published an ASEE conference paper last year on the effects of ChatGPT on student learning in programming courses. With over seven years of experience teaching Computer Science courses, she is currently a faculty member at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Department of Computer, Electrical, and Software Engineering, where she teaches computer science courses.Dr. Luis Felipe Zapata-Rivera, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Dr. Luis Felipe Zapata-Rivera is an Assistant Professor at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. He earned a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering at Florida Atlantic University, in the past worked as an assistant researcher in the group of educational Technologies at Eafit University in Medellin
false information (“hallucination”) is usedto explore the principle of trustworthiness. First, a political campaign advertisement featuring avideo deepfake of former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan—produced while Khan was injail—provides a counterexample to the notion that synthetic AI content is necessarily bad [23].Then, students are encouraged to try to ‘hack’ OpenAI’s large language model ChatGPT so that ithallucinates, malfunctions, or gives an inappropriate response.The first lecture concludes by asking students to subjectively rank the three highlightedprinciples—plus three others (transparency, justice and autonomy) which together summarizeFloridi and Cowl’s “Unified Framework for AI in Society” [24]—in terms of their
were reviewed using ChatGPT 4o as asupplementary tool. When minor discrepancies were identified, the first author revised theChinese translation and discussed the changes with the colleagues until all disagreementswere resolved.In addition to the original EBAPS items, four additional questions, shown in Table 4, wereincluded to explore students’ cognitive patterns under the influence of naïve dialecticism[17].The first two items regarding attitudes toward contradictions were adapted from theDialectical Self Scale[19], an instrument designed to measure dialectical thinking. The othertwo items were created by one of the authors to represent the remaining key components ofnaïve dialecticism: the “Principle of Relationship or Holism” (item iii
instance, a study by Escalante et al. (2023) [6] examined the learning outcomes ofuniversity students receiving feedback from ChatGPT (GPT-4) versus human tutors. Thecommon feature of these students was English is a New Language (ELN). The resultsindicated no significant difference in learning outcomes between the two groups, suggestingthat AI-generated feedback can be effectively incorporated into writing instruction. Otherstudies provide similar results within STEM learning environments. A recent systematicliterature review [7] identified 6 common categories of AI methods used in education from2011-2021. This work highlights the complexity and opportunities of the rapidly evolvingtechnology and how it can be integrated into learning environments
content generated from ChatGPT 4.0 (Sept. 2, 2024)and edited by the lead author, are showcased in Figure 2. We do not suggest that this is anexhaustive list of higher education career advising models, but this information offers somerelevant insights upon which to understand and consider different approaches to career advising. Figure 2: Some of the career advising models we see across higher education. This is not an exhaustive list or representation. Many existing career advising models combine elements and features from various of these models.III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS GUIDING WHOLE STUDENT DEVELOPMENTAs an engineering education researcher, the lead author (Pierrakos) has been an NSF-fundedprincipal investigator
education faces, and manyorganizations face, in recruiting diverse talent is also known. According to ChatGPT 4.0(September 2, 2024) and edited to be represented in a figure format (Figure 1), we highlight justsome of the challenges that hinder organizations from building diverse teams. Some of thesechallenges that hinder higher education and hinder engineering education too include: • Biases in Recruitment Processes • Biased Institutional Barriers and Practices • Misalignment of Goals and Practices • Resistance to Change • Company Culture and Lack of Inclusivity • Resource Constraints to Implement Effective Strategies • Lack of Diversity