ChatGPT— does it spell the end for coursework?

Comment writers debate what new AI technology means for non-exam based assessments

The end of coursework

IS this the end of coursework?Yes

AI technology has in recent years, been developing at an alarming rate. And it was inevitable that at some point it would begin to affect the way that we learn and are assessed. Coursework has for many years been the thing that a lot of people have fallen back on, but in the wake of ChatGPT and how easily it can produce adequate-quality essays, many academic experts have said that this advanced form of a cheat sheet now means that we should give up on coursework. In my own experience at school, my teachers were very vocal about the fact that there are a lot of teachers who abuse the coursework system in helping students to get a much better mark than they would have without intervention.

Although the prospect of Artificial Intelligence playing a part in our lives is a frightening thought for many people, myself included, we are now at a point where we cannot stop the technological advances that are on the rise. I’m no tech expert, but we already use software like Turnitin that helps to detect plagiarism, so surely it is more effective to try and understand ChatGPT and use it to help detect when students have tried to use it for their own advantage. One thing that ChatGPT cannot affect is practical coursework, things like speaking presentations or maybe practical experiments if you study a more scientific degree. I’m someone who is terrified at the thought of public speaking, especially when I was younger, but although intimidating it is an important part of adult life. Perhaps introducing more of these types of assessments will help to improve young people’s confidence and speaking abilities in an age where we’re all increasingly glued to our phones.

Of course, there are some people who really don’t like coursework and who work much better under exam conditions, who will of course be very happy with the prospect of no coursework. Furthermore, I have also heard a lot of headteachers in the media say that they are looking to use AI software to help mark students’ exams to take the workload off teachers. An example of how AI software might, in the future, be able to give teachers some time to relax and improve efficiency and quickness when it comes to mark ing and returning exams. There is justifiably a lot of concern that AI technology is going to create a lot of job losses, therefore it’s really important that we adapt our curriculum to this new world and make sure that we encourage young people to take more computer-related subjects and ensure that they are better equipped to deal with problems concerning things like AI, coding and other complicated subjects that a lot of people my age are not well-versed in.

Connor

A useful tool — but not the end of coursework

THE introduction of ChatGPT to the essay-writing arena has caused a stir in recent weeks, after students (myself included) finding out that you can get a convincingly accurate explanation of a topic that you’ve been spending the past 11 weeks studying.

Similar to when paid-for essay writing services were introduced, they do at first create a supposed risk to the decades-old university assessment system. What was believed to be the set system of carefully researching essays before then submitting it is now challenged, but like with essay writing services, they have not risen to take over a student writing their own individual academic piece.

ChatGPT sources its information from what is available from the internet: there is, of course, a vast amount of information that is accessible, and texts which might take hours to read can be summarised within seconds. This is also, however, where the software can fall short. The AI-generated phrases can pull the information from scholarly articles and texts but don’t have the experience that a student gains from listening to a world-leading lecturer provide their balanced view on a topic, informed by their long-lasting career.

ChatGPT can tell you about philosophers who have spoken on a particular topic, but it can’t form a strong academic voice on it. A quality writing style for an essay is informed by the experience of a topic being explained, and forming your own critical judgements based on it.

That isn’t to say that what ChatGPT produces isn’t good. Academic institutions are having to change the way that their plagiarism detectors work, and a lecturer from a Russell Group university recently awarded a 2:2 to an essay entirely written by the software. This shows that ChatGPT can, at least, provide good ideas to students on what they could potentially cover in their assignments. When trying to see which responses I could get myself, it was possible to get several paragraphs worth of academic content; it did however lack any analysis. It does show that avenues such as these do create a credible threat to academic research and writing. Potentially a risk of ChatGPT is that it is used as a base for essay ideas, before carrying out further research on what is brought up — but this risks writing lacking originality and risk-taking in research. At a wider level, it means that fewer contributions are made to wider criticisms and understanding of the academic study at university. In this light, it makes it unlikely any academic institution would ditch individual critical thought that is different in every essay from students.

That avenues such as these do create a credible threat to academic research and writing

Part of the academic experience at university is to develop a framework of academic writing style. Whilst ChatGPT is, and will further itself to be, a strong ‘writer’, something it can’t offer is a personality or strong argument in conveying an opinion one way or another. Studying a subject at university provides the opportunity to understand the research and debate around the specifics of a diverse range of topics. When you are writing on a topic that you have a strong opinion on, the depth and grounding of your argument is going to be extremely strong — which will always beat a computer generated one.

Tom Langley