Learning and technology

I believe that the students who take my class, just as students who take other classes, have interesting things to share and contribute. I believe that their original ideas are worthwhile and an important part of the learning experience for everyone, instructor included. I also believe that my job is to help them learn, think and reflect. It is for these reasons, despite teaching courses in engineering, I do not want my student to use any generative AI in any aspect of the course that I teach.

Over the last few years, I have developed, and taught a technical engineering course where we focus on how engineering approaches can improve the lives of refugees, displaced persons and stateless communities. Students learn about the drivers of forced migration, analyse existing global and local data, and develop mathematical models to predict disease outbreaks in camps and ways to mitigate them. They do error estimation for existing diagnostic technologies and ultimately design novel solutions for existing challenges. At the same time, they engage with lived experience through interviews and writings of displaced persons, read fiction and non-fiction as part of developing a nuanced understanding, and have to share their technical findings with a broad audience.

When I offered the course for the first time, I was concerned that no one would take it. My fears were misplaced. The class was full within the first couple of hours after the online registration portal opened, and soon had a waitlist. I have since doubled the class size and it is full every single time. The students know that they will have to do problem sets, mathematical modeling and engineering design, they know that they will have to engage with difficult topics that speak of injustice and exclusion, and they also know that they cannot rely on generative AI. Yet, despite this class being an elective, dozens of students are eager to enroll.

This year, the students will have to do all their writing assignments and document their group discussions, by hand in the classroom, on good old paper. I worry about the temptation to just type a prompt and copy in whatever generated text comes up. In my twenty years of teaching, I have never allowed computers, phones or tablets in the classroom. This year, it will be no different. I do not deny the existence of AI; in fact, we discuss the implications of AI on humanitarian efforts - how it is being used, how it could be used better, and the ethics of regulation in the complex situations we study. But I am genuinely interested in what students have to say, what original ideas do they have, and want to help them think through them. I want my students to learn to write and express how they feel. I tell my students that if I have to choose between a product (e.g. a polished final assignment) or the process (e.g. debating ideas in class, learning from mistakes, bringing their own perspective to the fore), I would always choose the process over the product. I know that the final product may have errors, requiring multiple rounds of polishing and refinement, but at least it is theirs. I want my students to also know that they are interesting people, with good ideas, and want to give them confidence in their abilities. Given the nature of the course, I want my students to reflect on the lives of those who suffer as a result of conflict, exclusion, xenophobia and climate change - and think about how we can help them. That reflection requires honest engagement, disagreement, discussion and debate, not auto-generated ideas.

There is no question that AI is having an extraordinary impact on teaching. I agree that instructors need to reflect on where the world is heading. But I also want instructors to reflect on what their core job is, and recognise that the easier path may not be the best one. For me, my class is about intellectual engagement, collaboration and learning. Sometimes that is done by engaging with technology, and sometimes we need to disengage with technology to actually learn.