For learners and by learners
Skills, capabilities, and literacies and the rise of Gen AI
In an earlier essay I discussed the need for tutors to feel empowered when teaching. If a course is rigidly and completely designed before it even runs, then the role of the tutor is largely restricted to performing a role. The tutor provides content or facilitates discussion via a pre-designed plan. They are simply the face of the design; a funnel or pipeline for distributing knowledge and skills. Such an approach leaves little room for individuals. There is little leeway for identifying specific learner needs as the course progresses (based on observation of the learners themselves) and little space for the tutor to really engage in the learning itself.
The same is true of the learners as well. A rigid design forces learners to act according to the design, not in a way that most benefits them. They learn, but not necessarily efficiently, and not necessarily in a way that works best for them. They also learn what is necessary to pass the course. Students work to assignments not to learning outcomes. Universities often struggle to get engagement from students. This is a complaint that is often raised. The reason for this though is partly due to the top-down approach. Students feel disempowered because the learning is forced on them. They have little say in the matter of what or how they learn.
The VLE or LMS re-enforces the design and acts as a second funnel for learning to take place. But learning is not an outcome, but a process, and a very individualised process at that. We each learn in different ways, at our own pace, and by using our own backgrounds and contexts as a grounding. We do not start at the same place, and we will never end at the exact same place either. If the institutions’ role is to provide the infrastructure, and the tutors role is to provide the teaching, then it would seem to suggest that the students role is to learn. That is true, in a way, but really learning is the process, not the outcome. What is it, then that the learners, are actually doing?
My feeling is that they are building capabilities and skills, which enable them to form worldviews, carry out tasks, and engage in the world (hopefully in a beneficial way). David Baume argued that we should stop teaching and focus on learning. Also, I feel, we should reorientate our focus: we should stop worrying so much about content, and more about literacies, capabilities, and skills. This, for me, is where learning designs often fail, but again, they don’t have to.
For more about David Baume’s provocation about teaching and learning, see my essay published on 11 June 2024, on Learning Technology or educational development: where should we place our focus? I will always remain fascinated and interested in David’s ideas, but my understanding of them is very much still a work in progress.
Knowledge changes. Whatever field or discipline you might be studying what is accepted as right in 1970 is not as likely to be accepted as right in 2024. If it is, then there will be alterations and new nuances. It will not simply be the same as it was in 1970. This is why it is important to use the most recent studies, admittedly in conjunction with older studies. Therefore, what we teach at universities is often out of date soon after the student leaves. Only if the student continues to study the subject will they continue to know what is knowable at that point in time. The foundations for any discipline are the literacies, the skills, and the capabilities. These might also change over time (Generative AI is certainly likely to alter many established ways of working), but these, when learned, can be applied to a whole range of circumstances and situations.
I have yet to come to my point here about learning by students, not just for students. Have we got it wrong by focusing on teaching? Maybe. But perhaps also it is what we are teaching that is the problem. We are focused on the content, with the skills a distant second. A different way would be to focus more on the literacies, capabilities, and skills; provide the learner with the tools to explore and learn in ways that suit them. As the old saying goes, give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give him a fishing rod, and he will never go hungry again. If Higher Education focused more on skills training would this empower students to learn in their own way, breaking them free from the rigidity of learning about a discipline according to a pre-set design? Â
What about assessment?
I have discussed learning about content mainly here. But what about assessment? Assessment is important as it is the way that we judge whether the student has been successful in learning what we expect them to learn. In most cases, assignments are designed to benefit the marker, more than offer a real-world benefit to the learners. I write that slightly ironically as few markers probably enjoy the process of wading through a pile of essays! So, let’s rephrase that. The assignments are designed in a way that fits how they have always been designed. Rarely do we break the Mould of how it’s been done in the past: don’t fix, what’s not broken (only many educators are screaming at the top of their lungs that assessment is broken and desperately needs fixing!).
Now, there is nothing wrong necessarily with an essay or short answer tests, but all they do is test a student’s capability to write clearly and concisely and put down ideas into a written form (often at speed). They might also test a student’s ability to memorise information for a short period of time. That isn’t, though, a good preparation for being a doctor, engineer, or businessman. It is not student-centred, nor is it empowering.
Better approaches are possible. Approaches which better prepare students for real-life experiences, but also ones which empower their learning in the first place. Again, should we be placing all our focus on knowledge? Shouldn’t we be placing more focus on skills and capabilities?
To teach, to learn, or to facilitate?
In a previous essay, I touched on David Baume’s final provocation for educationalists. In his final months, David worried that technology had become the focus more than educational development, or, in other words, the tool had become master, and the process of learning its servant (which is entirely the wrong way round). Until recently I would have pointed out that the skills gap remains the part where teaching is most important. Knowledge is important, but the skills are more so. I found myself partly agreeing with David’s provocation, but not entirely. There is a need for technology-first, supported by pedagogy, as well as pedagogy-first, supported by technology. However, the rapid growth of Generative AI applications complicates things. How can we train skills for criticality, for how to write, for researching, when AI is changing the game every few months (and it really is doing that!).
The initial concern across Higher Education when ChatGPT first appeared was how AI was going to undermine the assessment system. That is still a huge concern. However, newer developments reach to the core of the other skills and capabilities that we try to support students in learning. In next week’s newsletter I’m hoping to share some experiences with using AI tools for educational purposes, but for now I just want to mention an example.
There are tools now where a student can upload journal articles or even e-books (often there are word limits to the files that are accepted). The AI system then presents the student with a chatbot which can answer questions about the documents and will even suggest lines of inquiry. It then presents the student with answers which could (hopefully with some rewriting) form a good chunk of an essay. In at least one case a click of a button can return the student to which source a specific bit of information was found, meaning that they can clearly reference and check it. Should we stop students from using such tools (if that is even possible)? Or, is this the future not just for students writing processes but also for academics? In other words, do we need to teach different skills, capabilities, and literacies? Are we out of date? I think we very well might be!
I’m doing a little experiment using these tools to write a short essay about a topic that I only know a little about. It’s an experiment, not a way forward, at least for an old dog like me, but I wanted to put myself into the students shoes for a moment. Personally, I enjoy writing too much to let a machine take over, but these shinny new toys could well bring about a technology-first approach in Higher Education, just as David Baume feared. The best way to combat that, I think, is to consider more carefully the bigger ramifications of Gen AI, and try to find ways to prepare students with the skills that they will need to critically assess the information they are presented with. That might well be the future for Higher Education, forcing us all to move towards a skills-first pedagogy, over topic-first approach.
If I’ve conveyed anything in these essays, its that I agree with David but only to an extent. There is a problem with a technology-first approach in Higher Education, but its not absolute and there are sometimes even benefits to taking that approach, as long as good pedagogy goes along with it. The fear now is that AI will tip the balance resolutely to the machine. It’s not hard to see academics role in teaching transforming. What need is there of a subject expert when AI can have conversations with students at a fraction of the time and cost? They might even prove more accurate than any one individual’s own memory.
David’s second provocation was that training the teachers to teach was the wrong direction. If AI has its way that might not even be an issue anymore. I think we need to protect that, and the only way to protect experts as teachers, is to ensure that they remain useful to the process of learning and teaching. There needs to be value to their input. That might not now be as much about their topic expertise, but about their capability to train students to critically approach the subject.
As a final word, I want to make it clear that I do see great potential in AI tools, but I also see larger threats and dangers from it. I’m still working out my precise position and thoughts, and to some extent I will be using these essays to formulate that position. I might even shift back and forth a bit before I settle on something that I’m comfortable with. One thing I am certain about is that I enjoy researching and writing too much to simply drop it because an AI can do it better. These essays will always be written by me. They will always remain human. While I’m not sure what David would have thought about how AI is developing, I do know that he would have smiled about that last sentence. At the end of the day it’s all about being human no matter what technology comes our way! Â
More on these subjects soon, but in the meantime I would love to hear back from you about your thoughts. Please do leave a comment!