How Valpo Faculty are using (or not using) AI in the Classroom

In late July, CITAL hosted a two-day Summer Faculty Institute on AI as part of the Lilly Endowment’s “AI in Higher Education” planning grant that Valpo received. Over 60 faculty attended and 29 faculty and staff presented on how they use AI in the classroom. 

This fall we asked faculty who had attended what they got out of the institute. We heard from AI enthusiasts as well as AI skeptics.  

Dan Maguire (ECE) had already been incorporating AI into his classes, but the workshop highlighted ways he could do it better.  He was also glad to hear his colleagues’ views on AI, both positive and negative. For Mike Longan (GEO/MET), the institute reassured him that his current approach to AI was correct for him. However, he said that he is now better able to explain the benefits and importance of process-oriented assignments to students.

Those new to teaching or new to AI also chimed in. Alyssa Formyduval (OT) said that before the institute, she had avoided talking about AI in her classes and enforced a zero-tolerance policy on using it for any assignment. Now she sees the value of teaching students to use AI judiciously, and of raising the topic in class and in assignments when it’s appropriate. Jennifer Holt (CHEM) did not have a lot of experience with AI, so the conference gave her a good toolbox of some of the capabilities and limitations to explore before implementing some AI activities in the classroom. She is still trying to reconcile the keynote speaker’s comments that AI experience is crucial for job seekers with the fact that students have said that they are highly fearful about using AI from the environmental impact, capability to replace their job opportunities, and fear of being accused of cheating if they use AI.

Some faculty are trying new things in their classes this semester partly based on what they learned at the Institute. Phrosini Samis-Smith (CONHP) is having one class do a group presentation where she encourages them to use AI for generating ideas and an outline. She is also integrating a flipped classroom, so she herself used AI to help generate some in-class activities. Daniela Trajceski (SW) is trying out a version of the low-tech classroom. She asked her students to limit their laptop usage, only utilizing it for certain activities. She also has students print out their writing so that they can do handwritten peer reviews in class. She has limited her own usage of tech in class when appropriate. She regularly has conversations with students about how AI impacts both their work as social workers and their Code of Ethics. Stacy Hoult (WLC) has incorporated facilitated AI exercises into the weekly meetings of her Senior Capstone assignment. Students complete an activity in the traditional way (for example, brainstorming a topic, refining a research question, and looking for sources) and then try the AI version. They then reflect on the value added (if any) from the AI component. She says that so far, their responses have been interesting and varied.

Some faculty continue to be AI skeptics. Julien Smith (CC) does not use AI and overall has adopted a low-tech classroom. He thinks that students are concerned about the addictive and enfeebling aspects of much digital technology (despite using it extensively) and seem grateful to respite from the Machine. Sam Graber (CC)  thinks that the Christian story gives educators at Valpo a distinctive perspective on AI’s negative impacts in the humanities. That biblical tradition can give church schools more effective ways to respond to AI-infused environments than what’s on tap elsewhere. 

Finally, there are faculty who want to address both the pros and cons of AI in their classes. The main change that Matthew Ringenberg (SW) has made in his teaching is to spend more time at the beginning of each course discussing AI.  He also went into more detail about AI in his syllabus, acknowledging the benefits, the reasons people use it, and the pitfalls. Ossama Abdelgawwad (Relig. Studies) used a fishbowl activity to teach students to listen and then contribute thoughtfully. The discussion prompt, generated by ChatGPT, was about the pros and cons of AI. This led to a very animated, but respectful, conversation.