Thanks for this, Sam, which certainly flags up many grey areas. I scored 7 out 8, and was told that wasn't good enough because I'd falsely accused a student. In fact, the outcome was the opposite - I passed a student who did use AI. I found the game interesting and it confirmed that I am getting better at spotting AI's writing style, and the reasons students might use it.
I do think, though, that in many of the questions the issue lies with the university's policy. As an autistic lecturer, I think it might be great for a neurodivergent student to use AI as assistive technology. The issue would be transparency and to have the usage discussed and approved beforehand to ensure it is tailored to the student's needs.
In the case of someone who speaks English as a Foreign Language, or is nervous about their academic writing skills, I think there is a huge difference between using AI to edit one's writing, or consulting grammar/puncutation handbooks and/or a writing skills tutor. The latter engages the student in an active process of learning, analysis and revision. The former is a passive process in which an LLM rewrites one's work. Where is the skills-building in that?
I teach creative writing and am struggling to come up with AI proof assessments. I can do interactive exercises in class, but ultimately I need to see poetry and fiction on the page, as that is what publishers are looking for. We are strengthening the requirement to submit drafts of the creative work, and will as always work closely with student support staff to ensure that all students are treated fairly.
Thanks so much for playing so carefully. I totally agree that the issues lie with the university policy rather than any individual academic, but hope that some administrators can play this game and start to shift the conversation as a result...
I'm not sure I understand the situation being simulated here. One of the submissions is explanatory text from the student about how they used AI. Why would we "flag" that for malconduct, even if it's AI-generated? Or is it supposed to be from a student essay, despite the content?
Also, the "student profile" includes information such as "they ran the essay through an AI tool to make it sound more academic." How can we already know that? And if we already know the diction and grammar are from an LLM, what are we trying to decide? Whether the content is original to the student or not?
Thank you. The student profile is just to add additional context, and in many cases you would know that if you take the time to discuss the situation with a student.
I'm guessing the ambiguity is part of the point, but some teachers and schools do have AI policies that would clarify whether it's okay or not for students to use an LLM to reword/rephrase/"professionalize" their work, so I think it would be helpful to include in the instructions what, exactly, a "flag" is supposed to mean, and what type of AI use is acceptable and shouldn't be flagged.
In the final results, the text in the small grey box showed that I flagged at least one innocent student (my mistakes were passing 2 AI-generated texts) but on the image, it showed I had flagged 0 innocent students. I do think that flagging the ADHD case counts in the grey bex text.
OK - so I just "learned" that if I go back, I can't change my response!! GREAT to know now! I didn't comment and needed to go back for that reason, and thought that this would "remember" my response from a few minutes ago?? Clearly it doesn't - so MY Comment for Marcus (Case 1 last time?) was here:
Unsure what I did last time – thought (BOTH Times!?) that his oral was better than his writing – so should have guessed that he would use AI for support?
Thank you Gail, I purposefully designed the game like that to help remind the player that oftentimes when these accusations iof malpractice are cast, there is no rewind button. :-(
Thank you for playing with such care, I greatly appreciate it.
← Return to game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Thanks for this, Sam, which certainly flags up many grey areas. I scored 7 out 8, and was told that wasn't good enough because I'd falsely accused a student. In fact, the outcome was the opposite - I passed a student who did use AI. I found the game interesting and it confirmed that I am getting better at spotting AI's writing style, and the reasons students might use it.
I do think, though, that in many of the questions the issue lies with the university's policy. As an autistic lecturer, I think it might be great for a neurodivergent student to use AI as assistive technology. The issue would be transparency and to have the usage discussed and approved beforehand to ensure it is tailored to the student's needs.
In the case of someone who speaks English as a Foreign Language, or is nervous about their academic writing skills, I think there is a huge difference between using AI to edit one's writing, or consulting grammar/puncutation handbooks and/or a writing skills tutor. The latter engages the student in an active process of learning, analysis and revision. The former is a passive process in which an LLM rewrites one's work. Where is the skills-building in that?
I teach creative writing and am struggling to come up with AI proof assessments. I can do interactive exercises in class, but ultimately I need to see poetry and fiction on the page, as that is what publishers are looking for. We are strengthening the requirement to submit drafts of the creative work, and will as always work closely with student support staff to ensure that all students are treated fairly.
Thanks so much for playing so carefully. I totally agree that the issues lie with the university policy rather than any individual academic, but hope that some administrators can play this game and start to shift the conversation as a result...
I'm not sure I understand the situation being simulated here. One of the submissions is explanatory text from the student about how they used AI. Why would we "flag" that for malconduct, even if it's AI-generated? Or is it supposed to be from a student essay, despite the content?
Also, the "student profile" includes information such as "they ran the essay through an AI tool to make it sound more academic." How can we already know that? And if we already know the diction and grammar are from an LLM, what are we trying to decide? Whether the content is original to the student or not?
Thank you. The student profile is just to add additional context, and in many cases you would know that if you take the time to discuss the situation with a student.
I'm guessing the ambiguity is part of the point, but some teachers and schools do have AI policies that would clarify whether it's okay or not for students to use an LLM to reword/rephrase/"professionalize" their work, so I think it would be helpful to include in the instructions what, exactly, a "flag" is supposed to mean, and what type of AI use is acceptable and shouldn't be flagged.
Thank you, that is a great suggestion.
In the final results, the text in the small grey box showed that I flagged at least one innocent student (my mistakes were passing 2 AI-generated texts) but on the image, it showed I had flagged 0 innocent students. I do think that flagging the ADHD case counts in the grey bex text.
Thank you. I will try and fix this now.
OK - so I just "learned" that if I go back, I can't change my response!! GREAT to know now! I didn't comment and needed to go back for that reason, and thought that this would "remember" my response from a few minutes ago?? Clearly it doesn't - so MY Comment for Marcus (Case 1 last time?) was here:
Unsure what I did last time – thought (BOTH Times!?) that his oral was better than his writing – so should have guessed that he would use AI for support?
Thank you Gail, I purposefully designed the game like that to help remind the player that oftentimes when these accusations iof malpractice are cast, there is no rewind button. :-(
Thank you for playing with such care, I greatly appreciate it.