Overview / Event description
One of our key roles as Learning Developers is teaching academic writing. Consequently, we have plenty of opportunities to reflect on the mechanics of writing and its role in cognitive processes. Writing helps us clarify and articulate our ideas, fosters critical thinking and enhances learning (Arnold et al., 2017; Dunleavy, 2003, pp. 136–137; Flower & Hayes, 1980). Furthermore, it is a creative process that helps us to define problems, not just solve them, and make meaning, not just recall it (Flower & Hayes, 1980). GenAI, however, threatens to extinguish traditional written assessment forms and, more broadly, to make human writing to some extent redundant.
A number of scholars have discussed the dilemma posed by advancing technology and its potential to undermine human cognitive development by completing various cognitive tasks for us (Barr et al, 2015; Cassinadri, 2024; Fasoli, 2018; Grinschgl et al, 2021; Pritchard, 2015). In view of this, we sound a note of caution, suggesting that it is important we use GenAI as complementary cognitive artefacts, complementing our innate cognitive abilities, and enhancing our potential, rather than competitive cognitive artefacts, that replace and atrophy our cognitive abilities (Cassinadri, 2024; Dergaa et al., 2024; Krakauer, 2016). Therefore, as Learning Developers, we have started to create materials to help students use GenAI in a “healthy” way. We encourage students to critically assess their use of generative AI considering 1) university rules and ethical implications; 2) the quality of the output created by GenAI; and 3) the impact on their learning and cognitive development.
We hope this talk will provide an opportunity for educators to reflect on healthy and unhealthy uses of GenAI with a particular focus on the implications for students’ learning and cognitive abilities to become competitive graduates and responsible world citizens, equipped for lifelong learning (as per the Westminster Graduate Attributes).
References
Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017) ‘Understanding the cognitive processes involved in writing to learn’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115.
Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015) ‘The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking’, Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 473-480.
Cassinadri, G. (2024) ‘ChatGPT and the Technology-Education Tension: Applying Contextual Virtue Epistemology to a Cognitive Artifact’, Philosophy & Technology, 37(1), 1-28.
Dergaa, I., Ben Saad, H., Glenn, J. M., Amamou, B., Ben Aissa, M., Guelmami, N., Fekih-Romdhane, F., & Chamari, K. (2024). From tools to threats: a reflection on the impact of artificial-intelligence chatbots on cognitive health. Frontiers in psychology, 15, 1259845. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1259845
Dunleavy, P. (2003) Authoring a PhD: how to plan, draft, write, and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fasoli, M. (2018) ‘Substitutive, complementary and constitutive cognitive artifacts: Developing an interaction-centered approach’, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 9, 671-687.
Flower, L. and Hayes, J.R. (1980) ‘The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem’, College composition and communication, 31(1), pp. 21–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/356630.
Grinschgl, S., Papenmeier, F., & Meyerhoff, H. S. (2021) ‘Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(9), 1477-1496.
Krakauer, D. (2016) ‘Will A.I. Harm Us? Better to Ask How We’ll Reckon With Our Hybrid Nature’, Nautilus, September 5. Available at https://nautil.us/will-ai-harm-us-better-to-ask-how-well-reckon-with-our-hybrid-nature-236098/
Pritchard, D. (2015) Intellectual virtue, extended cognition, and the epistemology of education. In Intellectual virt
Objectives
To explore the cognitive and educational value of academic writing
To examine the potential cognitive risks posed by generative AI (GenAI)
To introduce the concept of 'healthy' versus 'unhealthy' use of GenAI
To share practical strategies and resources for promoting responsible GenAI use among students
Facilitators
Dr Laura Niada
Dr Laura Niada is a Learning Developer at the University of Westminster in London. She holds a BA in Economics, an LLM in International law and a PhD in law. Laura has also been involved in academic events at the university, such as co-presenting a workshop titled "What we can – and should – do to counter information disorder: information literacy and critical thinking 2.0" during the Westminster Learning and Teaching Symposium in 2022 and “Cognitive enhancement or atrophy: healthy and unhealthy contributions of GenAI to the writing process” in during the Westminster Learning and Teaching Symposium 2024.
Kerry Gilfillan
Kerry Gilfillan is a Learning Developer at the University of Westminster. She has a BA in Government, and an MA in Cultural Studies. She has contributed to several Learning and Teaching Symposium talks, including, "What we can – and should – do to counter information disorder: information literacy and critical thinking 2.0" and “Cognitive enhancement or atrophy: healthy and unhealthy contributions of GenAI to the writing process”.
V4 respond to the wider context in which higher education operates, recognising implications for practice
V5 collaborate with others to enhance practice
K2 approaches to teaching and/or supporting learning, appropriate for subjects and level of study
A4 support and guide learners