AI: Assessment, Access and Equity

Brief Abstract

Techno-pedagogy has faced many barriers to successful implementation in education, such as cultural, financial, political, and methodological. There are two types of technology integration in education: intentional and accidental. The pandemic resulted in a third type of technology integration called coercive adoption, where schools had no choice but to leverage technology to continue providing education to students. The emergence of ChatGPT is disruptive to the educational environment, much like the pandemic. Educational organizations have responded to technological disruptions with bans, such as with calculators, laptops, and smartphones. However, time and experience have revealed that these tools can be essential to effective education. The deployment and access to artificial intelligence (AI) in schools has been controversial and has resulted in some school districts banning it. The ban of AI technology, such as ChatGPT, in schools can have equity implications for students, including informational, technological, cultural, and linguistic equity. Educators should focus on how all students can benefit from technology if used in deliberate, effective, and equitable ways.

Extended Abstract

Historically, the integration of technology into teaching and learning environments, known as techno-pedagogy, has occurred fitfully, often in unpredictable ways. The chaotic nature of technological adaptation is the result of many barriers. These barriers can be categorized as cultural – the hermetic nature of schools which are often slow to respond to innovation; financial – the cost of technology acquisition and training to both educational institutions and their constituencies; political – the bureaucratic nature of education and the attendant regulatory and policy barriers to innovation and methodological – the time-consuming nature of identifying evidence-based instructional practices. Despite these obstacles, schools have gradually transformed into technologically integrated environments.

It is important to categorize the methods of technological transformation in education. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, technology integration happened in two ways: intentional and accidental. Technology integration into instructional environments began apace with the dawn of the so-called information age. The gradual ubiquity of personal computing capacity and the development of the Internet resulted in a cultural transformation that inevitably impacted schools. The affordances of these resources (hardware and software, broadly) resulted in the transformation of both schools’ physical plants – computer labs and internet access, as examples – and the technology expectations placed upon teachers. The institutions of education (universities, school districts) and the rapidly developing educational technology sector responded to these shifting cultural expectations by developing technological solutions to address instructional needs. These solutions, in the form of both hardware and software, could be classified as intentional. That is, these solutions were intentionally designed for use in instructional environments. Intentionally designed educational technology has a mixed record of success. Success as measured by broad adoption coupled with a positive and measurable impact on student learning outcomes. An example of an intentional integration is interactive whiteboards. At first, hailed as a remarkable innovation that would dramatically change teaching and learning, interactive whiteboards have failed to deliver on that promise. Examples of failed software innovations abound. It can be concluded that intentional integration, techno-pedagogical solutions specifically designed for classroom use, do not guarantee success.

The second type of integration is accidental. Accidental integration fits into a discovery model of techno-pedagogy. In this scenario, technology adaptations infiltrate educational settings in several ways. One way is covertly, students bring technology tools and practices with them to school. Schools often respond by banning these tools. Examples are laptop bans in higher education and smartphone bans in K-12. In some instances, educators have responded to this covert infiltration by adapting their practice to accommodate the technological habits of their students, resulting in accidental integration. In other cases, schools are convinced by broad societal adoption of technical habits, resulting in technology integration. Using tools not specifically designed for classrooms (podcasting, Twitter, and TikTok for example) – are also examples of accidental integration.

The pandemic resulted in a novel type of technological adoption. This type might be called coercive. In this unique instance, schools had no choice but to leverage technology to continue to provide education to their students. Whether the education provided during the pandemic was effective remains to be seen. Regardless, millions of students and hundreds of thousands of educators now have experiences of learning and teaching online. The resistance to technology has now been rendered almost moot.  In fact, education is faced with a novel problem. If online learning at scale was effective, why go back to face-to-face learning? If online learning was ineffective why were millions of children promoted and graduated? Prior to the pandemic, higher education faculty were resistant to online learning while much higher percentages of students preferred it. Now, post-pandemic, many higher education faculty and instructors would prefer to teach remotely, while large number of students want to return to face-to-face instruction, desiring the community and connectedness of campus life. Large percentages of both learner and instructor populations, having had experiences of remote learning, have no desire to return to the physical campus.

The deployment and readily available access to Artificial Intelligence presents another disruption in the teaching and learning environment. Schools have responded in expected ways. Several large districts have banned access to Artificial Intelligence from the networks. Conversations have centered around cheating, plagiarism and the inability to assess student learning accurately. The use of AI has been presented as unlike anything schools have ever faced before. But it might be helpful to consider an earlier case of technological disruption.

The introduction of the TI (Texas Instruments) graphing calculator was a controversial topic in education since its introduction in the 1990s. At first viewed as a tool to facilitate cheating, it quickly came to be seen as an essential part of math instruction. The high cost of the TI graphing calculator made it difficult for many students, particularly those from low-income families or schools, to access the tool. This created a disparity in educational opportunities and can put disadvantaged students at a disadvantage compared to their peers who have access to the device. This progression from banning to ubiquity to considers of equitable access was later mirrored in the integration of laptops. Once banned tools become essential and certain students are denied access.

New York City Public Schools (the largest school district in the country) banned ChatGPT in early 2023. This ban has implications in terms of equity. Informational equity: students who do not have access to AI in schools may be at a disadvantage compared to those who do in terms of easily accessing information. Technological equity: in today's digital age, access to technology and online resources has become a necessity for learning and success. Students who do not have access to the tool outside of school may be at a disadvantage compared to those who do. Cultural Equity: AI can provide access to diverse perspectives and experiences that may not be available within the classroom or the students' immediate community. Students will also be denied the opportunity to provide feedback on the use of these tools, potentially denying the chance to be a part of their improvement. Linguistic equity: AI can provide support for students who are learning English as a second language, as it can help them understand complex concepts and improve their language skills. By denying access to AI, these students may not have access to this valuable tool for language development.

Educators should respond to the use of Artificial Intelligence the way they have in the past. With a focus on how all students can benefit from technology if used in deliberate, effective ad equitable ways.