Teachers are pondering what to do in the face of the emergence of artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, and other devices that have quickly become a kind of phantom arm for students who are increasingly distracted and inattentive, unable to grasp a single stimulus. A simple explanation or a written paragraph-length instruction becomes difficult to assimilate. The impact on attention span and concentration is very evident. Sometimes I think we should conduct memory workshops, like those offered by people suffering from Alzheimer's when they attend day centers. It's astonishing and worrying. The mechanisms for acquiring knowledge and the way we learn have changed to such extremes that it's hard to identify. Keeping the electronic device open while things are happening in the classroom (debates, presentations, collaborative work) has become an automatic habit, without which we seem to lose our bearings. ChatGPT has become a teaching assistant: it explains what they haven't understood in class with the synchronous teacher. It also helps with completing assignments. It replaces reading an article with a summary of the main ideas. Proposes developing topics, prepares presentations.
How do we assess whether they've read, understood, and are able to reflect on a text? For an article in digital format, we've drunk oil. They post it online and ask the chat to write a review, make an outline, etc. However, if it's a paper book, protected by copyright, things get complicated. You can always take advantage of a summary that someone may have posted online. All this if it's a written work.
To reverse this trend, a plausible option would be oral tests. tech-free. I took this course as part of a reading. The oral test for the book consisted of holding a synchronous conversation, coinciding with space and time (it must be said like this to avoid meets and other details). We met in class. They had to bring the paperback book, without opening any electronic device. They gave it to me, I opened it. At random, I pointed to a paragraph or page in their copy. They had a few minutes to prepare a commentary (if necessary, jotting down a few ideas on a piece of paper). Then they had to tell it in a limited time. They had to comment on the fragment and relate it to the structure and content of the book, reflecting on a few issues.
When having a conversation without technological support, words take on a new value. As Joan Maragall said: "We should speak much less and only out of a strong desire for expression." The power of the spoken word pierces the all-seeing eye in the image on the screen. It opens up other possibilities and, above all, another time. We need time for this kind of testing. Should we record what is said? Better to preserve the ephemeral moment of conversation. Aristotle said that the human voice is a conjunction of sound and meaning embodied. In oral tests, the student's voice resonates. Knowledge then becomes vibrant, vivifying the transmission of the implicit in the right tone.
