News
Artificial intelligence at
universities: a pressing issue
The overwhelming rise of text generators raises the need for reflection and
guidelines to ensure their ethical use in an academic setting.
BY CATHERINE COUTURIER | SEP 20 2023
• Post a comment
• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
Just a year ago, the debate around artificial intelligence (AI) was largely
theoretical. According to Caroline Quesnel, president of the Fédération
nationale des enseignantes et enseignants du Québec (FNEEQ-CSN) and
literature instructor at Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf, the start of the 2023 winter
semester marked a “turning point” as ChatGPT became a focal point in
classrooms. Other forms of generative AI are also available to the public,
such as QuillBot (text writing and correction), DeepL (translation) and UPDF
(PDF summarization).
Martine Peters, a professor of educational science at the Université du
Québec en Outaouais, surveyed 900 students and found that 22 per cent
were already using ChatGPT (sometimes, often or always) to do their
assignments. “And that was in February!,” she noted. It is an alarming
statistic, particularly as neither faculty nor universities were prepared to
deal with the new technology. Trying to ban AI now would be futile, so what
can universities do to ensure its ethical use?
Pros and cons
Dr. Peters is convinced that AI can be used for educational purposes. It can
help a person understand an article by summarizing, translating or serving
as a starting point for further research. In her opinion, outside of language
courses (which specifically assess language skills), it could also be used to
correct a text or improve syntax, much like grammar software or writing
services that some students have relied upon for years.
However, plagiarism remains a major concern for academics. And for the
moment, there is no effective tool for detecting the use of AI. In fact, Open
AI, the company behind ChatGPT, abandoned its detection software this
summer for lack of reliable results. “This is a rat race we’re bound to lose,”
argued Dr. Quesnel. Should professors return to pen-and-paper tests and
classroom discussions? Satisfactory solutions have yet to be found, but as
Dr. Quesnel added, it’s clear that AI “creates tension, especially considering
the massive pressures in academia. Right now, we’re spending a lot of
energy looking at the benefits of AI instead of its pitfalls.”
AI literacy
Beyond plagiarism, AI tools raise all kinds of issues (bias, no guarantee of
accuracy, etc.) that the academic community needs to better understand.
“ChatGPT confidently spouts nonsense and makes up references; it’s not
very good at solving problems in philosophy or advanced physics. You can’t
use it with your eyes closed,” warned Bruno Poellhuber, a professor in the
department of psychopedagogy and andragogy at the Université de
Montréal.
More training is needed to help professors and students understand both the
potential and drawbacks of these technologies. “You have to know and
understand the beast,” Dr. Poellhuber added.
Dr. Peters agreed. “For years, we didn’t teach how to do proper web
searches. If we want our students to use AI ethically, we have to show them
how, and right now nobody seems to be taking that on,” she said.
Universities are responsible for training their instructors, who can then pass
this knowledge on to students. “Students need to know when it’s
appropriate to use AI,” explained Mélanie Rembert, ethics advisor at the
Commission de l’éthique en science et en technologie (CEST).
Initiatives for reflection
The Université de Montréal and the Pôle montréalais d’enseignement
supérieur en intelligence artificielle (PIA) organized a day of reflection and
information for the academic community (professors, university
management, etc.) in May. “The aim was to demystify the possibilities of
generative AI and discuss its risks and challenges,” Dr. Poellhuber
explained.
This event followed an initial activity organized by the Quebec Ministère de
l’Enseignement supérieur and IVADO, which lead to the announcement of
the joint Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (CSE) and CEST committee. The
committee is currently conducting discussions, consultations and analysis
among a wide range of experts on the use of generative AI in higher
education. “Our two organizations saw the need for more documentation,
reflection and analysis around this issue,” said Ms. Rembert, who
coordinates the expert committee’s work. Briefs were solicited from higher
education institutions and from student and faculty organizations. The
report, scheduled to be released in late fall, will be available online.
Given the scale of the disruption, faculty members could also benefit from
the experience of others and the support of a community of practice. That’s
the idea behind LiteratIA, a sharing group co-founded by Sandrine Prom
Tep, associate professor in the management sciences school at the
Université du Québec à Montréal. “It’s all very well to talk about theory and
risks, but teachers want tangible tools. They want to know what to do,” she
explained. Instead of letting themselves be outpaced by students – who are
going to use AI anyway – teachers should adopt a strategy of transparency
and sharing. “If we don’t get on board, students will be calling the shots.”
Clear guidelines
Universities and government alike will have to take a close look at the
situation and set concrete, practical and enforceable guidelines. “We can’t
dawdle: AI is already in classrooms,” said Dr. Quesnel, adding that faculty
are currently shouldering a burden that should be shared by teaching
institutions and the Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur. “We need tools
that teachers can rely on.”
So far, very few universities have issued guidelines, those that exist are
often vague and difficult to apply. “There isn’t much in terms of procedures,
rules or policies, or tools and resources for applying them. Basically,
teachers have to decide whether or not to allow AI, and make their own
rules,” Dr. Prom Tep added. Institutions will need to define clear policies for
permissible and impermissible use, including but not limited to plagiarism
(for example, how to use it for correcting assignments, how to cite ChatGPT,
etc.).
Rolling out policies and legislation can take time. “It’s like when the web
became prominent: legislation had to play catch up,” noted Dr. Prom Tep.
The Observatoire international sur les impacts sociétaux de l’IA et du
numérique (OBVIA), funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec, is
expected to make recommendations to the government, as is the joint expert
committee. “But is that enough? Do we need broader consultations?”
questioned Dr. Prom Tep, who would like to see permanent working groups
set up. In her opinion, to avoid each institution reinventing the wheel, these
reflections will have to be collective and shared, and neutral places for
discussion will have to be created.
