Hello and welcome to EdTech Brief. Today, we’re talking about a surprising turn in the ChatGPT debate on campus. In February, Ella Stapleton, a senior at Northeastern, discovered her organizational behavior notes contained an instruction to ChatGPT to “expand on all areas. Be more detailed and specific.” Distorted images and odd misspellings gave it away. Outraged, she filed a formal complaint and even requested an $8,000 tuition refund.

Meanwhile, professors across the country say AI is simply a teaching assistant. Southern New Hampshire’s Robert MacAuslan insists these tools should “enhance, rather than replace, human creativity and oversight.” Ohio University’s Paul Shovlin adds, “the value that we add as instructors is the feedback that we’re able to give students.” Virginia Commonwealth’s Shingirai Kwaramba calls ChatGPT “the age of the calculator on steroids,” freeing him up for more one-on-one time.

Universities are now racing to write clear AI policies. One principle is universal: AI can aid teaching, but it should never replace the human touch.
Link to Article