Rohini Ganjoo, James Rankin, Benjamin Lee, Lisa Schwartz
{"title":"Beyond boundaries: exploring a generative artificial intelligence assignment in graduate, online science courses.","authors":"Rohini Ganjoo, James Rankin, Benjamin Lee, Lisa Schwartz","doi":"10.1128/jmbe.00127-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) offers increased accessibility and personalized learning, though the potential for inaccuracies, biases, and unethical use is concerning. We present a newly developed research paper assignment that required students to utilize GAI. The assignment was implemented within three online, asynchronous graduate courses for medical laboratory sciences. Student learning was assessed using a rubric, which rated students' effective integration and evaluation of GAI-generated content against peer-reviewed research articles, thus demonstrating their critical thinking and synthesis skills, among other metrics. Overall rubric scores were high, suggesting that learning outcomes were met. After field testing, we administered a 16-item survey about GAI utilization, contribution to learning, and ethical concerns. Data (<i>n</i> = 32) were analyzed, and free-response answers were thematically coded. While 93.8% of respondents found the GAI-generated content to be \"very good\" or \"excellent,\" 28.1% found inaccuracies, and 68.8% \"strongly agreed\" or \"agreed\" that GAI should be allowed to be used as a tool to complete academic assignments. Interestingly, however, only 28.1% \"strongly agreed\" or \"agreed\" that GAI may be used for assignments if not explicitly authorized by the instructor. Though GAI allowed for more efficient completion of the project and better understanding of the topic, students noted concerns about academic integrity and the lack of citations in GAI responses. The assignment can easily be modified for different learning preferences and course environments. Raising awareness among students and faculty about the ethical use and limitations of GAI is crucial in today's evolving pedagogical landscape.</p>","PeriodicalId":46416,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education","volume":" ","pages":"e0012724"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636326/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00127-24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) offers increased accessibility and personalized learning, though the potential for inaccuracies, biases, and unethical use is concerning. We present a newly developed research paper assignment that required students to utilize GAI. The assignment was implemented within three online, asynchronous graduate courses for medical laboratory sciences. Student learning was assessed using a rubric, which rated students' effective integration and evaluation of GAI-generated content against peer-reviewed research articles, thus demonstrating their critical thinking and synthesis skills, among other metrics. Overall rubric scores were high, suggesting that learning outcomes were met. After field testing, we administered a 16-item survey about GAI utilization, contribution to learning, and ethical concerns. Data (n = 32) were analyzed, and free-response answers were thematically coded. While 93.8% of respondents found the GAI-generated content to be "very good" or "excellent," 28.1% found inaccuracies, and 68.8% "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that GAI should be allowed to be used as a tool to complete academic assignments. Interestingly, however, only 28.1% "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that GAI may be used for assignments if not explicitly authorized by the instructor. Though GAI allowed for more efficient completion of the project and better understanding of the topic, students noted concerns about academic integrity and the lack of citations in GAI responses. The assignment can easily be modified for different learning preferences and course environments. Raising awareness among students and faculty about the ethical use and limitations of GAI is crucial in today's evolving pedagogical landscape.
生成式人工智能(GAI)提供了更高的可访问性和个性化学习,但其潜在的不准确性、偏见和不道德使用令人担忧。我们介绍了一项新开发的研究论文作业,要求学生使用 GAI。该作业在医学检验科学的三门在线异步研究生课程中实施。我们使用评分标准对学生的学习情况进行了评估,根据同行评议的研究文章对 GAI 生成的内容进行有效整合和评估,从而展示学生的批判性思维和综合能力等指标。总体评分标准得分较高,表明学习成果得到了实现。在实地测试之后,我们就 GAI 的使用情况、对学习的贡献以及道德问题进行了 16 个项目的调查。我们对数据(n = 32)进行了分析,并对自由回答的答案进行了主题编码。93.8%的受访者认为GAI生成的内容 "非常好 "或 "优秀",28.1%的受访者认为内容不准确,68.8%的受访者 "非常同意 "或 "同意 "GAI应被用作完成学术作业的工具。但有趣的是,只有 28.1%的人 "非常同意 "或 "同意 "在没有得到教师明确授权的情况下可以使用 GAI 来完成作业。虽然 GAI 可以更高效地完成项目并更好地理解主题,但学生们也对学术诚信和 GAI 答案中缺乏引文表示担忧。这项作业很容易根据不同的学习偏好和课程环境进行修改。在当今不断发展的教学环境中,提高学生和教师对 GAI 的道德使用和局限性的认识至关重要。