Final blog

 

Reflecting on my inquiry class as a teacher candidate, I've gained valuable insights through various activities.

During orchard garden visits, I discovered innovative teaching approaches that encourage creativity and exploration. These experiences have broadened my teaching toolkit.

Learning about collaborative teaching has been enlightening. While I don't firmly believe collaborative games are always better than competitive ones, I acknowledge the merits of both methods in teaching.

The hands-on activity of making braids has been a fun and effective way to connect with math concepts and the First Peoples' principles of learning. However, I'd appreciate incorporating more examples related to physics.

Exploring curves, straight lines, and right angles in learning has its appeal, but I feel the class lacked a significant impact on me.

The emphasis on projects has been refreshing. As teachers, staying updated with recent literature is crucial for self-improvement, and the project provides an excellent opportunity for this. My chosen project on generative AI has been both enjoyable and intellectually stimulating. The interaction with peers during hands-on activities has added to the experience, and I'm enthusiastic about continuing this research into the next semester.

Nov 16: Finished Inquiry project

Here it is! For the annotated bibliography.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j0AvsTUJ5-rubC_ldlFdXIAE_ltNqWCE/view?usp=drive_link

 

Presentation:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1I6PxehoFByyzhFC6_cMCw39nqShEhy5U5uNW7SnknE0/edit?usp=sharing

Nov 9: Exit slip

 The inquiry topic: How generative AI affect education?

The topic is very new. (Most papers were published in 2023, which is expected for ChatGPT rolled out in November 2022 only, there is not enough time for in depth research yet.)

 Therefore, I widened the topic from working on students' learning in Science to education in general.

In today's class, I have done all the literature review, 5 academic journal and 3 blogs. The latex code of the references are at the end of this blog.

The direction currently is to review the effectiveness of assistance from AI in teaching, for example helping to make teaching material and act as a tutor. There are some concerns about integrity too, however, in the current state, generative AI is not yet able to produce highly sophisticated answers to homework or tests.

The reflection on the quotes will be done done the line as the project proceed.

I also have interviewed my School Advisor and some of the students on generative AI already. Again, I just need to write out and paraphrase and give my own reflection on them.

In the future, I will also need to make presentation slides and plan an in class activity. My current idea for the in class activity is to have everyone play with ChatGPT in class. We will try gathering some Math/Phy question in class then prompt it to chatGPT to answer those questions. We will evaluate the effectiveness in class as an experiment.

@article{Perkins2023,
   abstract = {This paper explores the academic integrity considerations of students’ use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools using Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in formal assessments. We examine the evolution of these tools, and highlight the potential ways that LLMs can support in the education of students in digital writing and beyond, including the teaching of writing and composition, the possibilities of co-creation between humans and AI, supporting EFL learners, and improving Automated Writing Evaluations (AWE). We describe and demonstrate the potential that these tools have in creating original, coherent text that can avoid detection by existing technological methods of detection and trained academic staff alike, demonstrating a major academic integrity concern related to the use of these tools by students. Analysing the various issues related to academic integrity that LLMs raise for both Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and students, we conclude that it is not the student use of any AI tools that defines whether plagiarism or a breach of academic integrity has occurred, but whether any use is made clear by the student. Deciding whether any particular use of LLMs by students can be defined as academic misconduct is determined by the academic integrity policies of any given HEI, which must be updated to consider how these tools will be used in future educational environments. Practitioner Notes 1. Students now have easy access to advanced Artificial Intelligence based tools such as ChatGPT. These tools use Large Language Models (LLMs) and can be used to create original written content that students may use in their assessments. 2. These tools can be accessed using commercial services built on this software, often targeted to students as a means of ‘assisting’ students with assessments. 3. The output created by these LLMs is coherent enough for it not to be detected by academic staff members, or traditional text-matching software used to detect plagiarism, but falsified references may hint at their use if unchanged by students. 4. The use of these tools may not necessarily be considered as plagiarism if students are transparent in how they have been used in any submission, however it may be a breach of academic integrity policies of any given Higher Education Institution (HEI). 5. There are legitimate uses of these tools in supporting the education of students, meaning HEIs must carefully consider how policies dealing with student use of this software are created.},
   author = {Mike Perkins},
   doi = {10.53761/1.20.02.07},
   issn = {14499789},
   issue = {2},
   journal = {Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice},
   title = {Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond},
   volume = {20},
   year = {2023},
}
@article{Khan2023,
   abstract = {Artificial Intelligence is no more the talk of the fiction read in novels or seen in movies. It has been making inroads slowly and gradually in medical education and clinical management of patients apart from all other walks of life. Recently, chatbots particularly ChatGPT, were developed and trained, using a huge amount of textual data from the internet. This has made a significant impact on our approach in medical science. Though there are benefits of this new technology, a lot of caution is required for its use.},
   author = {Rehan Ahmed Khan and Masood Jawaid and Aymen Rehan Khan and Madiha Sajjad},
   doi = {10.12669/pjms.39.2.7653},
   issn = {1682024X},
   issue = {2},
   journal = {Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences},
   title = {ChatGPT-Reshaping medical education and clinical management},
   volume = {39},
   year = {2023},
}
@article{Frieder2023,
   abstract = {We investigate the mathematical capabilities of two iterations of ChatGPT (released 9-January-2023 and 30-January-2023) and of GPT-4 by testing them on publicly available datasets, as well as hand-crafted ones, using a novel methodology. In contrast to formal mathematics, where large databases of formal proofs are available (e.g., the Lean Mathematical Library), current datasets of natural-language mathematics, used to benchmark language models, either cover only elementary mathematics or are very small. We address this by publicly releasing two new datasets: GHOSTS and miniGHOSTS. These are the first natural-language datasets curated by working researchers in mathematics that (1) aim to cover graduate-level mathematics, (2) provide a holistic overview of the mathematical capabilities of language models, and (3) distinguish multiple dimensions of mathematical reasoning. These datasets also test whether ChatGPT and GPT-4 can be helpful assistants to professional mathematicians by emulating use cases that arise in the daily professional activities of mathematicians. We benchmark the models on a range of fine-grained performance metrics. For advanced mathematics, this is the most detailed evaluation effort to date. We find that ChatGPT can be used most successfully as a mathematical assistant for querying facts, acting as a mathematical search engine and knowledge base interface. GPT-4 can additionally be used for undergraduate-level mathematics but fails on graduate-level difficulty. Contrary to many positive reports in the media about GPT-4 and ChatGPT's exam-solving abilities (a potential case of selection bias), their overall mathematical performance is well below the level of a graduate student. Hence, if your goal is to use ChatGPT to pass a graduate-level math exam, you would be better off copying from your average peer!},
   author = {Simon Frieder and Luca Pinchetti and Alexis Chevalier and Ryan-Rhys Griffiths and Tommaso Salvatori and Thomas Lukasiewicz and Philipp Christian Petersen and Julius Berner},
   month = {1},
   title = {Mathematical Capabilities of ChatGPT},
   url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13867},
   year = {2023},
}
@article{Megahed2023,
   abstract = {Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT have the potential to revolutionize Statistical Process Control (SPC) practice, learning, and research. However, these tools are in the early stages of development and can be easily misused or misunderstood. In this paper, we give an overview of the development of Generative AI. Specifically, we explore ChatGPT’s ability to provide code, explain basic concepts, and create knowledge related to SPC practice, learning, and research. By investigating responses to structured prompts, we highlight the benefits and limitations of the results. Our study indicates that the current version of ChatGPT performs well for structured tasks, such as translating code from one language to another and explaining well-known concepts but struggles with more nuanced tasks, such as explaining less widely known terms and creating code from scratch. We find that using new AI tools may help practitioners, educators, and researchers to be more efficient and productive. However, in their current stages of development, some results are misleading and wrong. Overall, the use of generative AI models in SPC must be properly validated and used in conjunction with other methods to ensure accurate results.},
   author = {Fadel M. Megahed and Ying Ju Chen and Joshua A. Ferris and Sven Knoth and L. Allison Jones-Farmer},
   doi = {10.1080/08982112.2023.2206479},
   issn = {15324222},
   journal = {Quality Engineering},
   title = {How generative AI models such as ChatGPT can be (mis)used in SPC practice, education, and research? An exploratory study},
   year = {2023},
}
@misc{Lo2023,
   abstract = {An artificial intelligence-based chatbot, ChatGPT, was launched in November 2022 and is capable of generating cohesive and informative human-like responses to user input. This rapid review of the literature aims to enrich our understanding of ChatGPT’s capabilities across subject domains, how it can be used in education, and potential issues raised by researchers during the first three months of its release (i.e., December 2022 to February 2023). A search of the relevant databases and Google Scholar yielded 50 articles for content analysis (i.e., open coding, axial coding, and selective coding). The findings of this review suggest that ChatGPT’s performance varied across subject domains, ranging from outstanding (e.g., economics) and satisfactory (e.g., programming) to unsatisfactory (e.g., mathematics). Although ChatGPT has the potential to serve as an assistant for instructors (e.g., to generate course materials and provide suggestions) and a virtual tutor for students (e.g., to answer questions and facilitate collaboration), there were challenges associated with its use (e.g., generating incorrect or fake information and bypassing plagiarism detectors). Immediate action should be taken to update the assessment methods and institutional policies in schools and universities. Instructor training and student education are also essential to respond to the impact of ChatGPT on the educational environment.},
   author = {Chung Kwan Lo},
   doi = {10.3390/educsci13040410},
   issn = {22277102},
   issue = {4},
   journal = {Education Sciences},
   title = {What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature},
   volume = {13},
   year = {2023},
}

Oct 19: entrance slip -- scientific language

I wish to address this specific point: "Our teacher, Justin Neely, a young man committed to language revival, explains that while there are several words for 'thank you,' there is no word for 'please.' Food was meant to be shared; no added politeness was necessary. It was a cultural given that requests were made respectfully."

This resonates deeply with experiences from my other classes. Just today, in our Physics class, we discussed how language can pose significant challenges for students, especially for those who aren't native English speakers. There are terms in Physics, like "speed" and "velocity," which, while distinct, can be conflated because not all languages have separate words for them. Many languages might use a single term to describe the rapidity of movement, which could make it challenging for ELL students to differentiate between the two concepts. This reflects the quote above, suggesting that linguistic nuances in different cultures might lead to varied interpretations or expressions of certain notions or concepts, potentially presenting learning challenges for students from diverse backgrounds.

As educators, it's paramount that we foster an environment of openness, ensuring students feel comfortable seeking clarification when they encounter unfamiliar or confusing material. Embracing cultural differences is pivotal. This very idea underscores the importance of indigenizing our classrooms, cultivating a sense of belonging so students aren't hesitant to ask questions. Drawing from the article: "Our teacher tells us not to be discouraged and thanks us every time a word is spoken—thanks us for breathing life into the language, even if we only utter a single word." If we extend a warm welcome and understanding to our students, they'll be more inclined to voice their concerns, ask questions, and deepen their learning.

Oct 5: Exit slip

In today's discussion, we seemed to converge on a conclusion regarding gender issues in the STEM field. The social and cultural influences on this issue are significant. Many girls tend to align with the prevalent societal image of what a girl "should" pursue, often avoiding STEM fields when choosing their university studies. I'm reflecting on whether we can shift this culture to address the gender imbalance. While I believe change is feasible, implementing it correctly is a formidable challenge. For instance, the cultural revolution led by the Chinese communists eradicated much of the valuable culture inherited from ancient China. While changes were indeed effected, much was lost in the process. I use this as an extreme example, but in contemporary society, we often witness polarized views. Many young people fervently support socialism while vehemently opposing capitalism, painting capitalism as entirely negative and socialism as wholly positive. Circling back to gender issues, how do we determine the right expectations for girls? I'm still searching for an answer.

For the inquiry project, I wish to explore "How generative AI impacts students' learning in math and physics." Specifically, I plan to interview teachers and students with experience in the University Transition Program (UTP). I've chosen this focus because of my connections within the program, which should facilitate the project's execution. Next semester, I aim to broaden the scope by incorporating perspectives from the practicum school where I will be working.

Oct 5: entrance slip

Unfortunately, I must disagree with several points made in the article. My personal feeling is that the article is, regrettably, too biased. It seems to want to diminish the usage of grids, portraying alternatives as superior. In my view, adhering strictly to grids and exploring alternatives are both viable approaches, each excelling in different areas. Since the article already expounds on the merits of alternatives, I wish to address the value of the grid system.

I have studied solid-state physics extensively. One of the marvels in this field is the lattice—a periodic structure that fills space. Only a few regular shapes can completely fill 2D/3D space, one of which is the square lattice. The benefit of working with a lattice is the ability to work with periodic Hamiltonians, utilizing Fourier transforms as powerful tools to simplify calculations. Furthermore, many groundbreaking discoveries, such as superconductors, owe their existence to well-structured lattices. I have a deep appreciation for lattices and grids.

Returning to education, I believe teaching with strict grid lines has numerous merits. Students can feel overwhelmed by excessive curves and artistic representations in subjects like math and physics. (For instance, we wouldn’t teach Non-Euclidean geometry in grade school, right?) In reality, having a grid or a set of guidelines to achieve a certain goal can significantly reduce the complexity of a problem. That said, I’m not discouraging the use of curves and grid alternatives; they encourage students to think more creatively and outside the box. To draw an analogy: if a child needs to reach a specific classroom, would they prefer a straight or a winding path? We desire straight paths to avoid getting lost. However, navigating a maze can be enjoyable from time to time.

Sept 28 exit slip

In class, we discussed formatting and mainly delved into how our narrative in teaching shapes and forms preconceptions about math and physics. Our group discussed how we often talk about "the" answer in class or for problem sets, but usually, there are multiple ways to approach the same problem. Physics and math are not rigid and static; they possess a lot of dynamic structures within. In fact, there are even more ways of knowing.

I once heard in a class about a traditional story from indigenous people who correlated a certain tsunami to a big earthquake. The indigenous people predicted an earthquake even before the geologists did. I am by no means belittling geology here, but I believe there is immense value in acknowledging indigenous knowledge.

However, there is an opposing idea that, despite the high degree of freedom in physics, we are still confined when performing any physics calculations. A simple example is the constant we use, the speed of light, which is considered the fastest speed in the universe (a theory not yet refuted), approximately 300 million meters per second. Regardless of our actions, we are constrained to this framework.

These conflicting viewpoints can confuse many students and contribute to the struggle, leading them to believe that physics is only for the exceptionally intelligent. It appears there are numerous rules, and if one does not adhere to them, the calculations will be incorrect. Yet, we still teach students multiple ways to approach a problem. Consequently, students find themselves torn between a seemingly restrictive worldview and a realm filled with vast and open possibilities in calculations. While some may find this aspect exciting, others may feel overwhelmed.