Dear Editor,

As the new academic year gets started, many administrators, lecturers, and students within local higher education institutions (HEI) hope to be given some direction concerning the use and treatment of ChatGPT and other generative/artificial intelligence (AI) platforms for academic purposes.

Since the emergence of ChatGPT in November 2022, education systems worldwide have raised questions about the possible disruption and threats it could bring to the sector. At the tertiary level, especially, many lecturers were concerned about plagiarism and cheating, particularly in relation to take-home assignments. However, gradually, several of them have explored the chatbot for themselves and have experienced some of the benefits, such as its capacity to create quizzes, generate lesson plans, and suggest ideas for classes, among multiple other things. Still, some are not yet ready to embrace this aspect of technology.

ChatGPT and other generative AI tools are considered both a threat and an opportunity to education, and many educators have mixed views regarding how and when it should be used. Understandably, this stance extends beyond the borders of Jamaica.

My colleague linguist Tyane Robinson (Sam Sharpe Teachers’ College) and I just participated in a four-day conference in Trnava, Slovakia, organised yearly by the European Association for Computer-assisted Language Learning (EUROCALL). Of the over 230 participants, representing over 50 countries, we were the only ones representing the Caribbean region.

We learnt that many universities globally are yet to establish AI policies. We had robust discussions and shared ideas of what could be done, but while we agreed on some points, we disagreed on others. With the absence of a specific policy, how are lecturers to grade students’ work whenever AI is detected? Should it be considered plagiarism? Should the student receive an automatic zero or should they be asked to resubmit the assignment? Should the manner in which the student is graded be left to the lecturer’s discretion and acceptance of AI?

Before, some students (not very many) would rely on the more competent other (a human being) for explanations, ideas, or for proofreading. However,
ChatGPT and other AI tools have now become the more competent non-biological other. It specifically operates beyond the speed of the average individual. It ‘thinks’ quickly and generates responses to prompts in a blink. One of its major limitations, however, is that it cannot feel or express human-like emotions.

Clearly, ChatGPT and other tools, such as Grammarly, QuillBot, and Scribbr, are disruptive enhancers in the education sector. Should we integrate them in our teaching or totally restrict them? As a reflective teacher researcher whose studies focus primarily on technology-assisted language learning, I cannot say no to technology. In fact, we live in a perpetually advancing technological era. Our students are digitally savvy; therefore, it is best for us as their instructors to be as knowledgeable as they are.

Consequently, it requires openness and a willingness to experiment. We have long lamented that most of our HEIs do not have a research culture. It is an opportune time to change that. Let us employ different AI tools in the planning, preparation, delivery, and assessments of our courses and collect data so that we can make informed decisions and share the findings with each other.

Given the dismal passes in English language and mathematics in the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) exams, stakeholders in the education sector may also want to reflect on how AI could be integrated in a meaningful way to help reach some of our students.

Notwithstanding, as the Ministry of Education and Youth, the unit of the Office of the Prime Minister responsible for information, skills, and digital transformation, and our tertiary institutions think about and prepare AI policies, they must consider ethics, training, and privacy concerns.

The funny thing is that they do not need to brainstorm it all by themselves, as the more competent non-biological other — ChatGPT — can propose a detailed plan in real time, as long as they use specific prompts.

May we move with urgency in providing guidance for our education stakeholders, because the concerns are grave.

Oneil Madden

maddenoniel@yahoo.com