I have long waited before I share a special case of AI generated publishing in the field of educational technology which needs a public reflection and review. Approximately 3 months ago, I have received a citation alert which made me curious.
I have written at the end of the last semester a critical review of the concept of future-skills in German (preprint available here, still in review) In Germany, there is a plethora of activism around this concept and many higher education institutions feel the need to react to the hype around these skills.
During a recent review process I have requested from authors that they should address from which standpoint they have approached their qualitative study. While I was referring in this comment the ontological and theoretical levels as formulated by Twining, Heller, Nussbaum & Tsai (2017) in the guidelines for the journal Computers & Education, the authors have understood my request as a call for a „positionality statement“ in which the authors disclose some of their biographical details (white, cis, middle-age) as potentially influencing their research.
„ChatGPT itself is a neutral tool, and how it is used depends on the intentions of those who use it.“ (Cohen, 2023). This messages is commmunicated by the US-based Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) to its 125 000 members (estimaton) regarding an AI-based tool which is currently pushing the discourse on AI in education.
„This has become a fashionable platitude, which…would result in a…content-free curriculum […]. This downgrading of knowledge is, ironies of ironies, to be implemented in the interest of creating a knowledge-based economy.
Since I am currently often asked about my opinion about ChatGPT I want to share why I do not write about ChatGPT.
The discussion about ChatGPT (Generative Pretrained Transformer) is at least as annoying as the Wordle wave that has hit my social media channels some years ago.