This paper is clever in various ways (creating a term like 'Coauthorship Integrity', for example, or mapping the discussion to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing) but it's ultimately disappointing. Here's the gist: because students can use AI to generate essay and assignment responses, we can't accept these as sufficient evidence of learning. Instead, students need to show independently that they understand what they have submitted, for example, by explaining it. That would historically have been done by having the student perform well in an oral interview - a viva voce - but that's impractical today. So the authors propose an AI viva (their term) where understanding is demonstrated to, yes, an AI. Now while many will object to the use of an AI here, my concern is deeper: what is it to 'explain' or show that you 'understand' what you have written, over and above being able to restate what you have written? "Explain what you wrote in your own words?" There's a conceptual confusion here.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
