Written by 11:01 pm AI Guidelines, Uncategorized

### Less than Half of Elite Universities Release Artificial Guidelines

Lack of clear guidelines may put instructors on ‘defensive’ over students’ use of ChatGPT, research…

Less than half of the top 50 universities abroad have published recommendations for utilizing artificial intelligence in educational settings, despite its increasing importance for students and educators, as per a recent analysis.

As per Benjamin Moorehouse, an assistant professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, and his research partners, only 23 out of the 50 institutions, chosen based on their performance in Times Higher Education’s 2023 World University Rankings, have offered explicit guidance for educators regarding the use of generative AI tools in evaluations.

The researchers caution that without clear directives, educators may opt for traditional assessments, exhibit reluctance towards AI, or feel overwhelmed when attempting to adjust their assessment methods without proper guidance.

In the era of transformative technological advancements in higher education, a study published in Computers and Education Open, believed to be groundbreaking, evaluates the extent to which institutions have established protocols to promote scientific integrity and prevent academic misconduct.

This inquiry arises as universities globally grapple with the integration of ChatGPT, which has revolutionized student assessment and course delivery. Despite the widespread adoption of such tools in universities over the past year, some institutions have even imposed bans due to concerns.

Dr. Moorehouse, in discussions with THE, emphasized the importance of universities taking a definitive stance on these tools to avoid leaving faculty and students uninformed about their use.

He recounted conversations with colleagues at another institution facing challenges in communicating with students due to the absence of clear guidelines.

The question then arises: why do numerous institutions lack transparent guidelines for AI utilization? Dr. Moorehouse speculates that some may be employing a “wait and see” approach.

Being the trailblazer can be daunting, and until a full semester cycle with GAI was completed, the precise implications remained uncertain, he noted.

While some institutions like HKUST have crafted guidelines, they may not be readily accessible. Dr. Moorehouse suggested that the reluctance to disclose internal policies could stem from the sensitivity surrounding assessment practices.

He acknowledged the importance of proceeding cautiously while advocating for greater transparency in institutional procedures.

Dr. Moorehouse stressed the necessity for educators to enhance their AI proficiency, asserting the imperative of developing these skill sets with institutional support.

Visited 1 times, 1 visit(s) today
Last modified: February 4, 2024
Close Search Window