Interviews took place with academics at UAL to understand their professional opinion on how AI is impacting assessment at UAL…and how we can perhaps use more in person presentations if they can be inclusive.
Below is an image and the transcript of the interview conducted with Sheldon Chow, Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning, LCF. The interview was semi structured. I had prepared several questions in advance and as the interview progressed, more questions and debate emerged. Initial interview questions were:
- When did you start to notice the possible impact of AI on higher education?
- in your opinion, how will AI impact the sector going forward?
- How do you feel AI will impact assessment?
- Do you think that in the wake of AI, universities need to consider increasing different assessment methods such as presentations and exams?
- What do you feel about the use of the in person CRIT?
- In terms of in person CRITS and oral presentations ,considering our diverse cohorts at LCF, how do you feel these can be inclusive?
transcript is linked below.
Other interviews were an interview with Dr Arnab Bangaree which was unstructured. It took place during the office and Arnab allowed for recording via my phone.
Josephine Collins, Associate Dean of Learning and Teaching at LCC was interviewed via 2 email questions .
My questions are:
Lucy Finnegan: Due to the emergence of AI, do you think as an arts institution, we need to move towards more ‘live’ assessments such as in person presentations?
JC: Definitely not. See below re inclusive assessment and live presentations.We need to ensure that students know how to use generative AI as a citable research tool so there is no academic misconduct. And we need staff to understand what are the uses of AI in the sector they are teaching into. What is acceptable? Staff should be delivering this as part of their teaching. I have no doubt that the fashion sector is using AI.
A live presentation would not stop a student from researching and creating a presentation via generative AI.
The issue that UAL has yet to contend with properly is the use of AI within creative practise. The emphasis so far is on academic misconduct. Hopefully this will soon change.
Lucy Finnegan: Based on your knowledge of our diverse learners and students, how do you feel we can make the in person presentation assessment method more inclusive?
To be inclusive, all assessments should have alternative submission outputs, appropriate to the discipline. Eg, an essay or a presentation, slide show, report, artefact and so on. The assessment method could read something like, “A 10 minute live presentation or an equivalent format agreed with your tutor.” Or “A 2,000 word essay or an xx (number) slide presentation with audio”.
A live presentation should never be the only option. And who would attend a live presentation? The whole class, just the assessing tutors. Could a student record a presentation and submit the video? A few years ago some parents won a case against Bristol or maybe Bath uni as their daughter had committed suicide before having to do a live presentation.
The ultimate aim of inclusivity would be that individual adjustments were no longer necessary because flexibility of assessment would be written into the assessment methods.
I could go on…
Key take outs and insight from qualitative research interviews
- AI will change process more then anything – academics were not unanimous In their thinking around assessment changes
- Cultural factors influence a student’s perception of presentations – our changing international cohorts could impact this…perhaps positively
- Inclusive CRITS and presentations can be fostered if the environments and preparation are sufficient. The tutor role and preparation is vital to the success of this
- The onus is on support and how the tutor makes adjustments
- Alternative options are a must in order to fully promote inclusivity
- If the brief and learning outcomes can be around communication, it maybe framed differently