Cited by 91Open Education and E-LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationDigital Education and Society

How do we respond to generative AI in education? Open educational practices give us a framework for an ongoing process

Open access
Anna Mills, Maha Bali, Lance Eaton·2023·Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching

Abstract

With the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, the field of higher education rapidly became aware that generative AI can complete or assist in many of the kinds of tasks traditionally used for assessment. This has come as a shock, on the heels of the shock of the pandemic. How should assessment practices change? Should we teach about generative AI or use it pedagogically? If so, how? Here, we propose that a set of open educational practices, inspired by both the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement and digital collaboration practices popularized in the pandemic, can help educators cope and perhaps thrive in an era of rapidly evolving AI. These practices include turning toward online communities that cross institutional and disciplinary boundaries. Social media, listservs, groups, and public annotation can be spaces for educators to share early, rough ideas and practices and reflect on these as we explore emergent responses to AI. These communities can facilitate crowdsourced curation of articles and learning materials. Licensing such resources for reuse and adaptation allows us to build on what others have done and update resources. Collaborating with students allows emergent, student-centered, and student-guided approaches as we learn together about AI and contribute to societal discussions about its future. We suggest approaching all these modes of response to AI as provisional and subject to reflection and revision with respect to core values and educational philosophies. In this way, we can be quicker and more agile even as the technology continues to change. We give examples of these practices from the Spring of 2023 and call for recognition of their value and for material support for them going forward. These open practices can help us collaborate across institutions, countries, and established power dynamics to enable a richer, more justly distributed emerging response to AI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.34

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Since the initial reaction against ChatGPT, an acceptance that the use of GenAI is an inescapable reality has predominated in higher education.

    “Since this initial burst of reactionism, however, an acceptance that the use of GenAI is an inescapable reality has predominated (Alharbi, 2023; Mills et al., 2023).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mills, A., Bali, M., & Eaton, L.
Affiliations
  • College of Marin (US)
  • American University in Cairo (EG)
  • Providence College (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching
Published
2023-06-12
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2591-801X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4380272592
Cited by
91
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 12
FWCI
20.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Education and E-Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
Keywords
generative AI in education, ChatGPT, higher education assessment, open educational practices, open educational resources, online collaboration, student-centered learning, student cooperation, artificial intelligence in education, philosophy of education, power relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review