Press release. The recent launch of ChatGPT for teachers by OpenAI has reignited the debate about the role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in education. This new tool, aimed specifically at the teaching field, opens a scenario of opportunities that requires analysis from a place of responsibility and deep reflection. Its arrival coincides with a moment in which the educational community is looking for solutions that improve the quality of training processes, but also guarantees to preserve academic rigor and the cognitive development of students and teachers.
A new space of opportunities
In this context, Fernando Blázquez, director of the Degree in Data Science and Artificial Intelligence at UDIT, University of Design, Innovation and Technology, points out that “the use of this tool should be seen as a space of opportunities, as long as it is done through the prism of critical thinking, the analysis and review of the results obtained, and the monitoring of the sources used, among other aspects”.
The UDIT expert indicates that “This first version for teachers, well used, presents a scenario with great educational possibilities: it will provide examples and methodologies from other academics that will help improve the educational system applied in the classrooms, it will generate documentation and adapted presentations that will facilitate the teaching of the subjects and save time in the preparation of teaching resources, it will particularize proposals for practices and problems (adapting them to the specific needs of the teacher and the knowledge acquired about the subject itself through the interaction maintained with him), it will create training units based on the requirements raised, etc.”
Critical thinking and efficiency
But despite the advantages that the new tool can provide, Fernando Blázquez is also critical of the use that teachers may make of it: “The intervention of the teacher in this entire process will be essential when carrying out the prompting, filtering the results obtained, and assessing the validity of the proposals presented by the AI” he assures.
In this sense, he comments that “delegating completely to this type of tools is a mistake from the start. Teachers must consider it as a specific resource that serves as support for the development or improvement of specific tasks, pursuing efficiency and not just time savings”.
Furthermore, the UDIT expert states that in no case should they completely replace human intervention in the creative process, and not only because of the problems inherent to AI (biases, hallucinations, etc.), but to avoid gradually limiting the cognitive capacity of users, promoting gradual accommodative behavior. “Furthermore, in the case of teachers, it does not seem logical to give up their accumulated experience and their ability to generate their own quality content in the subjects” he points out.
“The academic world should not consider the use of these tools as a mere system for setting tasks by teachers, and a way for students to solve them. Both groups have the obligation to go much further, seeing the possibilities that generative AI currently offers; on the one hand, providing ideas from which to create educational methodologies better adapted to the acquisition of skills by students, and on the other, as an inspiring element (not a substitute) that helps generate more training content. imaginative, attractive and efficient” concludes.
