Central Okanagan Public Schools has taken a first step in developing guidelines for responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) for K-12 educators, students and parents.
A 17-page report was presented to the education and services committee meeting last Wednesday for discussion, presented by learning technology services district principal Troy White, teacher consultant Tobias Blaskovits, teacher consultant Nicole Leboe, and privacy and cybersecurity manager Ken Yew.
The document is intended to provide recommendations and considerations to support the use of Gen AI from a human-centric perspective with the goal of promoting the school district's core values of responsibility, equity, empathy, honesty and respect.
"The 'Artificial Intelligence Revolution' is being seen as a pivotal 'hinge in history', a technical advancement that will have the outreaching global impact similar to previous technological advancements, like the printing press, the telephone, television, the personal computer, and the internet," stated the report.
"This technology will have lasting and far-reaching effects across many career sectors."
The report comes in response to concerns raised by trustees and staff at various times over the past year about the potential impact of Gen AI on students and staff in Central Okanagan public schools.
The report addresses several issues related to the potential impact of a technology that is still in its early stages and is widely perceived as having both positive and negative consequences.
It is centred around five core values identified as framing the use of Gen AI - responsibility, equity, empathy, honesty and respect.
"In a world of AI, it is these core guiding values that make us human. In a rapidly changing world, we need to focus on those qualities that help us to be critical thinkers and learners."
Critical thinking is an over-arching theme espoused by school district staff in teaching Central Okanagan students, and the report cites how that characteristic will be more, not less, important in the use of this new technology.
On the topic of academic integrity, the report cites: "Gen AI should be viewed as a collaborative tool and learning partner that enhances understanding rather than a substitute for independent thought," states the report.
"It is crucial...to be aware of AI's limitations including potential biases and inaccuracies, and to verify information independently. Students should be having conversations with their teachers about when and how they should be using Gen AI."
The report also addresses the role of teachers changing due to the use of AI by students, stating while Gen AI is a teaching tool, it can't replace the support and guidance students look for from teachers, or how they can prevent it from being abused or misused.
Teachers remain the best option as opposed to AI-powered tools to detect Gen AI-created content, where teachers are encouraged to create inclusive and supportive classroom learning environments, built through strong trusting teacher-student relationships where students respect their teacher and the teacher empowers the student to take ownership of their learning.
Reasons for not relying on AI detection tools to oversee the legitimacy of students' work include:
鈥� AI detection tools are inaccurate
鈥� There are many known techniques that Gen AI users can employ to "scrub clean" or "humanize" AI-generated content, making it undetectable
鈥� AI detective tools can produce false positive results that may damage a teacher-student relationship
鈥� AI detection tools can create a classroom environment of suspicion.
Trustee Aimee Geistlinger, chair of the education and student services committee, says the committee appreciated the passion with which the report was presented by staff, embracing the potential positive and negative aspects of Gen AI both from the perspective of students and teachers.
Geistlinger said from a teaching perspective, there are many positive attributes to Gen AI such as efficiencies in the use of classroom time and being able to effectively work better with students, while there is both caution and excitement about what it means for students in their education K-12 trajectory.
She said two aspects of the presentation the committee received were the use of Gen AI being framed around the school district's core values, and the clear distinction made on the different impacts facing teachers and students.
