Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration AI AI and Posthumanism Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression Archive Archiving artificial intelligence Augmenting Reflexivity automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings creativity Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative digital education futures Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital labour Digital Media and Information Literacy Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities Dying world elites Emerging tech in education Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI Generative AI for Academics higher education Interested Lacan Listening LLMs LLMs and Human Agency LLMs and Organisations LLMs and Psychopathology margaret archer music Ontology of emerging technologies Organising Philosophy Philosophy of Technology Platform and agency platform capitalism platform university poetry politics Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy public engagement public sociology Reading reflexivity sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics Social media in higher education social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized writing

Low tech, no tech pedagogy to protect foundational knowledge from cognitive outsourcing

This strategy published by Queen Mary comes after recent announcements from a number of large American universities about targeted removal of technology from the classroom in order to protect foundational knowledge. I was persuaded of this by Helen Beetham who introduced me to the phrase ‘low tech, no tech pedagogy’ which I think handily captures the strategic approach. This is how Queen Mary’s school of Society and Environment describe their three-stage approach:

At the first stage, students should develop foundational disciplinary knowledge and cognitive skills. Bucking the recent trend, this might mean making less use of technology in all forms, and more offline study – pen and paper, workbooks, and invigilated written exams. This stage ensures all our graduates both develop and demonstrate core academic capabilities without relying on AI.

At the second stage, students should develop the ability to use AI intentionally. That means learning about the distinct strengths and weaknesses of generative AI tools, and how to be selective about whether and when to use AI. It means appreciating the importance of not becoming a redundant “meat proxy” interfacing between an AI and the world. It means being aware of the general economic, social, and political costs of generative AI, and the specific educational downsides associated with using it. Outsourcing cognitive effort to AI is like taking a forklift to the gym. The weights get lifted, but you don’t get stronger. And it means ensuring they can use AI honestly, transparently, and with integrity.

At the third stage, students should explore how to use AI effectively and critically. They should develop a set of prompting skills that enable them to get the best out of different platforms, while minimising financial costs and energy use. They should become sophisticated consumers of AI-generated output, quickly identifying its flaws and shortcomings. And they should reflect on what it means to be human in an AI era.

https://www.qmul.ac.uk/society-and-environment/school-news/items/assessing-student-learning-in-the-generative-ai-age.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
, , , , ,