News, Practice

This blog was co-authored by Franziska Trede and ChatGPT

One of the beauties of disruptions are that they force routines to stop – they create conditions for thinking critically and creatively. The enormous advancements of generative AI tools are such a disruption. These tools have created a global discussion in higher education about quality and authenticity of assessment designs, sparking guidance for both short-term and long-term approaches to moving towards more authentic assessments.

WIL is defined as purposeful student learning, specifically integrated into the curriculum, where relevant professional practice skills and attributes are developed with the engagement of external partners, and assessed.

UTS WIL Quality Framework

Work Integrated Learning (WIL) is closely associated with authenticity because it is learning about or in the world of work. Typically, WIL assessments do not include exams, quizzes or recall of knowledge and other non-authentic assessment types. Authentic, quality assessments for WIL might require students to present their work to industry/educators, engage in a professional dialogue or record a professional pitch. 

Many WIL assessments are designed as individual, reflective writing tasks. When the focus is predominantly on descriptions and technical learning, these reflections lend themselves to cheating by fabricating reflections of WIL experiences – noting, of course, that these fabrications were happening long before CHATGPT.

The drivers for this individualised approach to assessing WIL is limited resources and a short-term mindset on WIL partnerships. The AI disruption is a welcome reminder that WIL is an educational partnership between students, university and external partners – a partnership that should also include assessment design. 

WIL is not just about testing knowledge. It’s about assuring that appropriate ways of knowing are responsibly applied in practice situations. Its associated assessments should examine capacity for independent thinking, critical thinking, professional judgment and professional responsibility. 

But who can best assess this? It can’t be just one person alone, because – like practice – assessment should not be done alone. Let’s place collaborative, inclusive and respectful feedback conversations at the heart of WIL assessment and make WIL partnerships count. It will enable learning from actions and reflections of all involved, and will impress future employers. Check out the WIL Typology of the UTS WIL Quality Framework for a scaffolded approach towards authentic WIL assessments as collaborative feedback conversations. 

A chat with ChatGPT

I conducted a personal conversation with CHATGPT asking it to design me an assessment task where CHATGPT cannot assist students to portray what they have learned from an internship. Here is its response:

Assessment Task: Reflective Essay (by ChatGPT)

As part of your internship program, you will be required to write a reflective essay that critically evaluates your learning experiences and the skills you have gained during the internship.

Instructions:

  1. Write a 2000-word reflective essay that explores the following areas: a) A brief overview of the organization you interned with and the role you played b) The knowledge and skills you developed during your internship c) Any challenges you faced during the internship and how you overcame them d) The lessons you learned from the experience and how you plan to apply them in your future career
  2. Use relevant literature and concepts to support your reflection.
  3. Your essay should be written in a formal academic style and should demonstrate your ability to think critically and reflectively about your learning experiences.
  4. Submit your essay on or before the due date.
  5. Your essay will be assessed based on the following criteria: a) Evidence of critical thinking and reflection b) Demonstration of an understanding of relevant literature and concepts c) Clarity and coherence of the writing d) Overall quality of the reflection and the insights gained from the experience.

Note: The use of CHATGPT or any other AI tool to write the essay will be considered academic misconduct and will result in disciplinary action.

Reflections

  • Is the above a satisfactory WIL assessment design? (CHATGPT does not mention authentic, collaborative assessment designs.)
  • How effective is the ‘Note’ sentence about academic misconduct? 

Further conversations

Join the discussion