AI and Academic Publishing

 Like many others, I have been playing with generative AI for the past few months. I am an author of scientific papers and, even more so a frequent reviewer. I have been elated by the potential of generative AI to bridge the gap between English knowledge and conducting high-quality research, especially for international scholars whose first language is not English. This is an opportunity to level the playing field and allow equal access to academic publishing, which is predominantly conducted in English. Many times I have reviewed articles with good ideas but really hard-to-understand language that required many rounds of review and editing before it was publishable.

On the other hand, generative AI is quite as capable of generating data that isn't there (often referred to as hallucinating). For example, after being asked about my publications Chat GPT 3.5 spit out this list: None of the publications are real! This will require our publication engines to allow us to track every in-text reference with quick access so reviewers can check the veracity of such claims that may be "halucinated".

Even more challenging is generative AI's ability to "hallucinate" research studies. In a manner of a few minutes, I was able to have Chat GPT generate two potential studies about reading instruction (synthetic phonics and reading recovery) with ANOVA designs, including result tables. I even got Chat GPT to design and execute a study about the impact of a Wind Surfing intervention on Math achievement of second graders. For example, examine this paragraph generated after I requested a qualitative study instead:

"As this study focuses on qualitative exploration, the quantitative results will not be the primary focus. However, to provide a broader context for the qualitative findings, basic descriptive statistics of math achievement scores may be reported for both the windsurfing instruction group and the control group. These scores will be collected through pre- and post-intervention math assessments administered to all participants. The quantitative results will be used to complement and contextualize the qualitative findings, providing a broader perspective on students' math achievement in relation to their windsurfing experiences."

I am sure that generative AI will create an increase of papers submitted for publication. To prevent science from being overwhelmed and suspicious we may need to write new rules and accelerate existing trends.

1. Demand researchers pre-register their research.

2. Ask that each paper submitted will include a statement about the use of generative AI and will include the transcripts of their use.

3. Create ethical standards for AI use in scientific publishing AND teach about it in graduate schools.

4. Create reviewing mechanisms that allow easy tracking of citations to the source.

Notes from CSEdCon

Last week I traveled to CSEdCon 2022. As always Code.Org published State of CSE 2022 showing that despite the pandemic progress has been made in a variety of fronts. The two Nebraska representatives (Dr. John Skretta joined me this time) spent quite a bit of our energy learning from the experience of others, and discussing our ideas in meeting the goals outlined in our recent legislation Legislative bill 1112, the Computer Science and Technology Act. We are eager to start working on the problem as the code.org regional partner and the lead institution in the state. We hope to partner with the Nebraska Department of education in making a difference for the students of Nebraska.

I had many discussions in CSEdCon about the critical time to get students interested in Computer Science. Some support an emphasis on Elementary/ primary education. The claim is that early interest can capture all students and significantly increase the odds that girls and students of color will become motivated to pursue computer science. This is true but not quite enough. We know from our research in multiple STEM fields that the very students we were focused on lost interest during the middle school years despite high interest during their primary years.

Others focus on high school, most prominently because of the new high school graduation requirement. I believe that high school (especially beyond 9th grade) is simply too late. Students have established areas of interest and often some idea about a chosen field. They might fulfill a requirement, but that is not very likely to change trajectories as much as needed.

As a result, when asked by any school where to start, I suggest Middle school(more specifically, grades 7-9). This is the age where students may lose interest or get discouraged, and it is early enough to create new trajectories. This is by no means enough. Once a middle grades program is established, a school would start rolling down the elementary, creating better-prepared students and high school classes now answering new demands by excited students and parents.

And if you get this in time- do not forget hour of code in early December!

Computer Science as a Core and the Buffalo Massacre

 

The argument against teaching computer science to all came this week from some of our rural schools. They point out, and rightfully so, that the many jobs needs in their communities go far beyond computer science. Once again, I would like to stress that rural communities do need to manage their needs in flexible and locally sensitive ways. 

My point, however, is that we should stop thinking about computer science as exclusively a Career and Technical Ed issue. It is not. Understanding and being able to get a sense of technology is a core knowledge. The metaphor for me is the difference between a health career class (CTE) and biology (core knowledge). All educated people need to understand core ideas in the way the world works around them. Technology-driven by the capacity of computer science is one of the most dominant forces in our lives. 

An example in public discourse is how some platforms use algorithms that create extremist views by presenting users with a twisted worldview fed by engagement algorithms. Extremists from all creeds seem to find a community and become radicalized online. Teaching Computer Science will not solve this problem. It will, however, help at least some users understand the process and maybe resist it a little better.

What Girl Volleyball taught Me about EdTech

I am visiting my mother in Israel for a few days. Sitting around the table were some family and friends that came to say hi. My aunt was telling us about her granddaughter who is just over 15 and already 6'2". My first thought was, does she play volleyball? This is what I perceive to be a Nebraska question. After 14 years in Nebraska, I think like a Nebraskan. It is unusual for a girl who is tall not to be involved in sports. Einat, a long time friend, and an athlete, chimed in does she play basketball? The answer was No, she does not do any sport. Instead, she is modeling. My aunt explained that there were no opportunities afforded to her in sports.
Einat, who is a former pro athlete, lamented the status of women's sports at all levels. The opportunities aren't there, and there is very slow change.

I started thinking about what made the situation in Nebraska and the US different. While the status of women in the US is somewhat better than Israel, it is not dramatically different. Israelis love sports. While speaking, I realized that the main difference was schools and extracurriculars. I have to admit that I have an ambivalence towards high school sports. But through this discussion, I realized how the structure of extracurricular activities allows schools to open opportunities across ethnicity, income, and gender lines. The fact that it is a school sanctioned activity allows students who might never find such a home to "try out" new selves. In this case to try out their identity as athletes. This would not happen for many students unless schools offered the activity. In popular culture, I am reminded of the path that Jesminder 'Jess' Kaur Bhamra took in Bend It like Beckham. I am convinced that the road would open to many more girls and minority women when it is a school activity.

So what does that have to do with EdTech? Quite a bit. I hear calls to limit the use of technology in
schools or even not teach with devices. Teach thinking, basics, writing. I believe that much of this argument is coming from a middle-class belief that students will eventually get there. I make this point often about my kids. If their school fails to teach them about digital citizenship, search, or tools, I will show them. The problem is that this approach leaves too many capable students behind. Students who will not find a guide that would help them explore if they are interested in science, programming or gaming. Without schools affording to expose all students to these areas we are reproducing gap and losing some of our most talented future creators. We should teach science, technology, and making to ALL in school right NOW.

Video Game like Thinking

Years ago I remember Sarah and I observed our boys playing when suddenly one of them called 'pause' then proceeded a discussion about the nature of pressing the 'X button'. This was not a video game but rather a game they were playing outside borrowing the rules of video games they were playing at the time.

Fast forward a decade or so. Two weeks ago we were in Breckenridge for a family vacation. We sat for lunch in a small pizza/italian place. It's one of these places with paper and crayons so everyone was busy creating in one form or another. Oren who is 8 was busy creating mazes. Now Oren has been a maze fanatic since he was 5 or so. Usually he creates very elaborate designs that can be challenging. He often uses what appears to be mishaps in drawing (e.g. what appears to be accidentally incomplete lines are actually openings) to make the mazes harder.

This time he hands me a this puzzle with a smug look on his face.

Patiently he explains: S is for start F is for finish. I stare at him blankly, he smiles and encourages: "Just do it Abba". I draw a straight line from S to F and he responds smiling: "yes that's it". Then he proceeds to draw this one:

My first instinct is to see if any of the corners just appear to be connected or have tiny gates in them. No the boxes are all closed. "Can I go around?" I ask suspecting a trick. "No" he answers smiling. I know something is going on but I honestly cannot figure out where he is going with this. "I give up" I finally say. Oren then explains patiently. The thicker lines are doors and when you step on the lower case 'f'

they open. "How am I supposed to know that?" I ask incredulously. He looks at me not sure what I mean: "you try it out. You move until you step on the 'f' and see what happens."

It is common to hear "grown ups" criticize video games and the way they seem to engross kids. Here in a different way you can both see what video game thinking is and its impact on learning and thinking.
Oren created a basic level that demonstrated some of the basic rules. Then he proceeded to the real challenge. He also assumed a level of interactivity that is a part of all such games. The static paper and pencil game rules are too simple interactive/ experimental rules are so much more interesting and challenging- mostly because you have to experiment before you know the solution for sure.

I could go on for a while analyzing what appears to be his thought process but I would like to suggest that this video game thinking is analogous in many ways to learning in new domains, especially science and the arts. Instead of repeating known solution to familiar questions, what scientists and artists seek are new ways to respond to problems. They have to interact with ideas, materials and symbols to solve the problems. Video games fostered the right way opens our children to a new creative and thoughtful world of discovery and creation.