Written by Belen Garcia, Jessica Riviere, Carla Vecchiola, and Chen Wang, posted by Jessica Riviere | Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
On October 22nd, 2024, the Hub hosted a student panel for a faculty audience on the subject of GenAI and its impact on learning at University of Michigan-Dearborn. The interest in the topic was evident in the strong response: there were seven student panelists (and an alternates list!) as well as 45 faculty members who attended the virtual panel. Due to student privacy concerns, we did not record the panel, but it included experienced students (and one alum) from three different colleges on campus. This post has sections from several of the Hubsters describing our impressions of the student panel, and is meant to be a resource for faculty who were unable to attend.
GenAI has had an impact on our students (Carla)
When organizing student panels in the past, I have never had potential student panelists so quickly say “yes!”, suggesting that there is a strong interest in the student body to communicate across the faculty/student divide about this issue in particular.
The students were recommended by faculty members and were from three of our four colleges. They had diverse perspectives, including some who had creative approaches to AI and one who identified as a naysayer. During the virtual panel, they answered three pre-prepared questions:
- To start us off, could each of you introduce yourselves (including major and year in school) and share one aspect of GenAI in college that either excites you or raises concerns?
- Without naming anyone specifically, how have your professors communicated with you about GenAI? Do you feel there has been clear communication on this topic? Please share any examples that stand out to you, whether they are positive or negative.
- Please share any concern you have about academic integrity (or cheating) and GenAI, whether your concern is for yourself or more broadly for our academic community.
In looking back at my own experience of GenAI, both supporting faculty as well as teaching my own courses, I realize that I perceived a GenAI-using student solely as a student trying to take shortcuts in their learning. What I realized while listening to our students is that the complete picture includes a wide variety of student approaches. As I suggested to faculty in the blurb for the event, “This major change in education is not happening to faculty alone but to students as well.” The student panelists showcased how deeply our students have thought about GenAI and made me realize that students have agency in the ways that they utilize GenAI tools. We heard varying reasons why a student might use GenAI, such as the example of equity for a student whose previous educational experience and cultural background doesn’t fit the narrow standards of academic writing. We also heard reasons why students avoid using GenAI, including concern for environmental consequences as well as recognition of the learning lost when not working through the materials oneself.
All of our student panelists were thoughtful and generous, reminding me why I love teaching at UM-Dearborn. If there is one main takeaway, it is that students need transparency about instructors’ expectations. While they understand that the technology has changed and is changing rapidly, they need to know in each course what faculty expect for usage, or avoidance, of GenAI tools because lack of transparency creates confusion, anxiety, and distrust.
Students have high expectations for classes and assignments (Belen)
Students mentioned in the panel that some faculty are really good at engaging students in class and that engagement motivates students to avoid shortcuts, including ones offered by GenAI. Students recognize when faculty care about their learning and appreciate it when faculty are making an effort to understand students. When faculty teach an engaging class and the class has been designed with students in mind, students reported making a better effort to show up and participate in class. For example, one student mentioned that she had a class that was challenging to attend while she was fasting for Ramadan, but that the instructor made it so engaging and inspiring that she never missed a session, and that she was so grateful to have had an instructor that made the class time so valuable to herself and to other students. Another student added in the chat: “Professors should recognize that diverse voices and experiences enrich the classroom, even when they don’t fit traditional molds. When students feel safe expressing themselves, they are less likely to rely on AI to do the talking for them.”
Another aspect that students mentioned was the importance of having assignments that are not “just busy work.” It is demotivating to students when the work they need to complete for a class is not perceived as meaningful or relevant for the class. We at the Hub know that instructors do not design assignments as busy work, so when we hear this kind of statement from students, we see it as an opportunity for you to connect with your students about how any particular task supports the learning goals for the class. GenAI has made us have to shift our language and attention to the fact that sometimes, what our students need is to spend time and repetition with a task or an idea. For someone who is a novice in the field (like many of our students) the necessity of practice and process over result remains unclear. One student on the panel described course assignments as “copious amounts of mid writing.” The more we can connect the dots for students, the better they are able to tap into the work we’ve asked them to do. The Hub has resources on our website to give you ideas on how to be more transparent with your students. And if you want more personalized advice, you can make an appointment with us.
Students struggle to balance trust, academic integrity and creativity (Chen)
During the panel discussion, one student has raised a significant concern about the inconsistency in AI use between faculty and students. This student mentioned that while the professor required strict limitations on students’ use of AI in the classes and assignments, the professor himself relied on AI tools to generate images in lecture slides. This inconsistency led the student to question the differences in standards applied to instructors and students, pointing out that it will lead to a sense of unfairness and confusion. This instance points out the critical need for consistency and transparency in implementing AI policies and statements by instructors, so that both students and faculty could benefit from aligned and clear guidance about when and how AI tools should be used to promote learning experiences.
In addition to the concern of consistency, finding a balance between trust, academic integrity, and creativity seems to become another emerging issue in today’s AI driven trend, as reflected by student representatives during the panel discussion. Students expressed feeling a lack of trust when their work is suspected of being AI-generated by their teachers, while instructors may experience frustration and disappointment when students’ submissions appear with AI-generated content. The ambiguity caused by AI tools makes it challenging for teachers to discern and recognize students’ efforts and contributions, affecting the sense of trust between faculty and students. To mitigate this, building a mutual trust mechanism that is based on open communication, shared expectations, and instructions about whether to use AI as a supportive tool, is very important. Practical steps can include incorporating clear AI usage policies and statements within syllabi, holding open and transparent discussions about the expected role of AI in the classroom, and conducting private, supportive conversations when investigating questioned submissions. These help students feel their creative efforts are valued, which further enables faculty and students to collaboratively foster a learning environment where AI is used ethically and effectively by various stakeholders.
Students want to hear from you (Jessica)
The majority of students on the panel were wrapping up their undergraduate coursework at the university. Many if not most were already employed and included references to the ways GenAI technology is impacting where they work. They expressed empathy and solidarity for the ways that we are all adjusting to a technological landscape that changed without anyone having asked for it. Nevertheless, for the time a student is in a class, the point they are looking towards for guidance is their instructor. Students saw outright bans on GenAI use the least helpful, because of how disconnected that choice is from the environment they encounter outside of the class. This panel reminded me that there are as many student opinions on this technology as there are students. No two students said the same thing about how they use the technology or what the university could do to support them in their learning. This variability in needs and expectations is part of what makes teaching so challenging!
My colleagues and I at the Hub share Carla’s gratitude for the generosity of the students for presenting and the presence of the faculty and staff attendees! The conversation was so rich that we unfortunately had very little time for questions from the audience, but even so I think we were able to uncover a wide range of student experiences, and make room for the similarly broad range of faculty responses to this technology, from a full embrace to deliberate rejection. The students shared the philosophy we try and support at the Hub: There can’t be one “right” way to go about this, because our classes and discipline are all so different. But to the students’ minds, one message was clearer than all the others: The message you share with your students, in each class, matters. One student panelist insisted “Teachers really have an awesome impact.” We couldn’t agree more.
If you could use a helping hand while you sift through what you have to say to your students, the Hub is here to help.