Assignment 1 (online, Week 1): Investigate biases and blind spots in AI systems (15%); Due: Friday, July 10th by 11:59pm PDT. Submitted via Slack.
Description: Interact with two or three AI-based tools (e.g., image generators, text generation tools, etc.), giving those tools the same prompt or set of prompts to generate material. Analyze the output to identify potential biases and blind spots, such as gender or racial bias, or important perspectives overlooked/missing. Offer a reflection on how these biases and blind spots might manifest in real-world applications of the selected AI tools and highlight some strategies for identifying and addressing them by pulling from your own user experiences as well as course materials and readings. Submissions will consist of an archive (or screen capture) of the prompts and their outputs in the selected GenAI tools, as well as the reflection/best practices document. For this second part, multimodal submissions are welcome (e.g., ~1000 words of text, or a 5–7-minute video presentation, a 10-15 minute podcast, a multimodal Canva or Genially presentation, etc.).
Assignment 2 (online, Week 2): Evaluation Heuristic and Testing (15%); Due: Friday, July 17th by 11:59pm PDT. Submitted via Slack.
Description: Create an evaluation framework (heuristic) for using GenAI in a professional setting by first creating a use for GenAI in that setting and then creating a framework for evaluating its use. In producing an evaluation framework, reflect upon material and scholarship from the course that relates to AI ethics and sustainability and integrate some of these concepts into your work. What principles involved in the ethical use of AI/GenAI that we have encountered in this course are important to adhere to in your use case? How can we assess the potential environmental impacts of integrating GenAI use in this case? What questions need to be asked about GenAI to assess its utility and efficacy in your chosen setting? Once you have created this evaluation framework, test it by using GenAI in the manner you have identified and determine whether your framework works as an effective guide. Submission for this assignment will consist of the developed heuristic and a short reflection (~500 words) on its test use. We think it is useful to think about this assignment as following a few basic steps:
- Think about something in your workplace or a workplace (a task, a “to do” etc.) that a genAI might also be able to do or to assist with. we’ve given a few possible examples but this can include things like: having genAI assist you with writing assessment feedback for students; having genAI assist you with planning a learning unit or module; having genAI auto transcribe and annotate your meetings. This could also be something that you already use a genAI for, it doesn’t have to be something new. If you are currently using Gemini, or Claude, or Co-pilot, or GPT (or something else) in this way, feel free to focus on that.
- You (not AI) devise a framework for evaluating how well or successfully your genAI tool is at assisting or completing the task you have outlined in step 1. In devising this framework, you may consider looking at current guidelines for AI use to help you think about what might represent ‘best practices’. The web blog includes a link to the UBC guidelines. Also, trust your understanding of your workplace and expectations – you know what good work looks like, use that to help you frame what effective genAI assistance looks like.
- Run a test case, where you have your selected genAI perform the task you have outlined in step 1. Depending on the size of the task you are looking to have genAI assist with (or do fully), you can just run a condensed test. You want enough information here that you can think/reflect upon in order to discuss how well you think the genAI has done measured against your evaluation framework (step 2). So, if you’re looking at using AI to help with lesson planning, have it help you plan a hypothetical lesson; if you’re using it to transcribe and annotate meetings, have it listen to a recorded or performed meeting.
- Report your findings. Begin this by outlining what you tasked the genAI with doing, and with describing the evaluation framework you developed for measuring its success — In addition, you can consider questions such as the following: How well did the genAI do? How well DO YOU think your evaluation framework did as a means for assessing the genAI? Is there anything the tool did particularly well, or less well? Has this experiment revealed for you any of the strengths or limitations of the genAI tool? What are your takeaways from this work? What do we need to be thinking about as it regards the ongoing integration of genAI into daily work (and life)?
Assignment 3 (In Person): 15%: A critical evaluation of journalism of AI/GenAI
During the in-person Institute, and working with your group, you will select several media pieces/articles from a curated list of recent news on, about, and related to AI/genAI. Your task will be to read through your selection together and write up a brief precis (~200 words) for each one. This critical evaluation goes beyond a summary of the article/piece and seeks to situate its ideas, events, themes, concepts, and arguments within a broader matrix of discourse related to AI/genAI. An easy way to start it to think about the topics with which a given piece/article intersects in its discussion of AI: Is the article raising points related to history/the past, economics, politics, culture, media, education, or sustainability (or multiple of these)?
You should seek to direct the readers towards what they believe the author(s) central argument is and engage with that argument critically. In other words, these precis should include a brief description of what the reading is about, what it argues, and then proceed to engage with that argument. Do you find that the author(s) make a compelling case for their perspective? What kinds of evidence do they rely upon? Is there something you feel is missing in their work? Are there questions they have not considered that you feel are worth exploring? Are there perspectives that you feel are missing in their work?
Assignment 4 (In Person and online, July 20th-27th): Teaching and Learning with AI ‘Stories’ (55%).
Description: The major assignment for this course, broken into several parts, will involve working in groups and using GenAI to devise a learning module that is centered around a specific subject and learner cohort. You will decide which subject and target user you wish to develop this module for, and which GenAI tool(s) you will use to assist in design and development. As your group navigates this activity, describe your use of GenAI tools with reference to accuracy and reliability, potential biases, ethical and pedagogical implications. The final submission will consist of a ‘proof of concept’ for the designed learning module.
Part 1: Selection and critical evaluation of GenAI tools (5%), due at the end of our in-person session on day one, July 20th (4:00pm). Submitted via Slack.
Description: For the first part of this assignment, produce a brief mockup (1-2 pages) that outlines the specific GenAI tools you are thinking about or intend to use for your project and explains potential uses and limitations of each tool. Reflect upon the unique ethical and applicative questions that are raised by each specific GenAI you have identified, paying close attention both to what these tools can offer, and the critical questions they may raise about data security, learning design, user (student) participation, assessment, curricular goals, and sociocultural/algorithmic bias.
Part 2: Proposal (10%), due by 8pm PST on day two of our in-person sessions, July 21st. Submitted via Slack.
Description: After completing the first stage of the assignment, move on to assembling a formal proposal for your work (~1200 words). There is no one-size-fits-all template for this proposal, though there are some major points that you will be asked to speak about in your work, which are noted below. You can use whatever format/presentation style works best for your group, and multimodality is welcome for this task. In addition to these listed points, you may include anything else that you view as important to know about your project.
- A name or title for your proposed project, which could be related to the topic that will be centered in your learning module.
- A breakdown of group members and member roles as they are understood at this point.
- The subject matter and learner cohort you have chosen for your ‘proof of concept’ learning module, along with a very brief (i.e. short paragraph) description of what has led you to make these choices in terms of content.
- What platform your group will be using to develop this module (i.e. Google Sites, Genially, Canva, Prezi, Figma, Fectar, among many others). We are design agnostic, so you should feel empowered to explore and decide upon a platform that you believe will fit well with the scope of your project.
- What GenAI tools your group intends to use to assist in the design and development process. In addition, in as much detail as you can offer, how you intend to integrate them into your work. What opportunities and challenges do the integration of GenAI raise for your project? Take some time here to expand upon the work you did in part 1 RE: the ethical and applicative questions you introduced.
- Any information you can offer regarding design and use goals for your learning module. What are you intending for or hoping for users to do with this? What are you hoping they learn via interacting with it? Are you aligning your learning module with specific curricular goals? If so, which ones?
- Any other information you wish to share about your work.
Part 3: Presentation (15%) July 24th, in class
Description: On the final day of our in-person sessions, we will be reserving time for each group to present their work. In your presentation, take the audience through your project, including a “live” demonstration of your proof-of-concept learning module where you walk us through its subject matter and highlight some of its features while speaking to the ways in which you have integrated GenAI into the design and development process. Also go over other relevant experiences of the work, including the design and building process, encountering and overcoming challenges, and key takeaways. Some things to consider as you are putting your presentations together are: have your views on AI/GenAI and its use in teaching and learning shifted as you have worked through this assignment and engaged with the other work on the course? How have you tried to ensure that your use of GenAI in your project is thoughtful, careful, and considerate of concerns related to bias, blind spots, and ethics?
Part 4: Designed Object (25%) DUE at 11:59pm PDT, July 27th; submit via Slack
Use GenAI to devise a learning module that is centered around a specific subject and learner cohort. You will decide which subject and target user you wish to develop this module for, and which GenAI tool(s) you will use to assist in design and development. Develop a proof-of-concept learning module following the plan you lay out in your proposal. The idea here is not a polished, fully functioning learning module, but rather a good faith effort at trial and error and experimentation with the topic(s), platform(s), and GenAI tools. We want to acknowledge here that we are not expecting expertise or precision; this project is intended to be productive, thoughtful, and fun collaborative work that gets us thinking about and working with GenAI in a hands-on fashion. More specific details for what a proof-of-concept can look like for this project will be outlined during our Asynchronous and In-person sessions. Groups will submit their proof-of-concept Design Object via Slack on Monday, July 27th, by 11:59pm PDT.
Assessment
Feedback will be detailed, personalized, and extensive, and grades for each assignment will be adhere to the following scale.
A level – Good to Excellent Work
A+ (90-100%) A very high level of quality throughout every aspect of the work. It shows the individual (or group) has gone well beyond what has been provided and has extended the usual ways of thinking and/or performing. Outstanding comprehension of subject matter and use of existing literature and research. Consistently integrates critical and creative perspectives in relation to the subject material. The work shows a very high degree of engagement with the topic.
A (85-89%) Generally a high quality throughout the work. No problems of any significance, and evidence of attention given to each and every detail. Very good comprehension of subject and use of existing literature and research. For the most part, integrates critical and creative perspectives in relation to the subject material. Shows a high degree of engagement with the topic.
A- (80-84%) Generally a good quality throughout the work. A few problems of minor significance. Good comprehension of subject matter and use of existing literature and research. Work demonstrates an ability to integrate critical and creative perspectives on most occasions. The work demonstrates a reasonable degree of engagement with the topic.
B level – Adequate Work
B+ (76-79%) Some aspects of good quality to the work. Some problems of minor significance. There are examples of integrating critical and creative perspectives in relation to the subject material. A degree of engagement with the topic.
B (72-75%) Adequate quality. A number of problems of some significance. Difficulty evident in the comprehension of the subject material and use of existing literature and research. Only a few examples of integrating critical and creative perspectives in relation to the subject material. Some engagement with the topic.
B- (68-71%) Barely adequate work at the graduate level.
C level – Seriously Flawed Work
C (55-67%) Serious flaws in understanding of the subject material. Minimal integration of critical and creative perspectives in relation to the subject material. Inadequate engagement with the topic. Inadequate work at the graduate level.
- A note on A+: An A+ is intended to be a rare grade, and while it is fine to consider it as a goal, it is important to be aware that consistently achieving this mark is rare in any course. Receiving an A on an assignment is not a sign that something has gone wrong, or that your work is limited in some way; rather, it means you have achieved the parameters of the assignment with great success. By contrast, an A+ will do this as well, but will also demonstrate a level of criticality and originality that is not expected or anticipated. That is, it will offer insight that does not make itself easily clear in the text(s) engaged for the assignment.