We are a few weeks into the ‘25-’26 school year and the new state law in Texas banning cell phones in the classroom is in full effect.
To date, it has not yet led to the downfall of humanity— or so it seems.
At the Lewter house, Jennifer says she misses being able to text the kids during the school day, but the kids admit they are getting more done in the classroom than ever before.
I only hope their teachers are following the same rules and keeping their devices put away as well.
No personal devices in the classroom also means no social media surfing, short video watching or AI mining— and I think that’s OK.
I see firsthand with my students at the university— the new age of generative artificial intelligence is a concern.
These students are pursuing degrees and learning trades in fields they only hope will still exist in a few years.
Indeed artificial intelligence can be scary and they see it. They are concerned.
I have adjusted much of my course delivery and assessment methods in the five short years that I’ve been in the college classroom.
Many of us have because kids are using AI to cheat.
Now college students have been cheating since the beginning.
That’s nothing new, but suffice it to say, generative AI makes it a whole lot harder to catch cheaters.
We were discussing AI uses in class just last week and most students agreed that I should ban it altogether— just like high schoolers cell phones.
A student told a story that I found disturbing.
He said he was in a class last semester where a professor used AI to grade his work and to give feedback.
He said he would turn in a five- or six-page essay— where he was explicitly told not to use AI— and within five minutes, he’d receive a grade along with 600 typed words of criticism and/or praise about his work
“My professor had to have been using AI,” he said. “There’s no other way to grade and provide that much feedback, that quick. And, besides all that, we know what AI written content reads like. It was completely AI.”
I asked him how he felt about it.
He said he was mad and felt cheated.
I told him about a recent article in the New York Times about a college student who endured the same treatment, filed a complaint and sought a refund on their tuition.
They did not feel like they were getting the feedback they paid for.
My student agreed.
After class, though I did not ask, he shared the name of the offending professor.
I know the person.
I’m familiar with their department.
It made me uneasy.
I believe in academic independence in the classroom.
No professor should tell another how to construct their courses, but stories are almost worth reporting.
I asked my student if they completed the anonymous professor evaluation at the end of the semester.
He said he did not.
I encouraged him to do so next time.
I assured him that our bosses read the feedback, but at the end of the day, I found it incredibly hypocritical, academically dishonest and unnerving.
But this is how K-12 students are being graded on the STAAR test.
That writing prompt that determines student advancement to the next grade is graded by a machine.
And— surprise, surprise— machines often get it wrong.
At least when humans get it wrong, we can own it.
We can apologize.
We can learn and do better— just like we did this week admitting a mistake in last week’s high school football preview
Would AI have made the same mistake?
I don’t know, but I tend to believe that our imperfections, nuances, empathy and creative intelligence is what makes us human.
I am proud of my students who seem to understand that.
Many of them are turning away from AI altogether— and good for them.
We could all take a lesson.
At the end of the day— do your own work, celebrate your own victories, own your own mistakes and end the workday feeling as if you have fully invested in the task at hand.
Own it and thrive.
Contact Austin at [email protected]