Not who you are replying to. I found your example fascinating - would you be able to share one or two concrete examples of this integration you mentioned? I would like a low-level peek or two into how the teaching landscape is changing in light of the rise of LLMs like chatGPT.

Sure - I'll use one of the creative writing classes.

In the past, the class would be centered around ideas and themes the class came up with together during the first week of the semester. They would then read and discuss short stories from various authors centered around that theme, preferably from different eras and/or cultures. From there, they would work in pairs/small groups to flush out original ideas they came up with for their own stories based on the themes and styles from the first month of reading. Then they would work individually to write the stories. Finally, they would come back together to edit and work through that process as a group, with a reading and discussion in the last week or two.

Now, the class works alone the first day or two to discuss themes with chatgpt, to identify relevant and appropriate literature (if possible), and to flush out initial ideas for the readings and discussion topics. Then we come back together for group work to figure out themes for the semester and possible readings, like it used to be, but primed with whatever information they had already discussed with Chatgpt. From there they work through the readings, using chatgpt to bounce ideas for discussion off of before coming to class. Then they work in teams, like before, to flush out their own stories, but again, using chatgpt as if it were another member of the group. They also have to track their question/comment and response, to evaluate their own thought processes and look for weak links in their reasoning and logic. Students are then free to use the software to edit their writing before coming together with their creative assignments.

We haven't made it past the step of reading, as it's still the first month of the semester. But,the discussion for the first section has been much more in-depth and (to use a word that is impossible to quantify) vibrant. The students had already aired the ideas they thought may be dumb, and would therefore be less willing to voice in a public setting; this allows them to really dive further into whatever is in each story, and connect dots between stories that generally took a week or two. Because they have another 'person' to talk to whenever they want, and however much they want, they tend to really get into the work. Further, and unexpectedly (and anecdotally sadly) it has allowed a couple of students I know personally who would not have been willing to participate in public discussion (anxiety disorder and TBI) a stronger voice, because they know their ideas are flushed out already, and it provides them with a 'script' of ideas they know are novel and valuable for the class. In other words, if they were able to get the idea from Chatgpt, they knew they had more work to do to build that thought, because that is really just a baseline.

I'm interested to see how the actual writing process goes. Chatgpt is okay at creative writing, but not at the level that we expect to see. Some faculty expressed concerns that students would just have the software do the work for them, but I'm not really bothered by that. First off, if someone can figure out how to make a career out of publishing chatgpt prompts, well, good for them. Second, if the software is able to write better than the students are, they don't really belong in this class in particular (graduate level writing class).

Anyway, like I said earlier in the thread - we're really just treating this as another 'person' in the class, but who is available to everyone, all the time. It's beneficial for the brainstorming sections, but not for the hard skills, from what I can tell. I am most excited to watch them evaluate their own thought processes when working with chatgpt to flush out their ideas. In the past, this has been a barrier, because every single person I’ve ever met never gives a partner 100% of their thoughts all the time. They always hold back. My theory is that, because it’s a dead-end conversation, they will be more willing to push into new topics, and really think hard about what they’re trying to say. We’ll see if that stands.

I agree a lot with your analysis - thanks for sharing your insights.

It sounds like they’re chasing hype, like every idiotic modern US movement to “reform” education.