By Martine Rioux, in collaboration with Laurent Di Pasquale, Simon Duguay and Audrey Miller
In recent months, the reflection surrounding the integration of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in education and higher education in Quebec has been fueled by various publications, such as the report AI ready of the Quebec Innovation Council and theStatement of principles for the responsible use of artificial intelligence by public bodies of the Ministry of Cybersecurity and Digital Affairs.
After that of New Brunswick, we knew that the Ministry of Education was preparing a guide for teaching staff. Pending this, it was recommended not to let students directly experiment with AGI and training initiatives on this subject were suspended within the network. The least we can say is that the guide was expected!
Titled The educational, ethical and legal use of generative artificial intelligenceit “proposes avenues for reflection and criteria linked to the educational, ethical and legal use of the IAG to guide teaching staff belonging to the preschool, primary and secondary education levels as well as those of professional training and general adult education.
From what we understand, it will be up to each environment to establish its own rules of use and approve certain tools. The empowerment of the teacher regarding the reflective process and his respect for the various legal constraints already existing constitute another important axis in the validation of an integration of the IAG.
The guide is mainly aimed at teaching staff and is also structured around the dimensions of digital competence. Moreover, the ministry invites establishment management to pay “particular attention […] for the training of teaching staff at IAG”.
What is generative artificial intelligence?
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI): Computer system that uses probabilistic artificial intelligence models to automatically generate various content (text, image, voice, music, video, presentation, etc.) in response to a request made by a user .
Criteria for use in educational contexts
The guide proposes three criteria that can guide decisions related to the use of AGI in an educational context: educational relevance, ethical principles and legal obligations.
A) An educational reflection concerning the uses
The guide gives different avenues for reflection with a view to relevant use of AGI. It leaves room for nuance, setting out their possibilities and limits. It covers both use by teaching staff and learners. Moreover, to best guide the teacher, various reflective questions are proposed to help him position himself, under three axes:
- Before using AGI: identify the objectives pursued and the way in which the AGI could contribute to them.
- While using the AGI: continue reflections during use, by making a critical analysis of the content generated.
- After using AGI: make a reflective return on the process experienced.
Each teacher is required to position themselves, according to their context, their intentions and their practices, regarding reasoned use. For example, the teacher can use AI to help with planning, to adapt materials or to create examples to present in class. However, teachers must ensure that their digital skills allow them to make the right choice of tools and uses when mobilizing this technology.
If the teacher wishes to use AGI with students, other questions should also be asked. Issues such as the motivation of young people during the activity, the level of their digital skills and the impact of use on learning must be considered before any activity. In addition, the guide suggests discussing the issue of use by students with the school team before having them use it. Once these reflections have been made, AI could be used by students to brainstorm, to create content, to help them search for information, etc.
The guide also suggests that teachers share the results of their experimentation with their colleagues. Was it a success? What were the challenges? Could the applications be transferred to other contexts? These avenues make it possible to advance collective thinking on AI in education, whether between colleagues from the same school or across the entire network.
B) AI and evaluative practices
“Teaching staff develop, choose and use various methods to evaluate the acquisition of knowledge and the development of skills among learners. The IAG has the potential to support its evaluative practices, both formatively and summatively, but it should in no way replace its professional judgment, both in the design of evaluation tools and in supporting the evaluation of learners. »
The guide names the possible usefulness of IAG in evaluation practices, whether to generate evaluative material or even to evaluate students. However, the issues and limits of these two categories of uses are very different. If the teacher wishes to use the AGI to generate materials, he or she must use professional judgment to evaluate the quality of the assessments thus created. If he wishes to use it to provide feedback to students or to evaluate their papers, the issues to consider are more important.
Indeed, the guide mentions that the use of AGI can lead to inaccurate or inadequate feedback, hence the importance of using professional judgment and rereading each comment generated by the system. In addition, the teacher must also consider the intellectual property of students over their work, the security of the system used and the protection of personal data.
Putting it into perspective in relation to the restrictions applied in the teaching places in which the teacher works, will also be a point to take into account for its use: it will therefore be essential to validate this type of use in perspective of the rules applied in his school.
Finally, the guide underlines that teachers could be led to review the way they organize assessments, in particular by diversifying the evaluative and learning sources. A final point on intellectual integrity is also raised, leading students to question the carrying out of honest and ethical work using the AGI.
C) Ethical reflection
Teaching staff are invited to engage in a reflective process guided by these ethical principles: digital sobriety, quality, equity and inclusion, transparency and explainability and agency.
- Digital sobriety: This involves recognizing that the use of AI systems, through the quantity of data and algorithmic calculations generated, has a significant environmental footprint. Thus, it is recommended to demonstrate digital sobriety, that is to say, to think critically about the uses made of it, from a perspective of sustainable development and respect for the environment.
- Quality: “ If teaching staff choose to use AGI, the quality of the information generated must be checked critically beforehand or with learners, to ensure its reliability and relevance. »
- Equity and inclusion: “The use of AGI in education must be done with the aim of allowing the environment to be equitable and inclusive.” Based on this observation, the teacher must take into account the issues linked to representativeness in the data as well as the biases transmitted therein. Thus, the teacher must maintain a critical eye on the answers provided by the IAG, and must, if necessary, modify them and reformulate them.
- Transparency and traceability: For transparent use, it will be important to ensure that the use of the IAG is, for example, identifiable in content offered to users and students. Clearly identifying the source of a generation will, for example, be a good way to easily trace content. Faced with the low explainability regarding the sources used to generate a response, the teacher will have to question the necessity of using or not an AGI, compared to a search engine.
- Agency: “Teaching staff are invited to engage in a reflective process by selecting the tasks for which they wish to be assisted and by continuously evaluating whether the IAG allows them to have greater agency in their practice. »
Legal obligations relating to the use of AGI
Concerning the obligations, the Ministry makes three specific recommendations:
- Information security: It is the responsibility of each user to have the IAG tool validated by their educational organization before using it.
- Protection of personal information: Do not enter sensitive, confidential or personal information into an AGI system unless otherwise advised by agency officials.
- Copyright: Respect copyright in relation to information provided to IAG.
Guide summary table
The Ministry has prepared a synthesis tool which brings together the reflection questions from the Guide to the educational, ethical and legal use of generative artificial intelligence.
Click to access the downloadable PDF format.
Professional development
Finally, several times in the document, we mention the importance of training to better understand the opportunities and limitations associated with the educational use of AGI. Each community is invited to undertake a collective reflection, then the members of the school teams will be able to train individually or as a team.
Psst! The Écolebranchee has developed a training offer able to meet many needs in this regard. Tailor-made training can also be developed. Recently, we accompanied the Francophone Nord-Est School District (DSFNE), in New Brunswick, in its reflection.
