Using generative AI to make students more human

Can AI help tackle some common problems educators face when trying to teach journalism? This talk, presented to the AI in Journalism Education pre-conference, Kristiansand, Norway, October 2024, explores the results of one experiment with a final year undergraduate class.

1. Using AI to make students
more human
Bruker AI for å gjøre elevene mer menneskelige

2. 3 things
●How I experimented with genAI in teaching
●What it told me
●What to do next

3. The challenges
●Students not reflecting critically
●Students not seeking feedback
●Students reading to pass, not to learn
●Not having the ‘codes’ to access industry

4. The class
●Using genAI tools to help reflect and improve
●Getting the best marks (and avoiding a zero)
●Writing prompts as a key skill for employability

5. Reference: AP. Generative AI in Journalism: The Evolution of Newswork and Ethics in a Generative Information
Ecosystem, April 2024, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rXruz2wQLAXmUtzm1B7lJCpxdWbOHijS/view

Industry concerns

6. Reference: AP. Generative AI in Journalism: The Evolution of Newswork and Ethics in a Generative Information
Ecosystem, April 2024, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rXruz2wQLAXmUtzm1B7lJCpxdWbOHijS/view

Industry practices

7. Class themes
●Generating story ideas and data angles
●Chart suggestions
●Identifying sources (+ diversity)
●Technical help: spreadsheet formulae
●Editing: feedback
Template prompts > iteration > review

8. Li’s high level categories of journalism
1.Gathering information: source types; methods; source
maintenance
2.Sensemaking: ideating; newsworthiness; analysis; archival;
multimedia
3.Editing: clarity; verification; legality; standards
4.Publication/distribution: engagement; discussion; formats;
liveness; analytics
5.Productivity: organisation; CMS; time; planning; coordination
6.Journalism training: general; writing; tech

9. 1.Gathering information: source types; methods; source
maintenance
2.Sensemaking: ideating; newsworthiness; analysis; archival;
multimedia
3.Editing: clarity; verification; legality; standards
4.Publication/distribution: engagement; discussion; formats;
liveness; analytics
5.Productivity: organisation; CMS; time; planning; coordination
6.Journalism training: general; writing; tech
Li’s high level categories of journalism

10. GenAI tool use not
mentioned
If you’ve used GenAI tools
without saying so, this is
considered Category A
plagiarism and a zero mark
0%
● Attribute any use of AI
● Make it clear what is your
work, and what is not
● Include evidence to clarify
● Identify what you did well
— and could do better
Evaluation includes
evidence
E.g. “I used ChatGPT to
generate ideas around my
dataset (see Appendix A)”
52-8%
● Copy and paste the
prompt(s) and
response(s) in full
● Use a different appendix
for each example
● Reflect on them
Evidence and
references
E.g. “I used ChatGPT to
generate ideas (see Appendix
A) using techniques outlined by
Marconi (2023)”
62-8%
● Draw on original sources
used in lectures
● Focus on practical
literature — don’t quote
facts and stats
● Identify next steps
+ critical reflection
and experimentation
E.g. “I added prompts to guard
against bias in terms of
ethnicity, gender etc. (Heikkilä
2023. See Appendix B)”
72%+
● Read about good practice
and try those techniques
● Don’t settle for the first
results: experiment
● Reflect on what works
and what doesn’t
Different levels of use/evaluation
Note: grades indicate credit for use of genAI only, not the overall grade

11. Evidence this in your evaluation for credit
I used ChatGPT to suggest potential chart
types for my story (see Appendix C).

12. Even better, reference learning too.
I used ChatGPT to suggest potential chart
types for my story (see Appendix C),
ensuring that my prompts asked it for
explanations that would help me make a
decision (Flourish Webinars 2024)

13. What happened?

14. View chart ‘story’ at https://public.flourish.studio/story/2594313/

15. “Selecting people to interview … is
something I've had trouble in the past
with.”

16. “The suggestions it made helped me consider
sources I hadn’t thought of contacting.”

17. “I turned to AI for suggestions on suitable
story angles, but the outcomes did not align
with my expectations. Nevertheless, this
experience prompted me to view the data
from a different perspective. Subsequently,
I opted to explore patterns associated with
COVID-19.”

18. What happened
●Students used the techniques — but did not
admit to using for editing
●Little evidence of iteration
●Bias seen as an AI problem, not a human
problem

19. “When reviewing the answers I was sure to
pay attention to the answers provided to
check for any potential bias in its answers”

20. What next?

21. Reviewing teaching
●What is our objective?
●What barriers are students likely to face in meeting that objective?
●What role can genAI play in helping reduce or remove those barriers?
●Is it practical or realistic to restrict the use of genAI? What might be
lost and gained by doing so?
●What risks are there in using genAI for that?
●What steps can be taken to reduce those?
●What opportunities are there for reflection and review?

22. Templates, checklists?
●A risk assessment of genAI usage - and measures
●A requirement to ask genAI for feedback
●A requirement to iterate?

23. Beyond ChatGPT
●Custom GPTs
●NotebookLM,
●AnythingLLM etc.
●Custom LLMs

24. What do you humans think?