Insights into Student Use of AI Tools in English Courses
Explore the utilization of AI tools by students in English courses, focusing on technical and business writing. Discover students' perceptions, discussions, and reflections on the optional use of AI tools, along with the impact on major assignments and academic attitudes towards AI implementation.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
GEN-AI INTEGRATION A Look into English 462/3
COURSES English 462-H: Technical Writing 18 students Focus on precise delivery of information to specific audiences English 463-H: Business Writing 18 students Focus on more general professional documentation
AI TOOL USE #1: ALWAYS OPTIONAL Never Required Goal: to argue that these are tools They aid the user when needed, but the user is still responsible for how they are implemented Part of tool use is making personal decision when/where to use it To enforce tool use would fail that goal Varying Use # of students who used GenAI tools varied wildly by assignment More text-heavy assignments saw more use; more visual heavy assignments saw less Total Use Of combined 36 students, 29 used the tools at least one assignment (14 in 462, 15 in 463) No student used GenAI on all assignments # of Uses # Assignments Total 462 463 7 3 4 0 8 7 1 1 10 7 3 2 5 3 2 3 7 0 7 4 0 0 0 5
AI TOOL USE #2: DISCUSSION FOCUS Student Perception Semester began with extended discussion of student tool use Majority of students skeptical at tool viability in academia Case Studies Real public tool implementation used as case studies Examples included Coke s AI generated advert and the fallout of NaNoWriMo s pro-AI statement Industry Use Students researched/presented on how their field is adapting to GenAI: Today we chatted about the general use of AI tools in both academia and the workplace. Now I want you to complete some basic research that is specific to the field you will shortly be entering post-USC. What field do you plan on moving in? Complete some basic research: what is the general feeling towards AI in your field? Is it being received positively, negatively, or somewhere in-between? Which AI tools are currently being used in your field? List our both the names of the tools and the uses. Include links, where needed. As a student shortly entering this field, what is your personal reaction to how you will be expected to work with these tools? In other words, do these seem like a positive addition to your field, or do they create new problems? Be prepared to chat about all of the above on 9/3.
AI TOOL USE #3: MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS Structured Reflection Required for each major assignment Key element: discussing AI tool use Helped catalogue who was/wasn t using tools Changing Attitudes Multiple students didn t use for r sum s due to concerns over sharing personal data Same students had less issue using on less personal work No student voiced concerns using tools to help with visuals Grades No correlation between GenAI use and the quality of the assignment Students who used AI as a shortcut performed as poorly as they would have otherwise Students who used the tools for fine-tuning performed as strongly as they would have otherwise
AI TOOL USE #3: MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS AI: Total - Did Use - 67 Total Resume Complaint Adjustment Instructions Survey Proposal 18 (1 + 7) 1 6 9 1 1 12 (8 + 6) A 17 (3 + 14) 8 (2 + 6) 5 3 1 3 B 15 (8 + 7) 7 (5 + 2) 4 1 3 (2 + 1) C 67 (23 + 34) 16 (8 + 8) 15 (15) 12 (12) 2 (1 + 1) 5 (3 + 2) 17 (11 + 6) Total AI: Total - Didn t Use - 90 Total Resume Complaint Adjustment Instructions Survey Proposal 26 (17 + 10) 4 (1 + 3) 1 3 13 (10 + 3) 6 9 (3 + 6) A 23 (9 + 14) 7 (2 + 5) 1 3 4 (2 + 2) 8 (5 + 3) 10 (4 + 6) B 21 (13 + 8) 6 (5 + 1) 1 7 (5 + 2) 7 (3 + 4) C 90 (46 + 44) 17 (8 + 9) 3 (3) 6 (6) 24 (17 + 7) 21 (14 + 7) 19 (7 + 12) Total
FINAL THOUGHTS/SPRING 25 Currently, from a Prof-Comm point of view, these tools are not the industry changers that some folks want/fear them to be: there is a v. similar breakdown of grades for folks who did and did not use them. That said, I do still see value in encouraging their use (or, rather, not preventing it). - This semester I ve continued this approach in both an in-person SCHC section and an online section. - As of recording, the first assignments have yet to be submitted so no notes there yet. - I am also piloting a version of the major assignment reflection for a section of 102 to better track how Freshmen are using tools. - - If you have any examples of flawed use of GenAI tools or instances where they have actively helped, I d love if you sent them my way: real examples are by far the most useful tool we have in Professional Communications classes. If you do ever have anything (that can legally be shared), send it to gareth@email.sc.edu. - -
CHEERS! Gareth Rees-White Instructor gareth@email.sc.edu
