challenges students face and create content that works in a podcast format rather than shoehorning existing content into a new format. If we nail that, then podcasts could become a very useful tool for delivering educational content that fits around students and heightens engagement.
The inauguration ceremony for Donald Trump was interesting to watch for several reasons, but the Battle Hymn of the Republic caught my ear. Whilst the song has cultural connections for Americans, its explicit religiosity and commitment to truth seems at odds with modern sensibilities. Rather than truth, recent political history, eg Johnson, Trump, Brexit and Covid-19 (anti)vaccination, has shone a light on our post-truth society, where, as Illing (2018) notes, there is a disappearance of ‘shared standards of truth’. In such a society politics shifts from being the discussion of ideas or even ‘what works’ to a play for the emotions of the majority. A context within which Michael Gove, an early adopter, was able to label a raft of educational luminaries ‘the blob’ (see Garner, 2014).
Whilst this is/might be irritating and socially disabling, I want to argue that it is also both deleterious to educational research and that its roots lie some 250 years ago.
Pring (2015) argued that what makes educational research distinctly educational is its intention to improve educational practice. So, research about education is not sufficient to qualify as educational research; educational research intends to change educational practice for the good of learners (and often wider society). This requires several activities including shared dialogues between researchers, practitioners and other stakeholders with common ways of talking about education and common standards of truth (see Davies, 2016). An environment of post-truth undermines such possibilities, as I hope will become clearer as I explore the roots of the present malaise.
The roots lie around 1744 or just before, signalled by Vico’s New Science, or at least in the 18th century, where MacIntyre (1987) places the last foothold of the ‘educated public’ – and it is in MacIntyre that I ground the argument here. MacIntyre (1985) presents a historically informed account of the decline of ethical discourse and, on a more positive note, what is required for its restoration. Here I fillet that account for the resources I need for my purposes (see Davies, 2003, Davies, 2013 for more detailed reviews). He argues that ethical discourse has undergone a series of transformations, led by philosophers but now part of the public zeitgeist, causing a situation in which people believed there was no reasonable basis on which to resolve ethical disagreements.
Here, I identify just three key elements of the argument. Firstly, naïve relativism, the (false) view that because people disagree on a matter then, necessarily, there must be no rational means to resolve the disagreement. Secondly, MacIntyre identifies three, non-rational approaches to decision making: (i) personal taste, (ii) achieving the goals of the system of which one is a part, or (iii) through interpersonal agreement. These are embedded, MacIntyre claims, in our social activities and institutions. Thirdly, that these give rise to a distinctive form of political engagement, protest. In protest different sides shout their differing views at each other knowing both that their views will not change the views of their opponents nor that their opponents’ views will change their views.
When we see ‘toddler’ behaviour from politicians, it is a focus on personal taste and the tantrums that emerge when these are frustrated. What reasons, they might say, do others have to frustrate what I want, for no such reasons can exist. When we see claims that the democratic process must be followed, we are seeing a commitment to achieving the goals of the system; what else can be done? We regularly see examples of protest, often mistakenly seen as ‘facing down’ a critique of one’s behaviour. The views of others only count if they have some reasons for their views that might be better than mine. But for those embracing the obviousness of naïve relativism this cannot happen, rather protests (against Johnson, Trump, and others) are just attempts to make them feel bad. Such attempts must be resisted through and because of bravado.
How do the politician and policymaker operate in such an environment? Bauman (2000) offers a couple of practical conceptions consistent with MacIntyre’s critique. Firstly, Bauman draws attention to the effect of having no rational basis for decision making: it is increasingly difficult to aggregate individual desires into political coherent movements. Traditional political groupings on class, gender and race are dissolving (which is certainly a feature of the 2024 US election analysis). It matters less why you want to achieve something; it is just that we can have interpersonal agreement on what we claim we want to achieve. Secondly, Bauman talks of decision making as reflecting the ‘script of shopping’, we buy into things – friendship groups, lifestyles, etc – and as suddenly no longer do so when they do not satisfy our personal desires. Whilst this may seem overly pessimistic, Bauman and MacIntyre are identifying the unavoidable direction of human societies towards this already emergent conclusion.
Politicians and policymakers play, therefore, in this world of seeking sufficient co-operation to build a political base – to get elected and to get policies through. They do this by getting individuals to buy into the value of specific outcomes (or more often to stop other awful outcomes). They are not interested why individuals buy in, nor do they try to develop a broader consensus. There are no rational foundations, and any persuasive tactic will do, with different tactics deployed to influence different people. This scattergun approach is more likely to hit the personal desires of the maximum number of people.
Where does this leave the educational researcher seeking to influence educational policy and practice based on their research endeavours? At best, we might become the chosen instrument of a policymaker to persuade others – but only if our research agrees with their pre-existing desires. Truth is not the desired feature, just the ability to be persuasive.
But what if truth does matter, and we want to take seriously our moral responsibilities to support educational endeavours that are in the interests of students? There are four things we can do.
Understand the situation. It is not just that the political environment is hostile to research, it does not see facts as a feature of policy and practice development.
Decide if we want to be educational researchers or policymakers. The former means potentially less engagement, impact, and status, perhaps walking away from policymaking as more ethically defensible than staying to persuade using simulacra of evidence.
Get our own house in order. We have too many conferences which provide too little time to discuss fundamental differences between researchers, with so many papers that we are only speaking to people with whom we more or less agree. The debates are over minutiae rather than significant differences. Dissenting voices tend to go elsewhere and move on to different foci rather than try and get a foot in the door. Bluntly, our academic system is already shaped by the same post-truth structures that have given rise to Trump, Johnson, et al (and no doubt most of us could identify our equivalents of them). Although we will never speak with one voice and will, I hope, always embrace fallibility, getting the house in order will enable us to model what rational dialogue and truth seeking can achieve in identifying how educational policy and practice can be enhanced. Of course, we should value each other’s contributions, but not confuse value with valid (it is just another form of naïve relativism).
Find some allies who accept a similar account of the decline of reason from amongst politicians and policymakers and work out how we start to make educational research not only relevant but influential.
Richard Davies leads the MA Education Framework programmes at the University of Hertfordshire. His research interests include philosophical issues in higher education. He is a co-convenor of the Academic Practice Network at SRHE.
Ready for a conversation about educational technology, artificial intelligence, and personal academic websites? The 2024 season of The Social Academic is here.
Meet my featured interview guest, Director of Educational Research Technology at New York University, Dr. Elizabeth McAplin. Read, watch, or listen to this episode of The Social Academic.
Jennifer: Hi everyone, my name is Jennifer van Alstyne. Welcome to the new season of The Social Academic. This blog, podcast, and YouTube channel is about managing your online presence in academia. Today we’re gonna be talking about teaching and educational resources.
I’m delighted to introduce my guest to you, Dr. Elizabeth McAplin, who is Director of Educational Research Technology at New York University. Elizabeth, thanks so much for joining me today. Would you please introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about your role at NYU?
Elizabeth: Sure. I’m Director of Educational Technology Research at NYU. I’ve been in this role a little over 7 years now, and at NYU for almost 10 years. I did my PhD at NYU and a MA in Educational Technology at NYU so I have a very long history with NYU.
When I was a student there and worked, I had multiple hats: student, alumni, faculty, and administrator.
Jennifer: Wow.
Elizabeth: Yup, all of them. I was the face of NYU. My role there specifically is to collaborate with faculty who are looking to make pedagogical changes to their courses usually involving some sort of media or technology.
We had a very large provostial push years ago to encourage faculty to start using technology, trying it out. And seeing how well that could enhance their courses and make things better and easier for themselves as well as their students.
I’ll work with them in part sometimes to develop a technology. Sometimes it might be a virtual reality project that they might want to use in their course or program. As well as conduct scholarly research to see how well that is impacting student learning in their classroom or program. We aim to publish those findings as well.
I’m a central resource. I work with all schools and departments at NYU.
Creating her university-hosted personal academic website
Jennifer: That is amazing. Because you’ve been at NYU for so long, you were a student there, you’ve worked there, and now you’re a director there. I’m curious. You have an internal personal academic website [hosted by NYU]. Is that something you created when you were a student? Or, in your newer role?
Elizabeth: No, I created it during a time when I was both a student and in my current role. I was finishing my PhD while I was still a Director.
I created it not for the purpose of my own portfolio site. I do have a presence at NYU that shows my service within the structure of Research, Instruction, and Technology which is my department, within the larger umbrella of NYU IT. [That presence] does get a little bit lost sometimes in that filter. But it is there. It doesn’t describe me personally, it describes my service to faculty and to the university. It’s not focused on me per se.
The portfolio site is to showcase some of the work I’ve done in the past, mainly at NYU. It does also list my CV, prior work experience as well as teaching experience and the like. In the event life changes, I like to have something available and ready to show.
Jennifer: I love that. When I was exploring your site it was fun for me to see the different types of videos you were posting about educational technology projects you were working on and collaborating with faculty. I like that even though this is a portfolio site, it sounds like maybe a ‘just in case’ site? That it was helping me prepare for this interview and get to know a little bit more about you. At what point did you create that website?
Elizabeth: That was many years ago. It’s hosted through NYU. NYU provides faculty a WordPress service just for that. Sometimes they use it to create a portfolio for grants they’ve received or want to receive. They can provide that to their grant funders. It’s another way to showcase the work that gets done.
It’s an internally managed WordPress hosting site. It’s not something I pay for externally. All faculty have that available to them [at NYU].
Jennifer: Did NYU encourage you to create a website? Or was it something you learned about and then decided to make yourself?
Elizabeth: I think when I knew the service was available, and I was teaching there as well, I decided it was a good idea and why not? I mean, if it’s free and I don’t have to pay for it, there’s no non-incentive not to do it, haha.
Videos for your personal academic website portfolio
Jennifer: Your portfolio had a nice list of videos where you’ve collaborated with faculty to create resources and technologies for their classrooms. Can you tell me about one of the videos that you were excited to share on your website?
Elizabeth: Before I was a Director of Research, I was a Director that oversaw a very large team of instructional designers and media producers. Our role was to create a lot of this content for faculty to be used in their courses. I learned a great deal about each faculty member I worked with and their particular expertise. It’s kind of a wonderful way to learn more, because I love learning. And to create and produce those videos.
Most of those [videos] were created with a team of people. They would be scripted, prepared, and imagery selected for them ahead of time. They were very well planned out videos that were used in their courses.
They’re just fascinating and visually engaging pieces of work. We did a lot of things! A lot of interactive pieces: videos, games, simulations, etc.
Jennifer: That is so cool! And I love that there’s support at NYU for faculty who are looking to introduce those newer technologies into their pedagogy, into their teaching.
Artificial intelligence in the university classroom
Jennifer: I’m curious. What technologies are faculty curious about exploring? I’m coming from literature as a field. There’s newer augmented reality [AR] or virtual reality [VR] technology that can be introduced into that. Most faculty just aren’t aware of it. So I’m curious, what are faculty at NYU curious about learning now?
Elizabeth: Artificial intelligence. It’s a really big topic right now because it has so many unknowns.
I think there’s still a lot of faculty that are hesitant to use a lot of technology. I think since COVID when faculty had to go online during that time period, that was a big change for them. It did kind of give them that opportunity to learn more about technologies they could use moving forward.
There’s giving a Zoom presentation, learning how to present, use technologies within Zoom for their classes, making hybrid courses or fully online versions of them. Learning how to create better videos for their courses.
Not relying so much on lecture as being used for the time in the classroom anymore. Pulling the lecture out, making that as a video or something, and using the classroom for more discussion or interactive uses of the time with their students.
Jennifer: That is so cool.
Elizabeth: It’s such a precious amount of time.
And then, there’s a handful of faculty very interested in virtual reality and augmented reality. Those are mainly in the sciences and medical fields.
And now, artificial intelligence is the biggest buzz at the university. How are faculty going to manage using artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, in a productive and constructive way as opposed to ways that students want to write their papers with.
Jennifer: It’s kind of like a shift in how we think about artificial intelligence in the classroom from fear-based to how can it be a part of it in a meaningful way?
What are your thoughts on it? How are you feeling about artificial intelligence and pedagogy?
Elizabeth: I think there can be a lot of great uses of it, as long as it’s well planned out. There are efficiencies to things like using ChatGPT that we didn’t have before. That can be wonderful.
Even doing literature reviews and such through ChatGPT can help speed up that process. We didn’t have to go to a library before to do a lot of research on articles because now they’re all digitized. We can do that through an online library system.
It just gets a little bit closer to making things more efficient. Maybe we’ll have more doctoral students coming out of it. I’m not sure.
There’s always going to be pros and cons for whatever technology comes before us. We have to acknowledge it. We have to understand what are the risks? What are the affordances? And work with that. That’s always going to be the case.
Just like with a calculator, one of those tools that came out and people said, “You won’t have to learn math anymore because you can just use a calculator.” Regardless of all that, yes, we will still turn to our calculators to make sure we’re right in our math.
It’s not a new problem, and it’s not a new risk. I think some of it comes down to making sure when we’re using these tools, we’re not also putting our students at risk like with identifiable information or grades, things like that. It’s a constant conversation to have with faculty on best uses and practices of these technologies and tools. And to keep monitoring those risks and the things that are gonna come up. They’re going to come up. They always will.
When students get very stressed out and are under pressure, they’re more apt to want to cheat. Or have something, or someone, help them get the work done. So reviewing how much work we’re imposing on our students, or understanding that their social lives are taking a precedence they need to dial back to focus on their academic careers. It’s always a balance: is it the student’s problem? Or, is it our problem? And how do we find a happy medium in between?
Jennifer: I really like that. It’s a beautiful point. When I was a student my parents had just passed away. I was working so hard. There were times I struggled to keep up. My teachers’ empathy for understanding what I was going through, even just a little bit made it feel like a safe place in the classroom, and made me excited to learn (even if I was a little bit behind in some areas). So I loved what you just said.
Which of the technologies you just share with me are you most excited about? You talked about AR, VR, artificial intelligence, games. Which of those kinds of forms of teaching excites you?
Elizabeth: I’ve been working so much in virtual reality recently in the past few years, so I guess that’s the most exciting.
I’ve been working with 1 faculty member for almost 10 years. We just keep evolving resources for her course, which is really large, almost 400 students in her course. The virtual reality project we had for her, we keep trying to find ways to improve the experience overall. We’ve just gotten into working with faculty in the School of Engineering on how to create custom haptics for that virtual reality simulation.
Jennifer: Would you explain haptics for us?
Elizabeth: A virtual reality out of the box headset comes with the headset and 2 hand controllers. When you’re trying to learn a procedure that involves medical instruments like a syringe or a scalpel if you’re doing surgery, you want to know and feel what that device is like as you are performing the procedure. It’s not just cognitive. It’s tactile. It’s procedural. It has multiple learning and practice components to it.
An out of the box hand controller is not particularly authentic to actually holding a syringe and actually practicing learning that procedure. Working with engineers, they developed a 3D printed syringe and connected that to a haptic device that now students can pick up and actually feel something that’s more authentic to that experience as they are in a virtual reality simulation in going through those procedural steps.
It’s never going to replace working on an actual patient. We’re trying to prepare them to get as close as possible to a real patient experience before they work with a patient because there are so many risks involved in working with a real patient. So that’s the impetus behind that. It’s an ongoing process. We keep learning and we keep trying to make things better. That’s for us, part of the learning process as well. And that’s what’s exciting.
Jennifer: That sounds so exciting. And I love it’s been an ongoing project and exploration over 10 years to improve the teaching and tools in that course.
Jennifer on sharing the resources you create online
Jennifer: One of the things I wanted to chat about for faculty who might be listening to this, is that when you do create educational resources or tools like this, it would be great to share on your personal academic website and on social media.
These tools don’t just help your students and other faculty at your university. They might help or inspire faculty across the world. I want you to know when you do take time to share those educational resources that you’ve made in a new way, in a way that’s accessible for people not directly in your classroom or talking with you at a conference 1-on-1. You can actually help more people with the hard work you’ve already done just by sharing it.
There’s so many things you can share on your personal website related to teaching. I thought I’d list a few for those listening: your syllabi, course descriptions, any videos, or tools like PDF resources or guides. That can go on your personal academic website. If you find that it’s helpful for you or your students, I’ve had professor clients who actually create lists of internal resources and external resources at their university that they regularly share with not just one class, but multiple. Putting that on their personal website creates a kind of home for it where your students can go to find those resources when it makes sense for them.
I want you to know that your website can be a portfolio. And that portfolio can be for the job market, it can be for grants like Dr. McAplin said. It can also be for your students. There’s so many ways to share the amazing teaching and educating you do online. I want you to not hide from that if you have resources to share.
Jennifer: Dr. McAplin, why did you actually choose to share the videos on your website? I think that’s the step a lot of people are missing. They create things, but they don’t always decide to share them. What prompted you to actually share the videos and the resources you helped create?
Elizabeth: We’re proud of the work that was done. We want to show what’s possible. We’re not creating things for National Geographic or some NOVA high-production value thing. It doesn’t have to be that. But we took as much time and care as we possibly could with very little budget at all to make these resources. So it’s just to show examples of what’s possible and change a little bit the narrative. We get comfortable lecturing, but when we don’t have a visual idea for our students for what we’re talking about as we’re talking about it…we don’t want to cause a cognitive dissonance with that information either. Thinking carefully about the words with the imagery or short clips of documentaries or films that go along with what we’re saying to describe as examples of what we’re talking about. As long as they’re relevant and not overdoing it, I think it’s a good way to connect what we say with our eyes. We process these two things simultaneously, so we have that cognitive ability to do so, and we should take advantage of that ability.
What we try to encourage with faculty and to try and make it a more enriching experience for our students.
Jennifer: That is beautiful. I’m so glad we got to talk about this today. Elizabeth, is there anything else you’d like to add about your website, or about the amazing work you do at NYU?
Elizabeth: I list [on my website] that I do workshops at the university. I get asked to do talks within the university. Those are important things to share, like this conversation. We have something at NYU called Teach Talks through the Provost department and there’s some other departments that do similar things, that connect with faculty to talk about things like their assessment practices, pedagogical practices. We haven’t really had one that talks about their research. That might be a missing link we could try to fill, which is more what my area is, on the research end.
These are great resources for faculty to connect with other faculty, to learn about more ways to do things, to inspire them to do things differently, and to take a leadership role forward in that department. That’s more or less what I provide on my website.
Jennifer: That’s amazing. I’m so glad you have your website. And, that I was able to explore it so we could have this conversation today.
It makes such a difference when people are open to sharing a little bit more about themselves. So I’m happy you were open to coming on The Social Academic to talk with me. Anything else you’d like to add?
Elizabeth: If anyone has any questions, I’m available to answer them.
Jennifer: Wonderful. Well thank you so much for listening to this new episode of The Social Academic. Be sure to share it with a friend if you think they’d find it helpful. And, be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss the next episode.
I’m Jennifer van Alstyne. I’ve been in conversation with Dr. Elizabeth McAplin. I’m so excited to share this episode with you.
Elizabeth: Thank you Jennifer for asking me to participate.
Dr. Elizabeth McAlpin is the Director of Educational Technology Research at NYU Information Technology. Her team assists faculty in scholarly research on teaching and learning strategies when enhanced with technology to improve student learning. She holds an undergraduate degree from Denison University, an Ed.M. in instructional technology and media from Teachers College, and an M.A. and Ph.D in educational communication and technology from New York University. In addition to her full-time position, she also teaches as an adjunct at NYU. Her interests include educational technology research, effective educational design, innovative pedagogy and assessment, and educational technology and media for all kinds of learning experiences.
IHEC Blog a project by David Comp: Lee Satterfield, Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, International Education Week 2023 Message
Lee Satterfield, Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, International Education Week 2023 Message
It was my pleasure last week to deliver a mini-workshop at the Independent Schools of New Zealand Annual Conference in Auckland. Intended to be more dialogue than monologue, I’m not sure if it landed quite where I had hoped. It is an exciting time to be thinking about educational governance and my key message was ‘don’t get caught up in the hype’.
Understanding media representations of “Artificial Intelligence”.
Mapping types of AI in 2023
We need to be wary of the hype around the term AI, Artificial Intelligence. I do not believe there is such a thing. Certainly not in the sense the popular press purport it to exist, or has deemed to have sprouted into existence with the advent of ChatGPT. What there is, is a clear exponential increase in the capabilities being demonstrated by computation algorithms. The computational capabilities do not represent intelligence in the sense of sapience or sentience. These capabilities are not informed by the senses derived from an organic nervous system. However, as we perceive these systems to mimic human behaviour, it is important to remember that they are machines.
This does not negate the criticisms of those researchers who argue that there is an existential risk to humanity if A.I. is allowed to continue to grow unchecked in its capabilities. The language in this debate presents a challenge too. We need to acknowledge that intelligence means something different to the neuroscientist and the philosopher, and between the psychologist and the social anthropologist. These semiotic discrepancies become unbreachable when we start to talk about consciousness.
In my view, there are no current Theory of Mind applications… yet. Sophia (Hanson Robotics) is designed to emulate human responses, but it does not display either sapience or sentience.
What we are seeing, in 2023, is the extension of both the ‘memory’, or scope of data inputs, into larger and larger multi-modal language models, which are programmed to see everything as language. The emergence of these polyglot super-savants is remarkable, and we are witnessing the unplanned and (in my view) cavalier mass deployment of these tools.
Ethical spheres for Governing Boards to reflect on in 2023
Ethical and Moral Implications
Educational governing bodies need to stay abreast of the societal impacts of Artificial Intelligence systems as they become more pervasive. This is more important than having a detailed understanding of the underlying technologies or the way each school’s management decides to establish policies. Boards are required to ensure such policies are in place, are realistic, can be monitored, and are reported on.
Policies should already exist around the use of technology in supporting learning and teaching, and these can, and should, be reviewed to ensure they stay current. There are also policy implications for admissions and recruitment, selection processes (both of staff and students) and where A.I. is being used, Boards need to ensure that wherever possible no systemic bias is evident. I believe Boards would benefit from devising their own scenarios and discussing them periodically.
Last week, I had the opportunity to present at the Open Education Conference. It was virtual and the content was definitely interesting!
My session was held on Monday, October 18 • 3:45pm – 4:25pm and it was titled, “Designing an Interactive OER Syllabus as an Equitable Practice”.
During the session, I talked about my interactive OER syllabus and I had the opportunity to network with some amazing colleagues. One of the amazing faculty members from my institution attended as well – shout out to Dr. Trina Geye!
I am passionate about open educational resources and I like fact that OERs can save students money. This is very important for our Texas college students. Open Educational Resources are equitable resources!
Here are the notes from the presentation:
I know some of you are wondering WHY I incorporate OERs instead of textbooks for my courses…. This is why…
Day-One Access/No-Cost (Equitable)
Easier for the Student
Mobile Access
Linkable to Canvas
Easier for the Professor (Updates/Changes)
I always emphasize partnering with the library to find additional educational resources. Here are some starting points!
Podcast Links
Guides from Prior Semesters (Student Approved Work)
YouTube Videos
Database Article Links
E-Books
Lib Guides
As you transition from semester-to-semester, I always recommend this checklist for “refreshing” your OER syllabus:
Check Your Links
Check for More Relevant Resources
Develop a Pre and Post Semester Checklist
Integrate Your OER Endeavors with Research
In fact, here’s a copy of my OER syllabi:
I also design a syllabus and Canvas tour for my students to help them become more familiar with the content.
Students in my classes (both graduate and undergraduate students) REALLY enjoy the free resources and they are also “more up-to-date” than a traditional textbook.
