重症监护室经济学论文:抢救还是拔掉插头?

IF 1.3 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Kamilya Suleymenova, Mary Dawood, Maria Psyllou
{"title":"重症监护室经济学论文:抢救还是拔掉插头?","authors":"Kamilya Suleymenova,&nbsp;Mary Dawood,&nbsp;Maria Psyllou","doi":"10.1016/j.iree.2024.100284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study investigates the perspectives of Economics academics regarding the impact of using text-generative AI (GAI) on teaching and assessment in the UK higher education (UKHE) sector, with a specific focus on essays. The survey of academics’ perceptions encompasses considerations of academic integrity, transferrable skills, and ethical GAI use. The responses unveiled a range of significant findings regarding the present condition of essay-based assessment in Economics education. The most prominent of which is that, while GAI development has introduced a new conflict between integrity concerns and essay-writing, Economics academics confirm that the latter continues to be important to their graduates. However, there is an emphasis on reshaping the format of conventional essays and refining traditional marking criteria. Elevating assessment questions along Bloom’s taxonomy is deemed vital for critical thinking and producing future-ready graduates. Respondents also recognise the need to impart ethical awareness among students when using GAI while exploring innovative pedagogies to develop and assess the new GAI skill set. Thus, our study challenges the dichotomy of pulling the plug on conventional essays and, instead, prompts a critical re-evaluation—resuscitation through reimagination. Finally, most express interest in learning more about GAI and its educational applications, either through self-experimentation or structured events and GAI training. Overall, the study reveals a complex topography of perspectives, highlighting the need for subtle, collaborative approaches as academics carefully evaluate strategies to leverage GAI’s potential while evolving assessments and pedagogies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45496,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Economics Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388024000021/pdfft?md5=dfd26b2df4cebc72762df4c6b11be99d&pid=1-s2.0-S1477388024000021-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Essays in economics in ICU: Resuscitate or pull the plug?\",\"authors\":\"Kamilya Suleymenova,&nbsp;Mary Dawood,&nbsp;Maria Psyllou\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.iree.2024.100284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study investigates the perspectives of Economics academics regarding the impact of using text-generative AI (GAI) on teaching and assessment in the UK higher education (UKHE) sector, with a specific focus on essays. The survey of academics’ perceptions encompasses considerations of academic integrity, transferrable skills, and ethical GAI use. The responses unveiled a range of significant findings regarding the present condition of essay-based assessment in Economics education. The most prominent of which is that, while GAI development has introduced a new conflict between integrity concerns and essay-writing, Economics academics confirm that the latter continues to be important to their graduates. However, there is an emphasis on reshaping the format of conventional essays and refining traditional marking criteria. Elevating assessment questions along Bloom’s taxonomy is deemed vital for critical thinking and producing future-ready graduates. Respondents also recognise the need to impart ethical awareness among students when using GAI while exploring innovative pedagogies to develop and assess the new GAI skill set. Thus, our study challenges the dichotomy of pulling the plug on conventional essays and, instead, prompts a critical re-evaluation—resuscitation through reimagination. Finally, most express interest in learning more about GAI and its educational applications, either through self-experimentation or structured events and GAI training. Overall, the study reveals a complex topography of perspectives, highlighting the need for subtle, collaborative approaches as academics carefully evaluate strategies to leverage GAI’s potential while evolving assessments and pedagogies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Economics Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388024000021/pdfft?md5=dfd26b2df4cebc72762df4c6b11be99d&pid=1-s2.0-S1477388024000021-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Economics Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388024000021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Economics Education","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388024000021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了经济学学者对英国高等教育(UKHE)领域使用文本生成人工智能(GAI)对教学和评估的影响的看法,尤其关注论文。对学者看法的调查包括对学术诚信、可迁移技能和 GAI 使用道德的考虑。调查结果显示了一系列有关经济学教育中以论文为基础的评估现状的重要发现。其中最突出的一点是,虽然 GAI 的发展在诚信问题和论文写作之间引入了新的冲突,但经济学学者证实,后者对他们的毕业生仍然很重要。不过,他们强调要重塑传统论文的格式,完善传统的评分标准。根据布鲁姆分类法提升评估问题被认为对批判性思维和培养未来就绪的毕业生至关重要。受访者还认识到,在使用 GAI 时,有必要向学生传授道德意识,同时探索创新教学法,以开发和评估新的 GAI 技能集。因此,我们的研究挑战了传统论文的二分法,而是通过重新构想来促使批判性的重新评估--复苏。最后,大多数人表示有兴趣通过自我实验或有组织的活动和 GAI 培训,更多地了解 GAI 及其教育应用。总之,这项研究揭示了各种观点的复杂地形,强调了学术界在评估和教学法不断发展的同时,仔细评估利用 GAI 潜力的战略时,需要采取微妙的合作方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Essays in economics in ICU: Resuscitate or pull the plug?

This study investigates the perspectives of Economics academics regarding the impact of using text-generative AI (GAI) on teaching and assessment in the UK higher education (UKHE) sector, with a specific focus on essays. The survey of academics’ perceptions encompasses considerations of academic integrity, transferrable skills, and ethical GAI use. The responses unveiled a range of significant findings regarding the present condition of essay-based assessment in Economics education. The most prominent of which is that, while GAI development has introduced a new conflict between integrity concerns and essay-writing, Economics academics confirm that the latter continues to be important to their graduates. However, there is an emphasis on reshaping the format of conventional essays and refining traditional marking criteria. Elevating assessment questions along Bloom’s taxonomy is deemed vital for critical thinking and producing future-ready graduates. Respondents also recognise the need to impart ethical awareness among students when using GAI while exploring innovative pedagogies to develop and assess the new GAI skill set. Thus, our study challenges the dichotomy of pulling the plug on conventional essays and, instead, prompts a critical re-evaluation—resuscitation through reimagination. Finally, most express interest in learning more about GAI and its educational applications, either through self-experimentation or structured events and GAI training. Overall, the study reveals a complex topography of perspectives, highlighting the need for subtle, collaborative approaches as academics carefully evaluate strategies to leverage GAI’s potential while evolving assessments and pedagogies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
审稿时长
28 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信