“…AND NO AI!”
Students are often warned not to use artificial intelligence in their assignments.
At first glance, the rule makes perfect sense. We should be thinking for ourselves, and that includes solving our own math problems and writing our own essays. After all, school is about learning through trial and error.
However, the topic becomes more complex when you consider that teachers are often allowed to use AI in different ways. In fact, many teachers use AI to create assignments or grade tests.
This might save time, as teachers have numerous assignments to grade. AI can streamline the process when you have so many students. However, the problem occurs when AI is used for every piece of student work, to the point that it replaces a teacher’s judgement.
The first major issue is the clear lack of fairness. When teachers rely entirely on AI, it doesn’t even feel as if they are doing their job. After all, AI isn’t supposed to be teaching us. The teachers are. We could open up Chat GPT ourselves, but students need a knowledgeable teacher who can provide real help at school.
Additionally, assignments created using AI turn out worse. They feel generic and are often full of mistakes. AI-generated classwork/homework isn’t adapted to the specific class, and thus they miss the small but important details that come from a true teacher. Without that human connection, this generalized and off-topic work starts to feel less meaningful.
As students, our biggest worry is that AI is sometimes used to grade our tests. For example, the state of Texas uses AI to do written response grading on STAAR tests. Systems similar to ChatGPT will be evaluating student work. Although this will save money, it raises some concerns.
AI-graded work often exhibits racial bias and is unable to distinguish between poor and quality work. Therefore, it is an unreliable performance indicator. For the STAAR, AI might penalize creative work just because it doesn’t align with its systems. Teachers who have been in the classroom understand context and different forms of thinking, while AI just grades based on its predetermined data. This data might expect perfection, or it might have too low standards. Either way, AI will never have the same judgment that a real educator has.
At the end of the day, this is not about banning technology. It’s about making sure that AI is used fairly and responsibly. Despite students having different roles than teachers, AI should not replace the human thinking that is required in quality education.
