Katy Pearce

Oh that is the worst!

3/10 seems extremely low.

I glanced at this (unopened, just subject line) and saw The End of Organization, @davekarpf.bsky.social

There is a transparency policy and they are to write in the Google doc. There is an official class AI chatbot they can use for feedback, with transparency .

I had hopes that with heavy scaffolding, I wouldn't see as much AI writing in student work.
I was totally wrong. And it is so annoying to read. There are literally 7434232113299 things I'd rather be doing right now.

Observation - students working in groups nowadays aren't willing to step in and 'clean up the messes' or 'fix' issues that other students made, even if it will harm their overall grade. While I kind of respect that, it does make for more difficult grading. I suspect the peer evals will be juicy.

My brain is split between Katseye and grading.

It'd be interesting to compare this to OF too.

@wishcrys might have more thoughts on this. But it seems to just be a revenue stream for those in particular career stages where options are limited.

This piece talks about reality stars which makes sense for their need for more revenue sources. Fwiw, I ordered one for my (then) tween, and it was a minor Disney/Nick actor. It was cheap, kid was thrilled.

My suspicion is that this is a low cost high payoff revenue sector for them and also is aligned with "fan service." AND they presume that most videos won't go public. And most are 'happy birthday.'
I recall reading about the less popular Office cast doing this. But MM has a career, so less certain.

I feel like I'm about to reach a breaking point in grading. BUT THERE IS MORE TO COME.

Sage Journals: Discover world-class research Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

This is SO interesting!
There is this piece (DM me if you need the full PDF access): journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

BlueSky just asked me for my birthday. And the age-gated internet comes to Washington state, even.

Wow. Chatgpt is now making suggestions like this.

And you can't really expect undergraduates to be able to discern what was BS and what was not in their shared document. It is REALLY a very tangled unfortunate situation.

And the extension of this, is that someone puts random citations and page numbers into the citations, the other group members trust them, and then their evidence is poor and it impacts the entire submission.

The nice thing about being in a large city, I rarely hear 'Hi Dr. Pearce' but when I do, it is almost ALWAYS at a time that I'd rather not chit chat with a student.

Sending love.

Anyway, back to grading. This is a bummer.

And the others can really SEE this now, so maybe that is something beneficial for them to learn.

One of the "better" outcomes has been now, being able to say to the other group members, "Do you see how this paragraph/section, although at a quick glance, looks fine, actually doesn't make sense, doesn't align with our framework, isn't supported by evidence?"

And this has played out in different ways, sometimes in misconduct reports, sometimes in groups giving up, sometimes in other group members taking on the extra word to 'fix' this.

Then, unsurprisingly, the student doesn't address these issues before the next deadline. And the other group members MIGHT try to scramble to find a citation to fit the claim. (And I did have them use NotebookLM, in part because I anticipated this.)

Then in the review of that stage of the project, I note things like "do you have a citation to back up that claim?" or "explain this more clearly?"

A pattern I've seen this quarter in group projects. Despite having as much scaffolding built in, SOME individual students (probably) used AI to write up paragraphs.

​François Arnaud is a great actor and everything but we can all hear his Canadian accent right? Isn't he supposed to be American in this show?

Where is chatgpt Santa mode? I need it!!

Sometimes the internet is good.