Muehlhoff, Rainer; Henningsen, Marte
Chatbots im Schulunterricht: Wir testen das Fobizz-Tool zur automatischen Bewertung von Hausaufgaben Unveröffentlicht
Preprint auf arXiv:2412.06651, 2024.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Schlagwörter: AI, artificial intelligence, chatbots, correction, feedback, O
@unpublished{Muehlhoff2024,
title = {Chatbots im Schulunterricht: Wir testen das Fobizz-Tool zur automatischen Bewertung von Hausaufgaben},
author = {Rainer Muehlhoff and Marte Henningsen},
url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.06651
https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-chatbots-im-schulunterricht},
doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2412.06651},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-12-09},
urldate = {2024-12-09},
issue = {arXiv:2412.06651},
abstract = {This study examines the AI-powered grading tool "AI Grading Assistant" by the German company Fobizz, designed to support teachers in evaluating and providing feedback on student assignments. Against the societal backdrop of an overburdened education system and rising expectations for artificial intelligence as a solution to these challenges, the investigation evaluates the tool's functional suitability through two test series. The results reveal significant shortcomings: The tool's numerical grades and qualitative feedback are often random and do not improve even when its suggestions are incorporated. The highest ratings are achievable only with texts generated by ChatGPT. False claims and nonsensical submissions frequently go undetected, while the implementation of some grading criteria is unreliable and opaque. Since these deficiencies stem from the inherent limitations of large language models (LLMs), fundamental improvements to this or similar tools are not immediately foreseeable. The study critiques the broader trend of adopting AI as a quick fix for systemic problems in education, concluding that Fobizz's marketing of the tool as an objective and time-saving solution is misleading and irresponsible. Finally, the study calls for systematic evaluation and subject-specific pedagogical scrutiny of the use of AI tools in educational contexts.},
howpublished = {Preprint auf arXiv:2412.06651},
keywords = {AI, artificial intelligence, chatbots, correction, feedback, O},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {unpublished}
}
This study examines the AI-powered grading tool "AI Grading Assistant" by the German company Fobizz, designed to support teachers in evaluating and providing feedback on student assignments. Against the societal backdrop of an overburdened education system and rising expectations for artificial intelligence as a solution to these challenges, the investigation evaluates the tool's functional suitability through two test series. The results reveal significant shortcomings: The tool's numerical grades and qualitative feedback are often random and do not improve even when its suggestions are incorporated. The highest ratings are achievable only with texts generated by ChatGPT. False claims and nonsensical submissions frequently go undetected, while the implementation of some grading criteria is unreliable and opaque. Since these deficiencies stem from the inherent limitations of large language models (LLMs), fundamental improvements to this or similar tools are not immediately foreseeable. The study critiques the broader trend of adopting AI as a quick fix for systemic problems in education, concluding that Fobizz's marketing of the tool as an objective and time-saving solution is misleading and irresponsible. Finally, the study calls for systematic evaluation and subject-specific pedagogical scrutiny of the use of AI tools in educational contexts.
UNESCO,
Declaration Draft, 2024.
Links | BibTeX | Schlagwörter: A, AI, artificial intelligence, KI, OER, open educational ressources (OER), UNESCO
@misc{nokey,
title = {Draft Dubai Declaration on OER: Digital Public Goods and Emerging Technologies for Equitable and Inclusive Access to Knowledge},
author = {UNESCO},
editor = {UNESCO},
url = {https://oerdynamiccoalition.org/resources/draft-dubai-declaration-oer-digital-public-goods-and-emerging-technologies-equitable-and#draft-dubai-declaration-on-oer-digital-public-goods-and-emerging-technologies-for-equitable-and-inclusive-access-to-knowledge](https://oerdynamiccoalition.org/resources/draft-dubai-declaration-oer-digital-public-goods-and-emerging-technologies-equitable-and#draft-dubai-declaration-on-oer-digital-public-goods-and-emerging-technologies-for-equitable-and-inclusive-access-to-knowledge)},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-11-20},
address = {Dubai},
howpublished = {Declaration Draft},
keywords = {A, AI, artificial intelligence, KI, OER, open educational ressources (OER), UNESCO},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Crawford, Kate; Schultz, Jason; Rettberg, Jill Walker; Suchman, Lucy; Andrejevic, Mark; Jaton, Florian; Ananny, Mike; Dick, Stephanie; Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong; Canute, Matt; Li, Xiaochang; Taylor, Linnet; Gentelet, Karine; Didier, Emmanuel
An AI Society Artikel
In: Issues in Sience & Technology, Bd. 40, Ausg. 2, 2024.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Schlagwörter: AI, artificial intelligence, KI, Künstliche Intelligenz, O
@article{Crawford0000,
title = {An AI Society},
author = {Kate Crawford and Jason Schultz and Jill Walker Rettberg and Lucy Suchman and Mark Andrejevic and Florian Jaton and Mike Ananny and Stephanie Dick and Wendy Hui Kyong Chun and Matt Canute and Xiaochang Li and Linnet Taylor and Karine Gentelet and Emmanuel Didier},
editor = {Kate Crawford},
url = {https://issues.org/an-ai-society/},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-02-01},
journal = {Issues in Sience & Technology},
volume = {40},
issue = {2},
abstract = {Artificial intelligence is reshaping society, but human forces shape AI. Getting governance wrong could mean narrowing cultural narratives, de-incentivizing creativity, and exploiting workers. In these 11 essays, social scientists and humanities experts explore how to harness the interaction between AI and society, revealing urgent avenues for research and policy.},
keywords = {AI, artificial intelligence, KI, Künstliche Intelligenz, O},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Artificial intelligence is reshaping society, but human forces shape AI. Getting governance wrong could mean narrowing cultural narratives, de-incentivizing creativity, and exploiting workers. In these 11 essays, social scientists and humanities experts explore how to harness the interaction between AI and society, revealing urgent avenues for research and policy.
Limburg, Anika; Salden, Peter; Mundorf, Margret; Weßels, Doris
Plagiarismus in Zeiten Künstlicher Intelligenz Artikel
In: Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung (ZFHE), Bd. 17, Ausg. 3, S. 91–106, 2022, ISSN: 2219-6994.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Schlagwörter: A, AI, artificial intelligence, gute wissenschaftliche Praxis, KI, Künstliche Intelligenz, Natural Language Processing, plagiarism, Plagiarismus, reflective science, Schreibdidaktik, writing tools
@article{Limburg2022,
title = {Plagiarismus in Zeiten Künstlicher Intelligenz},
author = {Anika Limburg and Peter Salden and Margret Mundorf and Doris Weßels},
editor = {Ines Langemeyer and Ernst Schraube and Peter Tremp},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-17-03/06},
doi = {10.3217/zfhe-17-03/06},
issn = {2219-6994},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-10-01},
journal = {Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung (ZFHE)},
volume = {17},
issue = {3},
pages = {91–106},
abstract = {Software auf Basis Künstlicher Intelligenz aus dem Bereich des Natural Language Processing hat das Potenzial, wissenschaftliches Schreiben grundlegend zu verändern. Entsprechende Tools können bereits erstaunlich kohärente Texte in wissenschaftlichem Ton produzieren. Dies führt zu fundamentalen Fragen guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis und akademischer Kultur. Wir diskutieren diese Entwicklung vor dem Hintergrund einer Befragung deutscher Schreibdidaktiker:innen und arbeiten Fragen heraus, die im Zusammenhang mit KI-Schreibtools zukünftig von zentraler Bedeutung sein werden. Abschließend schlagen wir einen Passus für eine Selbstständigkeitserklärung vor, der den Entwicklungen Rechnung trägt.},
keywords = {A, AI, artificial intelligence, gute wissenschaftliche Praxis, KI, Künstliche Intelligenz, Natural Language Processing, plagiarism, Plagiarismus, reflective science, Schreibdidaktik, writing tools},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Software auf Basis Künstlicher Intelligenz aus dem Bereich des Natural Language Processing hat das Potenzial, wissenschaftliches Schreiben grundlegend zu verändern. Entsprechende Tools können bereits erstaunlich kohärente Texte in wissenschaftlichem Ton produzieren. Dies führt zu fundamentalen Fragen guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis und akademischer Kultur. Wir diskutieren diese Entwicklung vor dem Hintergrund einer Befragung deutscher Schreibdidaktiker:innen und arbeiten Fragen heraus, die im Zusammenhang mit KI-Schreibtools zukünftig von zentraler Bedeutung sein werden. Abschließend schlagen wir einen Passus für eine Selbstständigkeitserklärung vor, der den Entwicklungen Rechnung trägt.