At Emory University, faculty members from the humanities and social science departments are actively discussing the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) in educational settings. With institutions like Columbia University and the University of Chicago Law School recently banning technology in certain courses, Emory’s educators are weighing the benefits and downsides of increased reliance on AI platforms such as ChatGPT and Claude.
Hubert Tworzecki, Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in Political Science, noted that opinions among faculty regarding technology use in the classroom vary significantly. “We are dealing with an unprecedented challenge to education, posed by AI,” he said. “It is forcing institutions to respond and to try new things.” Tworzecki referenced the mixed responses from other universities, including strict bans on technology, and suggested that time will reveal which approaches yield the best educational outcomes.
Previously, Tworzecki observed that technology often distracted students; now, he expresses concern that AI may hinder students’ abilities to develop their own ideas and opinions on course material. “There is the additional challenge of being able to get quick answers to questions posed in a classroom setting, answers which are not their own, which are generated by a chatbot,” he added.
Zachary Peskowitz, Masse-Martin NEH Professor of Political Science, shared that the rise of AI has influenced his teaching methods, emphasizing critical thinking through spontaneous verbal communication and writing tasks. “To some extent, students will develop different skills than they may have 10 years ago,” he said.
James Morey, Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in English, firmly opposes the use of screens in classrooms unless necessary for accommodations. He stated, “These machines, especially websites and social media, [are] designed to be distracting and addicting.” Morey and his colleagues resent the role of AI in student writing, with Morey emphasizing that they have “no interest in reading one word of AI-generated text that’s turned in as a student’s own work.”
Peskowitz highlighted a 2016 study from the United States Military Academy, which found that students performed better on final exams in environments where technology use was restricted. “There is some evidence that laptop use and device use can decrease retention of information,” he noted, explaining that inappropriate use of laptops can distract fellow students as well.
While some faculty suggest banning devices altogether, Peskowitz argued against a one-size-fits-all solution for classroom technology policies. He acknowledged the need for flexibility, indicating different classes and students might require different approaches to technology use. Tworzecki similarly recognized the potential benefits of technology, particularly for students who may find it challenging to take handwritten notes.
As discussions continue, Tworzecki proposed that larger classrooms might require distinct strategies regarding technology use. He noted that while current bans at other universities are experimental, such policies could gain traction in the coming years. “We need a few years for the effects of these different policies to become evident,” he said, alluding to the possibility of standardized practices across universities.
