Robert Cole
@robertsplace.bsky.social
Instructional developer interested in generative AI, how we assess and grade students, and curriculum and course design. Program Director, Reinert Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning, Saint Louis University
Reposted by Robert Cole
How can AI support rather than replace student writing and thinking? How can we encourage confidence and skepticism of AI outputs? Our approach, developed at UC Davis, combines peer review with AI feedback, emphasizing reflection and agency. 1/3
April 8, 2025 at 5:47 PM
How can AI support rather than replace student writing and thinking? How can we encourage confidence and skepticism of AI outputs? Our approach, developed at UC Davis, combines peer review with AI feedback, emphasizing reflection and agency. 1/3
Reposted by Robert Cole
This sounds like an interesting approach to testing AI’s role in peer review. Appreciate the framing and transparency here and I’m curious to see how PAIRR gets implemented and assessed in these contexts.
How can AI support rather than replace student writing and thinking? How can we encourage confidence and skepticism of AI outputs? Our approach, developed at UC Davis, combines peer review with AI feedback, emphasizing reflection and agency. 1/3
April 8, 2025 at 8:30 PM
This sounds like an interesting approach to testing AI’s role in peer review. Appreciate the framing and transparency here and I’m curious to see how PAIRR gets implemented and assessed in these contexts.
Reposted by Robert Cole
What percentage of students are you willing to falsely accuse of cheating with AI?
There is a trade-off between false accusations and detection rates for AI. At a 10% false positive rate, detectors find 80% or less of AI content. At a 1% rate most find 60% or less.
Don’t trust AI detectors!
There is a trade-off between false accusations and detection rates for AI. At a 10% false positive rate, detectors find 80% or less of AI content. At a 1% rate most find 60% or less.
Don’t trust AI detectors!
January 6, 2025 at 2:30 PM
What percentage of students are you willing to falsely accuse of cheating with AI?
There is a trade-off between false accusations and detection rates for AI. At a 10% false positive rate, detectors find 80% or less of AI content. At a 1% rate most find 60% or less.
Don’t trust AI detectors!
There is a trade-off between false accusations and detection rates for AI. At a 10% false positive rate, detectors find 80% or less of AI content. At a 1% rate most find 60% or less.
Don’t trust AI detectors!
Reposted by Robert Cole
Would your classroom AI policy survive an ethics tournament? I asked 50 students to follow a "think-pair-merge" process to distill everyone's ideas down to 4 semifinalists, resulting in some solid guidelines (and a lively debate along the way) blog.still-water.net/pooling-idea... 🐘♻️
December 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM
Would your classroom AI policy survive an ethics tournament? I asked 50 students to follow a "think-pair-merge" process to distill everyone's ideas down to 4 semifinalists, resulting in some solid guidelines (and a lively debate along the way) blog.still-water.net/pooling-idea... 🐘♻️