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.

Tech EDGE Art TEAMS - Exhibitions of Learning

Here is our latest [podcats from Art TEAMS

Let's Chat about GPT event at UNL

 

Tech EDGE, Teaching World Language with Technology - Introduction

It has been a delight to start a new series on using technology in the World Language Classroom. I believe that podcasting is one of the best ways to disseminate knowledge.

Exhibitions and Celebrations of Learning

One of the elements of the Art TEAMS approach is for each learning cycle to end in an exhibition (or celebration) of learning. The exhibition of learning is an opportunity for the learning community to celebrate achievement get positive feedback, and encourage students to start thinking about their development in thinking and making. I recently visited one of our schools, exploring how exhibitions of learning worked in an elementary classroom. 

The teacher organized the tables in a circle (in a tight space, I might add). Each student organized the products they wanted to display across their desk. Some chose EVERYTHING and had very little space, others chose their favorite exemplars, and finally, one innovative student had many learning artifacts but chose to include an arrow pointing to her favorite artifact saying: "You have to read THIS!" 

All students had a stack of feedback notes and went around the room examining other students learning artifacts and leaving positive feedback based on sentence frames projected on the board. 

A debrief after such an event can help students process a portfolio approach and consider what is the most effective approach, not just as the creator but also as the consumer. 

The exhibition of learning gives the students sense of accomplishment and motivation. It can be a great source of metacognition as well. The same can be said for the teacher, a look at the variety and creativity gives the teacher a sense of accomplishment but also a tool to reflect on what could be better next time and what missed opportunities can be seized on in the next inquiry cycle or in subsequent years. 

As an observer in the classroom, the excitement and pride of the students were palpable. Students were smiling, engaged, and proud. I highly recommend creating these moments for students and bringing in administrators and, when possible, parents and guardians to celebrate reaching complex learning goals.

Art TEAMs is made possible a grant from the US Department of Education and by the emergent, collaborative interactions between many individuals. A deep gratitude is extended to all who participated in the experience of teaching (and learning) with emerging media and arts, including teachers (Sarah Holz, Kate Gracie, Maggie Elsner, Matt Auch Moedy, Sarah Gabelhouse, Amy Spilker, Megan Pitrat, Andrew (Mark) James, Jessi Wiltshire, Jessica Davis, Ryan Margheim, Sarah Kroenke, Katie Samson, Melissa Sellers, Casey Sorenson) for embracing ambiguity and vulnerability and expanding into new ways of seeing; administrators (Dr. Lynn Fuller) for holding space and having conversations about new ideas; museum educators (Laura Huntimer) for offering valuable educational resources; teaching artists (Cayleen Green, Fernando Montejano, Angel Geller, and Isabella Meier) for sharing their creative processes; the advisory board (Megan Elliott, Dr. Jorge Lucero, and Dr. Diana Cornejo-Sanchez) for shepherding the design and development of the program; and the research team (HyeonJin Yoon, Carrie Bohmer, Maggie Bertsche, Lorinda Rice, Mackayla Kelsey, Dr. Guy Trainin, Gretchen Larsen, Joelle Tangen, and Kimberley D’Adamo) for weaving together the many pedagogic and curricular threads of a complex tapestry. 

High Quality Professional Learning (Part2)

This is an update on last week's post on High-Quality Instructional Materials. The meeting in Nashville was a true exchange of ideas and strategies. What I appreciated the most was the move from an emphasis on the materials to an emphasis on Professional Learning. State engaged in the work explained in detail how they went about using the materials as a first step, but the magic and success were completely dependent on the ways that professional learning happened and the expectation and support for that learning to happen.

As one of the speakers started with: you must communicate clearly that this is HARD work. Because it is hard, it is imperative that school administration and resources are there to support teachers across a few years of professional growth.

In sum, I am more encouraged by the direction the work is taking, but I am still wondering about the balance between resources divided between materials, and professional learning and worried that some places will never get to professional learning. 

In Art TEAMS, we focus on student inquiry and the processes that help teachers design better student experiences. In many senses, we provide High-Quality Professional Learning that maps back to teachers' existing curricula. I am now wondering how much better the result would be if the curriculum was more uniformly better. 

High Quality Materials and Teacher Learning

 The Nebraska Department of Education invited me to the IMPD network conference. I am always happy to participate and see if I can learn and contribute. At the same time, I have to admit that I am somewhat skeptical. I do not doubt that high-quality materials are helpful and more useful than low-quality materials. However, I think about it in an 80/20 split. High-quality materials will contribute to better instruction, but that represents a contribution of about 20% of total improvement. The 80% is in teacher professional learning and development that will raise efficacy and skill. 

The upside of High-Quality materials includes teacher confidence in the curriculum and reducing the need to scrounge for resources late at night. This confidence reduces the pressure on teachers' out-of-school time and gives breathing room for thinking about differentiation and accommodation of different learners. From an information processing perspective, we are reducing teacher cognitive load to enable more effective instructional procedures. 

From this perspective, High-quality materials are a no-brainer; bring it on, and engage with the process. Let's do it! The challenge, however, can be articulated at the individual teacher and system levels.

The cognitive load question can play an opposite role at the individual teacher level. A teacher is using a familiar curriculum is able to be creative around it and differentiate for her students. The familiarity reduces the load, an effect I have seen in reverse every time a district adapts a new curriculum. As a teacher educator, I have placed students in classrooms every semester for the past 20 years. Every time our district decides on a new reading curriculum, teachers reduce the number of preservice teachers they will host, disallow any creative deviation from the curriculum, and be fairly stressed. After about two years, the familiarity once again allows for more adaptation. So the question becomes, does the new curriculum adapted is such an improvement on the old one that it justifies the change. If you accept the 80/20 idea, the bar for improvement is quite high. This effect can be mitigated if you use curriculum change for significant professional learning. Then it becomes a leverage point for growth.

This is when the systemic effect presents with a second challenge; since schools invest significant attention into the process and money into materials, little is left for meaningful professional learning. The danger is that by the time materials are selected, bought, and introduced, everyone is exhausted and does not pay attention to the professional learning required to make it work. The calls for fidelity and making sure spending is justified clash with the individual needs of teachers and students. Moreover, school administration often projects implicitly or explicitly a conformity message that constrains teachers from acting in their best professional judgment.

In the context of our professional learning in Art TEAMS,
we are working very much on the 80% side of teacher professional learning. We acknowledge curriculum and work with teachers to develop ways to differentiate and deepen using metacognitive strategies (such as the creative inquiry process (Marshall and D'Adamo, 2011)) pedagogic moves, and collaborative learning opportunities. It would be interesting to see how teachers change their use of the strategies as the curriculum shifts.