Carleton University’s draft AI Framework, which would dictate the appropriate use of artificial intelligence by staff and students, has the community divided on where artificial intelligence belongs in university.
During the public feedback stage of the framework creation, some Carleton community members are championing AI as a learning support while others are gravely concerned for students’ critical-thinking abilities.
What does the framework propose?
The draft provides “guidance,” to ensure the community is equipped with “the knowledge and skills needed to use AI tools effectively, responsibly, and ethically,” the draft reads. It adds that AI should not replace humans, but rather assist them in their work.
For instructors, the framework encourages integrating “at least one AI-related topic or activity” in each class to promote AI literacy and working to ensure students are prepared to use AI outside of the university. The framework also recommends designing exams and assignments “that encourage authentic work” and states that final evaluation is always up to the instructor.
For students, the framework says AI should be used “as a learning aid, not a shortcut.” Students should learn how to use AI as supplement for research while critically evaluating AI’s work and reflecting on how it impacts their own learning, the draft says.
Carleton researchers could use AI to process information, help with grant applications and generate summaries, but should be wary of its potential biases and verify the output of AI, the draft says.
At the administration and leadership levels, AI could be used to streamline repetitive tasks, while ensuring that sensitive information is protected and the output of AI is overseen by a human, the draft says.
Unions’ reaction to the framework
Unions at Carleton have expressed concerns about the proposed framework.
The Carleton University Academic Staff Association, the union for faculty and professional librarians, said it has major concerns about how the framework would be shaped and implemented.
The groups and committees responsible for guiding the university’s AI strategy don’t include “meaningful participation by academic staff at all levels,” CUASA said in a feedback letter to Carleton.
Dominique Marshall, the president of CUASA, said perspectives are being lost when some academic staff cannot weigh in.
She also said many members of CUASA are worried they will be forced to follow recommendations in the framework that they might not agree with.
“Although it’s a framework, it looks in many places to be setting a tone which is more binding than a framework,” she said.
Marshall also cited concerns about equity she said were not addressed in the draft. The framework “does not speak about the energy required to run AI, the land necessary for AI and if Indigenous land ownership will be respected,” she said.
CUPE 4600, the union that represents teaching, service and research assistants at Carleton, is also demanding guardrails on AI. The union expressed concerns about the draft in an open letter to the university, asking for teaching, service and research assistants to be protected from AI replacement.
A failure to offer protections “signals an intent to force the adoption of AI at the expense of TAs, SAs, RAs and other education workers with the university,” the letter said. “Reduction of human educators will ultimately further degrade the quality of education and the student experience at Carleton.”
What do instructors think about AI?
In the Faculty of Science, “AI is already deeply embedded in many areas of research,” according to Sue Berkam, an associate dean in the faculty.
As a biology professor herself, Berkam said she uses AI daily as a research tool.
“One of my PhD students used AI to measure insect body size. Now, we can process thousands of insects at a time where that used to be a stumbling block, as students measured by hand. We take photos and have AI do it quickly and very effectively,” she said.
Berkam also explained that students can use AI as a study guide, for example by asking it to explain complex topics that they may have misunderstood in lecture.
Students should develop a skillset where they can critically analyze AI’s response, accuracy and biases, Berkam added.
“If faculty members can help students learn how to use AI tools thoughtfully, ethically and critically, then we’re way ahead and it’s a win,” she said.
But in the English department, courses have been restructured to minimize AI use by students, according to English professor Jody Mason.
In her writing courses, Mason said she has switched to in-class writing assignments over take-home essays and changed the weighting of assignments so that exams and in-person assignments are worth more.
Similarly, in a course about essay writing, she has made the class device-free. It forces students to engage with the readings in real time, she said, which “changes the learning experience.”
Mason said the writing process encourages engagement with literary texts, idea development, organization and critical thinking — all of which students miss when AI does it for them.
“Farming out the process of [writing] to AI means you have not learned how to understand that essay,” she said. “In the long term, we lose those skills of thought process and learning.”
As faculty senator, Mason said she has cited her concerns with the framework at Senate, one of which is that “there is no critical language about AI in the draft.”
What do students think about AI?
Aidan Kallioinen,* vice-president (student issues) for the Carleton University Students’ Association, said students are upset with the double standard of professors using AI in their teaching while denouncing student use of AI.
Kallioinen said students generally “don’t use AI on a regular basis,” and it is often not maliciously, in his view.
“Our focus is really ensuring that the learning experience is something as authentic as possible,” he said.
It’s not a question of if AI belongs in higher education, but rather where and how it can be ethically used, he said.
Kallionen said he worries for incoming students who grew up with AI and screens, adding he believes AI education should start in elementary school.
*Aidan Kallioinen has contributed to the Charlatan.
Featured image by Glenn Carstens-Peters/Unsplash
This article, and all of the Charlatan’s work, is brought to you by an independent student newspaper dedicated to informing, uplifting and entertaining the Carleton University community. We are a levy-funded organization which plays a role in the broader, vibrant student culture on campus. By reading this article, you are supporting our efforts.
