OPINION: Proposals for new exam formats are either driven by anxiety at best or by efficiency at worst
The Dean and Vice-Dean's proposals for new exam formats that must take into account the challenge from GAI are at best anxious and at worst a streamlining of our degree programmes, writes the students Mathilde Vadsager Andresen, Julie Marie Vedel Spottag, Maya Fedder Williams, Malene Flensted Dideriksen and Bálint Márk Sosovicska on behalf of the Classical Studies Council.
This is an opinion piece, the views expressed in the column are the writers’ own.
On February 25, Politiken published Maja Horst and Niels Lehmann's proposal on how to meet the challenge from GAI with new exam formats. The dean's and vice-dean's points were first challenged in an opinion piece by associate professor Mary Hilson and then by associate professor Jens-Bjørn Andresen, who, in his own words, participated in a mixed double with Hilson with the dean and vice-dean on the other side of the net. But where are the students in that metaphor? One is tempted to say that we are the ball being thrown back and forth over the net. But as students, we believe it's time for us to play a set. We agree with the dean and vice-dean that we should discuss how GAI can be part of the future of the humanities, but not that our exams should be based on GAI instead of independent text composition, which is one of the cornerstones of the humanities.
OPINION: “I don't accept the premise that implementation of AI is predetermined and unstoppable”
OPINION: Should students miss out on learning how to create new knowledge?
Horst and Lehmann claim that “we are at a crossroads” between “turning back time” and “embracing transformation.” Their rethinking of exam formats is incorporating GAI in a way that we believe is disproportionate. Although in their reply to Hilson, they call their own proposals “relatively weak” and therefore shouldn’t be seen as definitive, we believe that by virtue of their positions, they have an ethos that gives their statements in public a certain weight.
REPLY: Maybe we don't disagree that much - just on one point
PROPOSED EXAM FORMAT CONTRIBUTES ONLY TO weaker academic standards
The Dean's Office first proposes an examination format that tests students' ability to assess AI-generated texts. The intention is that the student should be able to see through errors, shortcomings and opportunities for improvement in a generated text instead of writing it themselves. We cannot see how this exam format will benefit the student. Competencies such as analysis, reasoning and argumentation, which the new examination format was supposed to test students in, come into play automatically when producing your own text. It’s through this process that you train your critical eye and learn from your mistakes. Independent production has always been an essential part of academic development, and if students do not practice these methods and processes, they have no prerequisites for assessing a finished product. The proposed examination format only contributes to a weaker academic standard, with the student being far less able to prepare independent material.
Another proposal is the process-based exam, which we assume represents, among other things, the thesis, where the student, in addition to their product, must submit their prompt history with accompanying reflections, which are intended to make critical thinking visible. There must be a fundamental idea here that GAI should be the starting point for this type of exam, whereby there is no room for students who are not interested in using GAI in their work. Because how can such an assignment be assessed on the same basis as one written using GAI? In the proposed exam format, it seems that failure to submit a prompt history is automatically seen as cheating instead of an expression of independent work.
YES TO ORAL DEFENSES
Finally, the dean's office will meet the challenges created by GAI through several oral exams. We view this very positively, especially if it means the reintroduction of the oral defence, which has been cut away for too long.
Despite the fact that we share the Dean's Office's concerns about the uncritical approach to the use of GAI, we cannot clearly see, with our critical assessment skills intact, how their proposals would help solve the challenges we are facing now. Their specific proposal to implement GAI in exams will end up weakening our education; it seems at best anxious and at worst like yet another streamlining at the expense of the human and spiritual values that underpin humanistic science.
This text is machine translated and post-edited by Lisa Enevoldsen.