Leigh Graves Wolf

I am beaming with pride and delighted to share that Dr. Jacob Bunch is the recipient of the AERA 2024 Qualitative Research SIG Outstanding Dissertation Award. Jacob’s dissertation Assistive Technology Lifeworlds: Inclusive Qualitative Methodological Innovations for Diverse Bodyminds is a multimodal exemplar filled with possibility and serves as a mentor text for expanding opportunities for inclusive qualitative practices. The pdf shared above is one sliver of a comprehensive whole. To fully experience the dissertation you should also explore the entire video showcase and full length documentary (embedded below.) It was a true joy and honour to co-chair this dissertation along with the incredible Dr. Nicole Bowers. We all learned so much together through this experience (which we will be sharing more widely in the years to come!) I am so sad that I cannot be at AERA in person to celebrate this achievement with Dr. Bunch. For my friends who are headed to AERA, if you run across Jacob, please be sure to stop and say hello, pass along congratulations – and welcome him into the community.

FULL VIDEO_Assistive Technology Lifeworlds: Inclusive Qualitative Methodological Innovations for Diverse Bodyminds from Dr. Jacob Bunch on Vimeo.

I was so honoured to be invited to speak at the 2023 Irish Conference on Engaging Pedagogy (ICEP) last week (thank you Karen!) This was my first time attending (and will not be the last!) The conference was held at CCT College Dublin – a place I walk by weekly, but have never had the chance to go in to this gorgeous spot. The minute I walked in the door I felt a warm and welcoming glow, something I haven’t felt from a conference in quite a long time! It was such a joy to (re)connect with so many and looking forward to continued discussions and collaborations.  My session was titled Teaching the Teachers: Supportive Pedagogy for Educator Professional Development and it was a great way for me to reflect back on my first semester teaching at UCD and sharing what I learned with others. Slides are below – many if not all of the images link out to resources!

I’m delighted to share that the special issue of IJTEL The Games People Play: Exploring Technology Enhanced Learning Scholarship & Generative Artificial Intelligence has been published (and on time!) In September we put out a call for papers which were entirely written by AI (along with a transparent reflection on the process.) We were overwhelmed by the number of submissions and as a consequence the process has greatly helped to improve other “back end” workings of the journal.

Please take a moment to read the editorial – and of course – all of the articles that follow! Sincere thanks to the amazing editorial team (Tom, Fiona, & Orna) – it’s a joy to collaborate with you!!

Wolf, L., Farrelly, T., Farrell, O., & Concannon, F. (2023). Reflections on a collective creative experiment with GenAI: Exploring the boundaries of what is possible. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v7i2.155 

It has been a busy semester! As a part of my work I’ve been tasked with co-facilitating a series of conversations around Artificial Intelligence and education.  As a part of this work, I helped to facilitate two workshops a few weeks ago and I’m sharing them out here for others to (re)use, remix, recycle. Both were highly interactive in nature and intentionally constructed to not be a “sit and get” session (there are plenty of those (many great!) that are out there.)

The first workshop (co-facilitated with Marta Bustillo & Emily Smith) is up on Humanities Commons:

Artificial Intelligence and Ethical Practice in Teaching and Learning Facilitator Guide

These are the materials associated with a one-hour workshop on artificial intelligence and ethical practice for higher education faculty, staff and students. This workshop aims to facilitate a conversation in higher education contexts about ethical ways of using AI for teaching, learning and research using three lenses: An educational lens [e.g. what is the impact of AI on teaching and learning practice?] An accessibility lens [e.g. how does AI affect accessibility of learning materials, assessment and the overall educational experience?] An information acquisition and management lens [e.g. how can we evaluate, use and trust information created using AI?] The workshop draws heavily from the Civics of Technology Project: https://www.civicsoftechnology.org/

The second was a “share and swap shop” session co-facilitated with Leone Gately. The “secret mission” doc can be found here and helps to support the activity.  Below, you’ll find an associated recap post shared with the community post-activity.

I’m delighted to share the details of the latest Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning (IJTEL) call for papers.  In creating this special issue we wanted to provide a safe, open, playful, critical, and academic platform to address generative AI.  We are all flooded with lists, articles, blogs, conferences, other CFPs and more related to AI and education. We tried to differentiate ourselves with this call by providing a transparent platform for scholars to increase their own digital literacies and understandings around generative AI – and in turn – we will all learn from the process.  Please consider submitting AND sharing this with others in your network – we are so excited to see what is generated!

Special Issue Call: The Games People Play: Exploring Technology Enhanced Learning Scholarship & Generative Artificial Intelligence

While generative artificial intelligence has been a part of the wider artificial intelligence (AI) since its inception, it’s only recently that new advancements have been released for public consumption (and production.) We are all awash with the stories (Bozkurt, et al., 2023; Concannon et al., 2023; Sharples, 2022) and controversies (Glesson, 2022; Liang et al. 2023), promises (Baidoo-Anu & Owusu Ansah, 2023) and pitfalls (Costello, 2023; Wang et al. 2023) of AI.

Recent guidelines produced by the National Academic Integrity Network (2023) state that educators should “be familiar with these tools and their availability, and recognise their limitations and affordances.” (p.8.) This special issue is intended to provide a transparent academic space to explore, play and discover how AI intersects with technology enhanced learning scholarship and practice.  As we are all working to wrap our collective (human) minds around AI, we are inviting submissions explicitly and transparently written with AI.

What does AI really know about technology enhanced learning? What happens when you go “all in” with AI? We believe that facing generative AI in this way will provide an innovative, playful and scholarly platform for capturing and documenting this phenomenon in the moment. What does engaging in this process say not only about our discipline, but, our humanity and identity as scholars?

As scholars we need spaces to develop our own critical AI literacies – and this is an exercise and opportunity to make the process of our own learning transparent (which is by no coincidence a suggestion for “countering” AI in the classroom.)  For this special issue, we invite you to generate a submission that contains three distinct sections: 1) an introduction; 2) the paper/report/or book review written by AI and 3) a critical reflection on the process.

Here is a bit more guidance on each section:

Introduction (not generated with AI)

500-1000 words

At minimum, the introduction should include:

• your relationship with Generative AI in educational and scholarly contexts
• a rationale for your choice of the topic; including an exposition of your relationship with the topic chosen.
• a transparent and detailed description of the AI tool(s) used to create the article (be very specific about the version of the tool, was it a pay version, open, etc.)
• the prompt(s) you used to generate the article

Position Paper, Short Report or Book Review entirely generated by AI 

Authors should select from one of the standard IJTEL submission types outlined below and generate an article within those guidelines.

There can be minimal formatting edits made by (human) authors, but, for the most part it is expected that you will copy and paste directly from the AI outputs.  We acknowledge that there will likely be errors in citations, hallucinations and incorrect information. For the sake of this exercise, we are soliciting “as is” snapshots of what AI can do in this moment. We have purposely identified word counts that are attainable with non-subscription based tools, though, you are welcome to use any Generative AI tool(s) you wish.

Position Papers (2,000- 3,000 words).

These contributions establish debate or critique a relevant policy or issue. Contributions may be provocative in nature, but must be rigorous and informed by relevant literature and make an original contribution to debate.

Short Reports (2,000- 2,500 words).

These can be reports on ongoing research, or on the challenges of critically engaged practice with  technology enhanced learning. These contributions may take novel or innovative formats.

Book reviews (not exceeding 1,000 words).

These are reviews of relevant books.

Critical Reflection (not generated with AI) 

500-1000 words

To conclude your manuscript, you should write a critical reflection on the process of generating the article with AI.  As you can see from the list below there are two broad aspects that the reflection should focus on. The first section asks you to reflect and report back on the process while the second asks that you reflect on what it means for you as a scholar and your discipline. Critical reflections should explore:

Reflection on Process

• What did it get wrong (references, etc.)
• What did it get right?
• How long did the process take?
• What would you do differently?
• Was it difficult to write a long scholarly piece with Gen AI?

Reflection on Implications

• What are the implications for knowledge, scholarship, teaching and learning and assessment?
• What does this mean for you as a scholar?
• What does this mean for our discipline at large?

Additionally, articles should include an abstract (150 words) summarising the submission. If you used AI to generate the abstract, please be transparent in the introduction.

Timeline

Due to the timeliness of the topic, we are proposing an ambitious submission, review and publication schedule to allow for this issue to serve as a record of open learning.  We ask that you are cognizant of the tight timeline when submitting your manuscript.

Deadline for submissions: October 18, 2023

Deadline for reviews: November 1, 2023

Authors notified: November 2, 2023

Deadline for revisions: November 15, 2023

Special issue publication date: December 8th, 2023 

Peer Review

Accepted manuscripts will be subjected to the standard double blind peer review process.  Additionally, reviewers will be provided with a checklist to guide the review process. Authors should also use this rubric to review their submissions before uploading to the submission portal.

A note on authorship, and responsible use of GenAI: 

For IJET, we request that any submission must be the original work of the author that has not been published previously, as a whole or in part, either in print or electronically, or is soon to be so published. This requirement will be waived for this special edition only for the segment of AI generated text, excluding the introduction and critical reflection. We require authors to adhere to the responsible use of AI in adhering to the principles of transparency on the use of AI and respect for personal data and confidentiality by not entering any such data on a GenAI platform. Similarly with respect to copyright of other’s material. See also the APA guidelines on correct citation here 

Parting Thoughts

To conclude, as an editorial team we are very excited to provide this space for play. And, in the spirit of transparency, no portions of this call were generated by AI.

Leigh Graves Wolf, Special Issue Lead Editor

Orna Farrell

Fiona Concannon

Tom Farrelly

References 

Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484

Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., Farrow, R., Bond, M., Nerantzi, C., Honeychurch, S., Bali, M., Dron, J., Mir, K., Stewart, B., Costello, E., Mason, J., Stracke, C., Romero-Hall, E., Koutropoulos, A., . . . Jandrić, P. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 53-130. https://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/709

Concannon, F., Costello, E., Farrell, O., Farrelly, T., & Wolf, L.G. (2023). Editorial: There’s an AI for that: Rhetoric, reality, and reflections on EdTech in the dawn of GenAI. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v7i1.116

Costello, E. (2023). ChatGPT and the educational AI chatter: Full of bullshit or trying to tell us something? Postdigital Science and Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00398-5

Gleeson, N., (2022, December 9). ChatGPT and the rise of AI writers: how should higher education respond? Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/chatgpt-and-rise-ai-writers-how-should-higher-education-respond

Liang, W.,Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E. and Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns. 4(7), 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779

National Academic Integrity Network. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: Guidelines for educators. https://www.qqi.ie/news/nain-publishes-new-genai-guidelines-for-educators

Sharples, M. (2022, May 17). New AI tools that can write student essays require educators to rethink teaching and assessment. LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/05/17/new-ai-tools-that-can-write-student-essays-require-educators-to-rethink-teaching-and-assessment/

Wang, T., Lund, B. D., Marengo, A., Pagano, A., Mannuru, N. R., Teel, Z. A., & Pange, J. (2023). Exploring the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international students in higher education: Generative AI, chatbots, analytics, and international student success. Applied Sciences, 13(11), 6716. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116716

Review Checklist

Overall

• Is it clear what the author(s) want to communicate regarding the use of GenAI, and the direction of the submission?
• Does the article contain four distinct sections,(Abstract, Introduction and Process, Position Paper/Short Report/Book Review and Critical Reflection) clearly labelled?
• Does the title clearly express what the submission is about?

Abstract

• Does the abstract contain a short and clear summary of the submission, including key findings and conclusions.
• Does it meet the word count specified between 100 and 150 words?
• Does it include enough information to stand alone?
• Does it contain unnecessary information?

Introduction

• Does the introduction meet the criteria of 500-1000 words?
• Does it clearly explain the author(s) relationship with Generative AI in educational and scholarly contexts? This may include limitations of current knowledge in this field, or a personal explanation of why the work was necessary.
• Is a transparent and detailed description of the AI tool(s) used to create the article given (including very specific about the version of the tool –  was it a paid version, open, etc.)
• Does it adhere to the responsible use of AI in the author’s engagement with the chosen AI tool with respect to (a) adhering to the principles of transparency in their use of AI (b) respect for personal data and confidentiality by not entering any such data on a GenAI platform and (c ) respecting copyright of other’s materials  in not posting these into the platforms.
• Does it clearly define the prompt(s) used to generate the article?

Main body

• Does the submission adhere to the word count for the AI generated submission type (e.g. position paper, short report, or book review)?
• Does the submission adhere to the brief in terms of its focus? (e.g. position paper, report, review.)

Critical reflection

• Does the author(s) adhere to the word count of between 500-1000 words?
• Does the submission include a reflection on process that addresses the following prompts:
• What did it get wrong (references, etc.)
• What did it get right?
• How long did the process take?
• What would you do differently?
• Was it difficult to write a long scholarly piece with Gen AI?
• Does the submission contain a reflection on implications section, and that addresses the following prompts:

• What are the implications for knowledge, scholarship, teaching and learning and assessment?
• What does this mean for you as a scholar?
• What does this mean for our discipline at large?
• Are the conclusions supported by the main body of the generated AI text presented?
• Are any limitations of the approach discussed?
• Do the authors compare findings with any relevant literature or other perspectives, research findings, or theories in the research field?
• Do you have any concerns that this section was written with the use of GenAI?

References and clarity of writing, etc.

• Are there any key references missing?
• Are references correctly used?
• Are APA guidelines for the referencing of GenAI followed?
• Do you have any concerns about the language, and the clarity or quality of the writing?

Overall review

• Accept submission
• Accept with revisions
• Decline submission

I’m elated to be joining the editorial team for the Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning. Being the faculty advisor for Current Issues in Education was a transformative experience (and one of the few chances I had to work super closely with open initiatives at ASU) and I’ve missed it! I’m so excited to be working with Orna, Tom, and Fiona (and will be filling the void left by Eamon!)

I was honoured to (very lightly!) contribute to the editorial for Volume 7: There’s an AI for that Rhetoric, reality, and reflections on EdTech in the dawn of GenAI.

Stay tuned for updates and some exciting opportunities to contribute to upcoming special issues (and regular submissions of course!)

Last night I celebrated a bit of milestone – my last(ish!) ASU dissertation defense. (I am second on a few more at ASU, but those are down the road and not as immediately time intensive as these past several months have been.) Since I started my new position at UCD mid-year, I did not want to leave my students in the lurch without a chair the semester of their defense. Both ASU & UCD agreed that I could stay on to complete the dissertations (and timing wise it worked out because when the clock it 5pm here, it was 9am in Arizona!)

It has been a true labor of love over the past several months. It’s always a tremendous honor and privilege to be a part of a dissertation journey – and this semester, I was a part of 12. I chaired 5 dissertations, 1 dissertation proposal, was second on 5 additional committees and an external committee member on a dissertation here in Ireland at Dublin City University. So, in total, leaving ASU I have chaired 11 dissertations and sat as second on 23. (34 total!)

I’ve listed them all out below – as you can see, I was witness to an absolutely incredible amount of scholarship from so many disciplines and spaces across the educational spectrum.

I would like to draw attention to two dissertations which pushed boundaries by integrating multimodal aspects into the dissertation and moved beyond the 5-chapter model:

Dr. Michael Little Crow created a podcast series, As the Little Crow Flies, which is a series of conversations with educators who work in Tribal Communities – you can access the podcast here (and each podcast is a “chapter” in his dissertation) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/as-the-little-crow-flies/id1643415571

Dr. Debbie Stephens Stauffer also created a podcast series (and drafts of two journal articles) – the episodes (and activities) can be found here: https://www.givinggracematters.com/

I’m looking forward to both of these going up on ProQuest as I know they’ll serve as models for other EdD/CPED students who wish to explore new modalities and formats. I’m looking forward to the rest being up on ProQuest too! Lots of amazing practitioner based action research to share and learn from.

It was also great to be joined on the committees by some of my cherished collaborators and colleagues (Andrea Zellner, Liz Owens Boltz, & Aman Yadav.)

And now, it’s time for a bit of rest in the evenings.

Chair:

Dr. Leroy McLean: Developing Expertise & Expert Teams for High Performance: Utilizing the Expert-to-Expert Practice Framework

Dr. Lois Malone: Chameleons among Us: A Hermeneutic Inquiry about Adults and Belonging after a Globally Nomadic Childhood

Dr. Deborah Stephens Stauffer: Tuning In To A Grace-Based Approach To Leadership: A Management Podcast Designed for Learning

Dr. Zoe Bennett: Those Who Play, Emerge Together: Toward a Community-Building Framework through Role Playing Games

Dr. Zsuzsa Szabo: Building a Collaborative Culture: Study of a High-School Cross-Curricular Professional Learning Community

2nd Committee Member:
Dr. Youlina Rehak: Designing for Struggle in Urban Schools: Mathematics Teachers’ Perspective on Productive Failure

Dr. Elizabeth Thies: Once a Coach, Always a Coach Creating professional development for a co-teaching model designed to support second language learners

Dr. Michael Little Crow: Professional Development for Math Educators Podcast: Amplifying, Hearing, and Understanding the Voice of Community Educators

Dr. Yassanne Garraway: Creating Self-regulated Student Teachers at the University of Guyana: Strategies to strengthen student teachers’ awareness and learning skills

Dr. Chris Brooks: Transforming Teacher Beliefs and Roles to Change Student Engagement Practices in Online Classrooms

Dissertation Proposal (Co-Chair)
Jacob Bunch: Assistive Technology and the Lifeworld of Postsecondary Students with Dyslexia Understanding ‘Fractions’ of Experience through Narrative Storytelling

External Committee Member:
Dr. Fergus Timmons, Dublin City University. Supporting family carers of people living with dementia through online education: A case study from an Irish NGO.