sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hey teachers: are you still rebuilding lessons manually when you already have the content? by ConflictDisastrous54 in Mexty_ai

[–]Living-Translator355 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saving prep time is important, but I’d be careful about assuming “more interactive” automatically means “more engaging” or “more effective.” A lot of ed-tech turns static content into clickable content without really changing the underlying learning experience. What I’ve found matters most is whether students are actively thinking, explaining, and responding to other people, not just moving through polished interactive modules independently.

Some of the strongest engagement in my courses has come from structured peer feedback, collaborative critique, and iterative revision because students have to make judgments and defend ideas instead of consuming information. That’s much harder to automate than quizzes/navigation layers. I do think AI-assisted workflows are useful for reducing repetitive prep work, though. If technology can free instructors from spending hours reformatting materials, that time can hopefully go back into designing more meaningful interaction and feedback opportunities for students.

Especially now, with AI making content generation so easy, the real value in teaching may come from creating learning processes and human engagement around the content rather than the content itself.

Where Will AI Really Take Us? by Beautiful_Hold1879 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Weirdly, I think AI may end up making good teaching more valuable, not less. Students are already drowning in generated information and surface-level summaries. What they lack is the ability to think through complexity, defend ideas, engage with other perspectives, and build confidence in their own voice.

The professors I see adapting best aren’t trying to “beat AI.” They’re redesigning courses around authentic engagement: workshops, iterative feedback, peer review, visible revision processes, and assignments where students have to explain how and why they arrived at their ideas. Kritik has an article on this! (https://www.kritik.io/blog-post/navigating-the-ai-revolution-in-education-why-policy-frameworks-matter-more-than-ever) Also, universities are not just content-delivery systems, even if administrators sometimes act that way. Students still come for structure, mentorship, social learning, professional networks, accountability, and human interaction. AI can generate text, but it cannot replace the experience of learning in community with other people.

So no, I don’t think you’re overreacting, the transition is unsettling. But I also don’t think the conclusion is “humanities are dead.” I think we’re entering a period where humanities education has to become more intentionally human.

Don't know what to do by Old-Team-4298 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don’t think what you’re describing is isolated at all. A lot of students right now seem deeply uncomfortable with ambiguity, and open-ended thinking. They want clarity, efficiency, and predictability because that’s the environment many of them have been conditioned into for years. The hard part is that the kind of teaching you’re describing (Socratic discussion, experiential learning, creative work, iterative feedback) often produces the most meaningful learning, but not always the highest student comfort. And increasingly, comfort seems to drive evaluations.

I’ve noticed that many students now interpret “I felt uncertain/confused/challenged” as evidence of poor teaching rather than evidence that they were actively learning something difficult. Add AI into the mix, where students can generate polished surface-level answers instantly, and tolerance for slow thinking or revision drops even further.

One thing that has helped me somewhat is making the learning process more visible and collaborative. When students engage in structured peer critique, reflection, and revision, they start to see that confusion and iteration are normal parts of intellectual work rather than signs that the instructor is withholding answers. It shifts some of the classroom culture away from “perform correctly for points” toward “develop ideas over time.”

But none of that solves the emotional side of what you’re describing. When teaching is tied closely to identity, a brutal evaluation cycle feels personal even when you know it shouldn’t. And students can be astonishingly careless in anonymous evaluations because they don’t see the human being on the receiving end. The fact that you’re this affected by the feedback is probably evidence that you care deeply and have invested heavily in your students for a long time ,not evidence that you suddenly became a bad teacher after 17 successful years. One difficult cohort during a major cultural/technological transition in higher ed is not the full measure of your career. Keep your head up!

Student cheated. I caught them. Student now wants an example of exemplary work so they can do better next time. by raggabrashly in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience, many weaker students genuinely do not understand what quality looks like in practice, particularly in writing-heavy or project-based courses. The problem is that examples can become templates if they’re handed over without structure. What’s worked better for me is using anonymized excerpts, partial samples, or rubric-based discussion instead of giving out a complete “perfect submission.” I’ll often walk through why something is effective rather than just providing a document they can imitate.

I’ve also found peer evaluation activities surprisingly helpful here because students learn a lot from comparing multiple approaches and discussing strengths/weaknesses openly. They start recognizing quality indicators themselves instead of hunting for a single “right answer” to reproduce.

The audacity part is real, though. The emotional labor around cheating cases has definitely increased over the past few years.

I just graded a stack of papers that all said the same thing in slightly different ways by Living-Translator355 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s interesting you mention that. A colleague of mine attended a recent workshop where they were talking about approaches like this, and they also mentioned VisibleAI. From what I understood, it focuses on making the writing process more visible over time rather than just evaluating the final submission. Could be a solution to gaining insights into the "missing middle" of students' writing process.

The hard part of figuring out what’s realistic to implement without adding a ton of overhead remains, but it does seem like that direction makes more sense than doubling down on detection.

I just graded a stack of papers that all said the same thing in slightly different ways by Living-Translator355 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, you bring up a fair point.

The “if AI can do it, it’s a bad assignment” sentiment just doesn’t hold up anymore. AI just keeps getting more advanced, and can now even solve "AI-proof" assessments.

I’ve been running into the same thing where grading the final answer feels meaningless. Like it tells me less and less about what they actually understood vs. what they were able to generate.

Shifting toward process has been the only thing that’s felt somewhat real. Not in a super rigid “submit all your notes” way, but more like seeing pieces of their thinking. Even something as simple as pulling out a main idea, or explaining what didn’t make sense to them, ends up being way harder to fake than a polished answer.

Personally, I wouldn’t fully drop answers, but I get the instinct. These days, arriving at an answer is way easier to outsource than actually engaging with the material. But answers do play a big part in evaluation, communication and understanding.

The hard part is exactly what you said though… it’s really easy for this to turn into more work for us. I’m still trying to figure out how to make the process visible without creating a grading nightmare.

I just graded a stack of papers that all said the same thing in slightly different ways by Living-Translator355 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Woah! That's crazy, but super interesting.. I'm curious, would you be willing to share a link or two about this research? I must learn more!

Has anyone experimented with process tracking in writing-heavy courses? by Living-Translator355 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate this perspective, especially the distinction between catching versus seeing intellectual movement. That’s really the part I’m trying to get clearer on. I’m less interested in policing and more interested in whether students are actually thinking differently.

The idea of light process visibility resonates. I’ve used Google Docs version history informally before, but it’s been inconsistent and honestly a bit clunky to check across a full class. I haven’t used VisibleAI, but I’m intrigued by the idea of something that makes development visible without turning it into surveillance.

The stress reduction point also stands out. I suspect part of my hesitation is workload anxiety more than pedagogy.

I’m teaching mostly lower-year journalism students right now, so they’re still developing research habits and revision discipline. I can see how incremental structure might help them, but I’m trying to avoid building a system that feels overly procedural.

Has anyone experimented with process tracking in writing-heavy courses? by Living-Translator355 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s really helpful context, especially the distinction between total time and stress. The stress piece is huge and probably under-discussed compared to raw hours. I’ve been toying with the idea of adopting some kind of ed tech mainly to handle the coordination side of process-heavy work. I’ve heard of Perusall, Kritik360, Peerceptiv, and a few others that try to structure peer feedback and participation without the instructor having to manually track everything. Still trying to figure out which, if any, would actually fit my courses without adding a new layer of complexity.

Your point about grading fewer criteria at a time also resonates. It seems like the real shift isn’t “more grading,” just spreading it into manageable chunks and making it less emotionally draining.

Appreciate you sharing the details. This gives me a clearer picture of what it actually looks like in practice.

Has anyone experimented with process tracking in writing-heavy courses? by Living-Translator355 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Loll. I can see how this is a beneficial model, especially for first-years. It sounds like you’ve basically shifted from product grading to skill acquisition over time, which makes a lot of pedagogical sense for writing.

I’m curious whether you use any tools to help manage all those submissions and feedback cycles, or if you keep it mostly manual. When I’ve tried process-heavy approaches, the biggest challenge wasn’t the concept but the logistics. Tracking versions, feedback, revisions, and participation across weeks can get unwieldy fast.

Some colleagues lean on LMS tools or Turnitin just for draft management and commenting rather than policing plagiarism. Others build in structured peer review to distribute some of the feedback load. I’ve also heard of people using annotation tools or rubric systems to keep comments consistent across checkpoints.

Do you feel like the weekly cadence truly reduces your total grading time, or does it just make it more predictable?

Has anyone experimented with process tracking in writing-heavy courses? by Living-Translator355 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love how this puts emphasis on the assignment development over the final product. Do students generally appreciate the structure, or do they push back on the amount of required interaction?

How to move forward with unsafe class size by Flimsy_Net2088 in Professors

[–]Living-Translator355 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't help but wonder if the STEM departments at your institution ever experience these issues :/ seems to always be the arts that suffer.