There has recently been considerable attention in traditional and social media and in academic circles about “homework help” platforms like Chegg and Photomath, and artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT. There has especially been a flurry of conversation since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022 because of its perceived implications for academic integrity as well as the design of assignments used to assess student learning, pedagogy, and curriculum. This memo provides direction for interacting with Chat GPT (and other AI software tools) in the context of teaching at the University of Waterloo.
Chat GPT (and other AI tools) and the University of Waterloo
Open AI’s description of what ChatGPT can and cannot do.
When the release of ChatGPT hit the news, several colleagues wrote to inquire about its implications for academic integrity and whether Waterloo’s current policies account for its potential impact on student learning. To be explicit,
Using ChatGPT (or similar tools that generate text, code, or visual images) for content generation and submitting it as one’s own original work is a violation of the University of Waterloo’s Policy 71 (Student Discipline). Use of these tools may be explicitly permitted by an instructor (as stated in assignment guidelines or a course outline, for example) for teaching and learning purposes that do not include claiming AI-generated output as original work.
The challenge ChatGPT and similar tools raise is that their use is hard to detect, though programs designed to identify AI-generated content are in development and increasingly available. To date, the University has not purchased any such tools.
These are not the first technological advances that have raised concerns. In the past, the response of academia has been to move beyond policing the use of the technology to asking what the appropriate role is for the new technology in our pedagogy and our curricula, and to use it as a way to improve student learning by adapting our teaching. Sorting this out will be a longer-term process and will be the work of many contributors with a range of expertise.
Starting in December, various academic support units, led by the Office of Academic Integrity and the Centre for Teaching Excellence, have been gathering information and consulting with faculty members — particularly the Teaching Fellows and the academic Associate Deans. Most of those consulted seem to agree that, where feasible, developing pedagogical solutions is preferable to enforcing “disciplinary” solutions. See a list of resources, below, that provide the current best advice on these matters. This group will continue to monitor developments and will update the list of web-based resources.
Faculty members and other instructors are always welcome to contact the following resource people:
|
General support |
|
|
Support for online courses |
|
|
Assignment Redesign |
|
|
Strategies for encouraging students to embrace the principles of academic integrity |
Resources
- Frequently Asked Questions (University of Waterloo)
- AIO Guidance Regarding Student Use of AI in Your Course (Toronto Metropolitan University)
- Teaching and Learning with Artificial Intelligence Apps (University of Calgary)
Other services requiring attention
Companies that promote their services as providing students with “homework help” or “exam and test preparation,” pose a longer-standing challenge to the University’s efforts to maintain appropriate standards of academic integrity, as they are frequently manipulated by students for the purpose of cheating. Chegg.com, for example promotes itself as a “student-first online learning company” but offers services that pose a threat to academic integrity.
In the summer of 2021, Chegg launched a “faculty-focused platform” called Uversity.org (currently in the United States but expanding into Canada and the UK) that purchases course materials from instructors to share via its platform. It is important that instructors do not sell their course materials in this way, for the following reasons:
- There is a strong moral imperative not to support a site regularly used by students to violate standards of academic integrity
- Selling course materials conflicts with several policies at the University (i.e., Policy 73 – Intellectual Property Rights, Policy 69 – Conflict of Interest, and Guidelines on offering access to course materials).
- Some of the materials that the Uversity specifically asks for are not the property of the instructor but of the University, as described in Policy 73.
If you have questions about file sharing sites such as Chegg and Uversity or want advice about strategies for deterring student use of such services, please contact the Office of Academic Integrity.
Being proactive
This will not be the last technology to have important implications for how we teach and how learning happens at Waterloo. In an effort to respond effectively to future developments, the Office of Academic Integrity will convene a Standing Committee on New Technologies and Academic Integrity. It will include interested faculty members, staff, and students, and will have as its remit becoming aware of emerging tools and platforms, formulating advice on appropriate adaptations of pedagogical practices and making recommendations about how to effectively modify policies and practices in support of academic integrity. If you are interested in being part of the Standing Committee, please notify the Office of Academic Integrity: academic.integrity@uwaterloo.ca