Before our first workshops, we were allocated a group and a reading. We discussed the paper with our small groups, and then summarised our understanding to the wider class.
I read ‘‘The new life’: Mozambican Art Students in the USSR and the Aesthetic Epistemologies of Anti-Colonial Solidarity’’ (Savage, 2023).
After the reading material was dissected, we agreed that we found it difficult to ‘plough through’ the academic reading. A question was asked to the tutors; ‘Why did you allow us to input the paper into ChatGPT?’ It was proposed that we shouldn’t use ChatGPT as ‘students should be comfortable being confused,’ and in relation to our UG/PG cohorts, ‘Students are no longer able to persist’.
I found the conversation insightful; I enjoyed listening to the opinions about the use of AI within higher education, and its drawbacks. At the same time, I was frozen with guilt; I was the student who asked ChatGPT to summarize. The paper wrote about Marxism, socialism, and ‘art education in the socialist world’. (Savage, 2023, p.1). These are topics that I haven’t encountered before, especially not in my career as a garment technologist.
I used ChatGPT as a tool to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. Its use ensured I could approach a difficult paper with a newly formed understanding of social and political ideologies. It made the reading enjoyable, I could extract the key learnings without getting lost in overcomplicated words, and without having the implied background knowledge of social political happenings in the USSR.
I struggle to speak up in group sessions as I fear being perceived as wrong, incorrect, or un-educated. In this instance, I did not voice my opinion.
Arno and Clemens speak of ‘brave spaces’ in place of ‘safe spaces’. The Authors critique the idea of ‘Safe Spaces’, which limit the scope for challenging discussions. Re-framing a ‘safe space’ to a ‘brave space’ encourages individuals to engage in uncomfortable conversations, which are necessary for growth and understanding for all involved.
Brave spaces ‘‘allow students to engage with one another over controversial issues with honesty, sensitivity, and respect’’ (Arno and Clemens, 2013, p.135).
By remaining silent I was assisting in fostering the groups’ narrowed view regarding AI. I know now that by voicing my opinion, approaching conversations with the ‘brave space’ mindset, it will allow the group to visualise a different perspective. By not speaking up, I was avoiding conflict, making the space comfortable, and ‘safe’, but denying us the opportunity for a thought provoking debate. That’s not to say my opinion surrounding the use of AI is correct, or there is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong answer’, but I feel that we all could have benefited from deepening the discussion and find a more cohesive conclusion, which isn’t one sided.
‘Some of the richest learning springs from ongoing explorations of conflict, whereby participants seek to understand an opposing viewpoint’. (Arno & Clemens, 2013, p.143).
I believe that we need to embrace new AI technologies such as ChatGPT and allow students to explore and experiment with them. As educators, we should be using new technology to ensure we understand how a student may benefit from it. Seminars in correct and fair use would be appropriate to help guide students recognise ChatGPT as an educational aid; this can’t be done without personally using, critiquing, and testing its limitations.
References.
Arao, B. and Clemens, A. (2013) From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice.
Savage, P. (2013) ‘The new life’: Mozambican Art Students in the USSR and the Aesthetic Epistemologies of Anti-Colonial Solidarity.