top of page

Best Practices

      • Teacher: Miss Nicole Lau, Assistant Lecturer

        Department: Department of Psychiatry

        School: School of Clinical Medicine, HKUMed

          1. Setting clear policies for AI use: AI use policies should be clearly and transparently stated in course materials and assignment instructions. For example, quiz instructions may include a statement such as: “Please refrain from using AI assistance or communicating with others during the quiz.” This helps specify which types of AI use are permitted in different assignments, clarifies expectations, and encourages the responsible use of AI tools.

            Additionally, clear education on relevant policies should be prioritised, which has helped clearly set expectations from the start. For example, teachers can spend some time at the beginning of tutorials walking students through the course’s AI guidelines. This can clarify when AI use is permitted or prohibited, as well as facilitate discussions about different scenarios – such as whether students may use AI to draft sections of their assignments.

            By clearly embedding expectations into the course, the policies become part of the learning process, and in turn helps to build students’ integrity. With an understanding of these rules and their purposes, students are more likely to become active partners in ethical learning.
             

          2. Designing human-centred, student-centred tasks: Assignments should be designed to naturally resist automation. Instead of relying solely on essays, teachers can incorporate tasks such as concept maps, which require students to demonstrate how they understand and connect ideas to their own real-life experiences. Such assignments encourage students to draw on their lived experiences, which AI cannot authentically replicate.
             

          3. Using peer interviews and reflective journals: Like concept maps, these activities tap into personal engagement and can encourage students to bring their human uniqueness into their work by drawing on their personal experiences, perspectives, and reflections.
             

          4. Using prompts with embedded permissions and rules: Prompts should include clear guidance, such as citation requirements, to help guide students’ responsible use of AI.
             

          5. Becoming an AI observer: Teachers should pay close attention to how students interact with AI tools during class – for example, how heavily students rely on such tools or how much difficulty they have with expressing their own ideas without the use of AI. These thoughtful observations can help teachers fine-tune their AI policies and provide more targeted guidance, allowing students to use AI in ways that foster their literacy, but not cause dependency.
             

          6. Committing to lifelong learning: AI is constantly changing, with new tools emerging and students discovering new ways to work around existing teaching and assessment methods. Teachers should therefore stay informed about the latest AI tools and practices to help ensure that AI policies remain relevant, responsive, and effective.

        • The priority will be to continue prioritising ethics, ensuring technology enhances learning without compromising academic integrity.

      • Teacher: Mr. Brian Tang, Founding Executive Director of the Law, Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship (FITE) Lab, Faculty of Law

        Department: Law

        School: LITE Lab@HKU

        Courses in which the described approach is applied: 

        ·       Law, Innovation, Technology, Entrepreneurship: Tech Startup Law (LLAW3254/DESN4002)

        ·       LITE Lab: Emerging Technology and Business Models (Undergraduate) (LLAW3255)

        ·       LITE Lab: Emerging Technology  and Business Models (Postgraduate) (LLAW6302A/JDOC6302A)

        ·       LITE Lab: Emerging Technology  and Business Models (Postgraduate) (LLAW6302B/ DJOC6302B)

        ·       LITE Lab: Legal Technology and the Future of the Profession Sandbox (LLAW3272)

        ·       Applied AI Ethics & Governance in Industry and Society (PHIL7015).

        • Mr. Tang’s interdisciplinary and experiential Law, Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship Lab (LITE Lab) programme at the Faculty of Law was launched in 2019/20 and comprises students from 8 of HKU’s 10 faculties. Covering the Law of Tech and the Tech of Law, LITE Lab courses have a variety of agency-focussed and project-based authentic learning outcomes, from being innovation-focused (LLAW3254/DESN4002 - where students learn tech start-up law and create digital artifact deliverables), to being research-focussed (LLAW3255/LLAW6302 - where students co-design legal, regulatory and policy research with industry project partners) and tech-focussed (LLAW3272 - where students co-design proof-of-concept lawtech solutions with practitioners from law firms and legal departments). LITE Lab students originally started using no/low code platforms, and since ChatGPT was introduced in 2022/23, Mr. Tang has incorporated GenAI into LITE Lab’s curriculum. Since 2024/25, Mr. Tang was invited to also teach for HKU’s Masters of Arts in AI, Ethics and Society from the Department of Philosophy and introduced his pedagogy using GenAI to his new course focused on applied AI ethics & governance.

          1. The LITE Lab has always incorporated assessment that may be considered “alternative” to the examinations and essay assignments traditionally found within a law school. These process- and product-based LITE Lab assessments include delivery of digital artifacts and/or written deliverables to project partner non-lawyers in a variety of formats, weekly class presentations, personal learning reflections, peer reviews from fellow team mates, feedback from project partners (where applicable) and end of semester presentations of deliverables and learnings.
             

          2. GenAI is thoughtfully incorporated into Mr. Tang’s teaching approach, where students experience this fast-evolving technology first-hand. Students are actively encouraged to experiment with multiple alternative GenAI platforms to compare the output, and then to critically reflect upon the pros and cons of their usage.  Students apply design thinking to ensure that they address their intended user persona, and are also encouraged to red-team their own and other team GenAI-based digital artifacts. Students are also taught to create and evaluate their own AI team mates as digital cognitive labour, as well as identify and discuss the ethical issues arising to the use of GenAI, where Mr. Tang’s Chiron Human-Working-in-the-Loop (HWITL) AI Governance Framework is introduced.
             

          3. The recent advent of more powerful GenAI models has allowed students to experiment with “vibe-coding” their digital artifacts, budgeting token usage on freemium and paid platforms, and critically assessing the possibilities and risks of such creations.
             

          4. When conducting co-designed research with industry project partners, students are taught to use GenAI intentionally as a learning companion for enhancing their understanding and skills in drafting, critical thinking and problem solving to prevent cognitive offloading and “sub-contracting their learning”. For example, students are encouraged to use GenAI to better understand new and complex concepts, review their drafts (rather than generate the first draft), develop counterarguments and support brainstorming.

          1. The recent rapid rate of change of GenAI technology (both in the different user interfaces and “under the hood” LLM capabilities) is astounding. This means that the proposed course tech stack needs to be revisited and potentially revised by the instructor before (and during) each semester.
             

          2. Students’ awareness and exposure to GenAI increases each passing year but remains uneven. This means that instructors and the curriculum needs to adjust to “meet the students” where they are.
             

          3. Some students may also increasingly have strong ethical views against the use of GenAI. Mr. Tang often describes his first “GenAI conscientious objector”, who had heartfelt concerns about GenAI models being trained on fellow artists’ work product without consent nor compensation, and how GenAI may threaten her future career path. As a result, she refused to use GenAI in the classroom unless absolutely required. Instructors should be prepared to discuss and address the rise of such ethical concerns raised by students in the classroom.

          1. Instil the “Gym of the Mind” concept among students: In the same way that students should know they cannot improve their personal health through “shortcuts”, Mr. Tang recommends that teachers instil the “Gym of the Mind” concept to reinforce that learning requires friction and the exercise of mental muscles. Cognitive offloading through over-reliance on and inappropriate use of GenAI tools only “cheats” students themselves who may not otherwise have developed the requisite skillsets and mindsets for their future careers after university graduation. Accordingly, developing good habits and techniques regarding how best to use and not to use GenAI for learning (as opposed to productivity) is critical.
             

          2. Assessments should also assess the student learning process: Faculty and instructors should rethink traditional curriculum learning outcomes so that assessment goes beyond written product or output-based deliverables (which can be easily produced by GenAI). Mr. Tang’s pedagogical approach is a prime example of how greater attention can be given to students’ metacognitive development and learning journeys, as well as how curriculum and assessment can assist to foster important  human skills such as communication, collaboration and context-based problem-solving.

      • Teacher: Dr. Jeremy Ng

        Department: Faculty of Education

        Subject title: BSIM3025 Multimedia and Human-Computer Interaction

        Year level: An undergraduate-level elective for BSc (Information Management), BASc (Social Data Science), and BA (Humanities and Digital Technologies) students

        Class size: 21 students
        Mode of delivery: On-campus

        List of materials available for collection from the teacher:

        • Student-created multimedia products (as shown in the table below)

        • CiC-badged assessment rubrics (for any request, please contact the teacher)

        • The course aims at developing students’ understanding of multimedia from the dual perspectives of the human-centred design paradigm and the principles of human information processing. As a CiC-badged course, students acquire the knowledge and skills of both evaluating and creating multimedia design products through interactive lectures, in-class practices, and various assessment tasks.

        • The original course design had a stronger emphasis on virtual reality (VR) technologies, where the capstone assignment was to create a virtual reality game for in-class demo in the final session of the course. As detailed below, this capstone assignment was replaced with an individual project on multimedia design and creation.

          • To strive towards fulfilling the various University Educational Aims and to align with institutional emphasis on AI Education

          • To further improve student engagement and motivation through integrating technosocially prevalent and relatable examples and case studies

          • To equip students with future-ready knowledge and skills in their academic and professional pursuits

          • To experiment with innovations in pedagogical and assessment designs, as part of an ongoing TDG project targeting BSc(IM) and BASc(SDS) students

          1. Lecture topics: While the major topics of each lecture (e.g., “Cognitive Bias”, “Audio Processing”) still remain largely similar as previous cohorts, more sub-topics related to AI and its application were added to each lecture (e.g., “Algorithmic Bias”, “Automated Speech-to-Text Tools”, etc.).

          2. In-class examples: For illustrating certain topics and concepts, more relevant examples on AI usage and its related debates were added, such as the AI-powered face recognition feature on Google Photos.

          3. Hands-on and reflective activities: For reinforcing student understanding of AI related concepts (e.g., Algorithmic Bias), in-class, hands-on activities were conducted (e.g., “Generate an image of a family enjoying an afternoon tea“.), where students were also asked to share their post-hoc reflection.

          4. Assessment tasks: As a renovated capstone assessment task, partly grounded on the premise of Maker-based Self-Regulated Learning, students designed and created a human-centered AI-powered/AI-enhanced multimedia product of their own choice (e.g., AI chatbot, AI-supported website, AI-enhanced mobile app) for a certain real-world purpose (e.g., “supporting HKU students’ mental health”).

          5. Collective wisdom from HKU and peers: Students were scaffolded and constantly encouraged to use AI tools, especially those provided by HKU, ethically and effectively, and to learn from their peers in best practices of AI usage and applications.

          • For the preparation of updated course and assessment materials, it took time and efforts for gathering and synthesizing updated and reliable information and materials from various sources (e.g., academic publications, news articles, social media posts, etc.).

          • As undergraduate students tended to value practical information more than theoretical knowledge, it took time and a great deal of patience in refining class delivery and assessment design for improving the theory-practice praxis

          • The pedagogical and assessment designs in this course will act as important groundwork for an upcoming AI Literacy course designated to BSc(IM) and BASc(SDS) students.

          • The in-class examples, activities, and assessments can be repurposed and adapted in other courses with related themes and topics (e.g., Educational Technology, Web Design, etc.).

          • The multimedia products designed and created by students will serve as exemplars for future cohorts of students.

      • Teacher’s name: Dr Benjamin Luke Moorhouse
        Department:  Department of Education Studies
        Faculty: Faculty of Social Sciences
         

        Subject title:  Grammar for Teaching
        Year level: Postgraduate
        Class size:  45 x 2 groups
        Mode of delivery: Flipped + in person

        List of materials collected: Assignment tasks (Analysed for potential publication), student reflections, pre and post surveys, student course evaluations.

        • Previously, the course had three assignment tasks – a language identification and analysis tasks, a reflective account of student’s own learning experience of grammar and the perceptions of its effectiveness, and a textbook critique with suggestions for improvement. All these were take home assignment types with students able to use any resources to help them complete the task.

        • I fundamentally changed my assessments due to the development of GenAI. I tested my assignments on various LLMs and found they could competently complete the tasks. Especially assignment 1. Therefore, I had to re-think the assignments to better reflect the GenAi realities and have students engage with GenAI within the assignment tasks so as to develop their GenAI skills.

        • 1. Assignment 1 was made an in-class assessment and simplified to address the lack of resources. This enabled for the instructor to understand the students’ abilities in a restricted environment

          2. Assignment 2 was turned into a group lesson planning task with group assignments for a group of learners and grammar points and develop a lesson plan based on the principles discussed in the course. Students were informed of ways they could use GenAI in the task and were asked to declare the use. Students we asked to write a short unassessed reflection on their learning, and experience of the task and working in groups.

          3. Assignment 3 involved the students individually working with GenAI tools to respond to my feedback to the lesson plan in assignment 2 and consider ways to improve the lesson plan. Students were required to work with GenAI tools, provide rationale for the changes they made to the plan, and reflect on their experience working with GenAI – considering the implications for their professional practices. They were required to submit their interaction logs with the GenAI tools. 

        • Students were very positive about the assignments 2 and 3 and commented on the usefulness of the integration of GenAI competence development activities within the course.

        • How open or restrictive to make the tasks.

        • Try to consider how students might be using GenAi for learning, work, or recreation and bring those elements relevant to the CILOs into your course and assignment design. Discuss ideas with others.

      • Teacher’s name: Dr Florin C. Serban
        Department:  Communication Studies

        Faculty: School of Communication
         

        Subject title: Generative AI for Writing and Design
        Year level: 2     
        Class size:  30
        Mode of delivery: Face to face

        List of materials collected: Students’ in-class work of teaching and learning activities

        • For a Professional Writing course, students used to write their own personal branding statements. In the 2023/2024 AY, students were asked to write prompts on ChatGPT and create brand statements with the help of this Generative AI tool.

          For a Media Design course, students used to search for illustrations on Google. In the 2023/2024 AY, students used Generative AI tools such as Midourney, Dall-E-3, Adobe Firefly, StableDiffusionXL to create illustrations based on their prompts.

        • It was a mix of student curiosity regarding GenerativeAI tools and a need to engage with these new Generative AI tools as the instructor tried to keep students updated with the latest technology that could be used for writing and design courses.

        • Students got to refine their prompt writing and were asked to pay constant attention to how different prompts will lead to different results. They were asked by the instructor to have a critical approach regarding the capacity of these AI tools to output high-quality and reliable content. Students got a chance to understand 1) how these technologies work, 2) what they need to do in order to get better results and 3) how to evaluate the output of these technologies.

        • The students were happy with the implementation of the new TLAs design, mentioning they would have used these tools anyway on their own, but not with the same results.

        • The only challenge came for the design course. As students don’t have free access to Midjourney, Dall-E-3, StableDiffusionXL they had to use the instructors’ laptop to use these GenerativeAI tools. It would be great if in the future the university could offer access to students for some of these Generative AI tools.

        • It is evident there is a lot of trial and error when dealing with these tools. As long as the instructor has a good understanding of how the AI technologies work, students should be exposed to TLAs using these tools. However, there are plenty of times when the AI output is unexpected or not up to the standard. The students will always ask ‘why is this the case?’ and the instructor should not be embarrassed to admit that we don’t have an answer for all these questions. I would rather use these tools in class with students and do my best to explain how and why some outputs appear than to wait until I have an exhaustive understanding of these tools before I share them with my students. I recently heard an analogy that I enjoy: these tools don’t have a road-map; they are a compass. Be prepared to discovered unchartered territories when using them and don’t be frustrated in the process.

      • Teacher’s name: Simon Wang
        Department:  LC

        Faculty: Arts
         

        Subject title: Taking a Stand: Turning Research Insights into Policy Recommendations
        Year level: Year 3     
        Class size:  20-30 per section (2-3 sections a semester)
        Mode of delivery: F2F and small group meetings

        List of materials collected: 

        • In Simon Wang's course, "Taking a Stand: Turning Research Insights into Policy Recommendations," the previous assessment required students to write a letter to the editor. This letter was meant to present their argument based on their research on social and policy issues in Hong Kong. The task was designed to encourage students to critically analyze relevant topics and articulate their positions in a public forum. While the primary intention of the assignment was to test students' research and analytical skills, writing in English often remained an obstacle for many students, overshadowing their ability to demonstrate their research prowess.

        • The decision to redesign the TLAs and assessments stemmed from the observation that writing in English is particularly challenging for many students, especially those whose first language is not English. Given the growing accessibility and capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, Simon saw an opportunity to enhance student learning by integrating AI assistance in their writing process. This shift aimed to alleviate language barriers and provide students with a supportive tool to refine their arguments, thus allowing them to focus more on their research and analytical skills.

        • The redesigned assessment involved students co-authoring their letters with AI. Instead of crafting the entire letter independently, students were encouraged to utilize AI tools to assist in structuring their arguments, refining their language, and ensuring clarity. The task now required them to actively engage with AI to enhance their writing, promoting a collaborative effort between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.

        • The redesigned assessment received positive feedback from the students. Many found the new arrangement refreshing and time-saving. They appreciated the ability to leverage AI tools to overcome language challenges and felt more confident in their ability to express their arguments effectively. The AI-assisted writing process not only improved the quality of their submissions but also provided a learning experience in using modern technology to augment their skills.

        • Despite the overall success, the implementation was not without challenges. Some students required additional guidance on how to effectively use AI tools in their writing process. There were initial concerns about over-reliance on AI, potentially diminishing the students' own critical thinking and writing skills. Ensuring that students used AI as a supplementary tool rather than a crutch was a key focus area. Additionally, the use of Poe.com to build a customized chatbot was limited to its free version, as students were not subscribers of premium services.

        • Recommendations and Advice:

          Provide Clear Guidelines: Offer detailed instructions on how to integrate AI tools effectively without compromising the development of essential writing skills. Emphasize the importance of critical thinking and personal input. Customization is an approach that students need to learn.

          Training Sessions: Conduct workshops or training sessions to familiarize students with the AI tools available to them. This can help in reducing the learning curve and making the tools more accessible. While some training was provided, a more systematic approach to training is required.

          Monitor Usage: Implement a system to monitor and assess how students are using AI. Encouraging reflective practices where students explain their use of AI can ensure they are engaging thoughtfully with the technology. Additionally, AI's responses need to be validated.

          Balance AI and Human Input: Encourage a balanced approach where AI is used to enhance, not replace, the students' writing process. This can help maintain the integrity of their learning experience. Writing skills still need to be developed and trained among students; how such training can be done with the support of AI remains an issue to be further explored.

          Feedback Loop: Continuously collect feedback from students to understand their experiences and make necessary adjustments to the integration of AI in TLAs and assessments.

          Simon Wang’s innovative approach in integrating GenAI with traditional TLAs represents a forward-thinking adaptation to modern educational challenges. By leveraging AI, he has not only enhanced the learning experience but also prepared students to navigate and utilize the technological advancements of the future.

  • To be announced...

      • Teacher’s name: Professor Esterina Nervino
        Department: English (EN) and Marketing (MKT)
        College: College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS) and College of Business (CB)
         

        Subject title: Communicating Fashion Culture (EN2837)
        Year level: An elective for the discipline of English but available for choose by all undergraduate students

        Class size: 36 students
        Mode of delivery: On-campus

        List of materials available for collection from the teacher:

        • Interview questions for industry professionals

        • Description of AI-integrated learning and teaching tasks

        • Reflections from students

        • One objective of EN2837 is to introduce students to various professional communication genres (e.g., press releases, social media posts, news articles) used to facilitate the positioning and promotion of fashion brands both globally and locally.

          In terms of the learning and teaching activities, the course had been designed to include face-to-face classes, field trips (e.g., fashion shows), guest lectures, and in-class activities. The assessment tasks, on the other hand, included one individual reflective essay on the role of fashion in society, one individual critical essay to analyse genres used in the fashion sector, one oral presentation and a report for a group project aimed at producing the professional genres analysed.

        • With the recent availability of GenAI showing ever-expanding capabilities, it has become crucial to further develop the course to foster students' AI literacy as a new addition to digital literacy. Enrichment of the course is also important to better prepare the students for the current and future workplace that is infused with GenAI.

          1. Five communication and marketing professionals were interviewed by the teacher to survey their perspectives on AI in their sectors, thus enabling the identification of skills (e.g., growth mindset, collaborative learning) important to the workplace and for emphasis in the course.

          2. To initiate students’ exploration and reflection on the use of AI for communication, students were first asked to search for news articles on the use of AI among professionals. A debate was later conducted in class to facilitate further reflection on the pros and cons of AI, ethical and responsibility issues, copyright, digital divide.

          3. Students were then asked to experiment using AI for the generation of texts (e.g., a press release), in particular to assess how AI can incorporate cultural aspects into the drafting of press releases. This provided students with concrete experience in using AI for writing, but also with an understanding of the potential and limitations of AI.

          4. Students were then instructed to compare AI-generated texts and those written by humans of the same genre. This urged students to reflect more deeply on the structures and linguistic features of a particular genre, as well as bias inherent in responses generated by AI.

          5. Building on familiarity with AI acquired from these activities, students then conducted a final group project to use AI to create a press release for a real or fictitious brand. They also reported the process of how they edited the AI-generated texts to arrive at the final product. This aimed at simulating how the professionals deployed GenAI in the authentic workplace.

          6. Finally, the students met a professional in class to further exchange ideas on the use of AI in the industry.

        • Students expressed that these course activities:

          • helped them to learn how AI can be an important tool to increase their productivity;

          • helped them to realise the limitations of AI;

          • made the curriculum useful and enjoyable;

          • prepared them to utilise AI for professional communication.

          provided them with a valuable experience to share during job interviews.

          • The teacher needed prior preparation to experiment with the GenAI tools and to experience their potential responses for integration into the learning and teaching activities.

          • The GenAI tools evolve quickly, and responses they generate may change from time to time, creating uncertainty in what the students would experience.

          • Students needed more guidance and instructions, as they were unfamiliar with using GenAI for learning.

          • The course activities were designed to be applicable in other settings. The teacher has also implemented them in two other courses.

          • The course activities were designed to allow students to work together on the discovery of this new technology. While all students have access to the technology through CityUHK, their experience with it may be different.

          • Implementing these course activities would help to investigate their effects in better preparing students for the AI-infused workplace, since the student sample in EN2837 was relatively limited.

          • The course activities will need to be regularly reviewed in responses to continuous evolution in GenAI.

      • Teacher’s name: Professor Xiaosheng Zhuang
        Department: Department of Mathematics (MA)
        Faculty: College of Science (CSCI)

        Subject title: Applied Statistics (MA3518)
        Year level: primarily for Year 3 undergraduate students in the discipline of Statistics
        Class size: Approximately 90 students
        Mode of delivery: Blended mode

        List of materials available for collection from the teacher:

        • Sample AI-enriched lecture notes

        • Samples of students’ group projects using AI tools

        • Instructions for group projects with AI-assisted tools

        • The original course consisted of more traditional components: lectures and laboratory sessions as the main learning and teaching activities, while a group project and assignments/test/exam were the assessments.

        • As the course covers more technical contents, students prefer more assistance in learning: the contents of the lecture notes and the textbooks can be turgid with many technical information, while the number of teaching assistants for this course could be quite limited.

          The advent of generative AI served as a valuable opportunity for utilising it as learning companions to the students. Generative AI could also be deployed to facilitate other active learning techniques such as blended learning and collaborative learning.

          1. A blended learning module was developed and deployed on the Learning Management System with five components: i) pre-material quiz; ii) course materials; iii) post-material quiz; iv) laboratory component; v) questionnaire.

                  Generative AI was incorporated into the module, e.g., students were asked to explore and evaluate how ChatGPT explains certain statistical concepts.

          1. Lecture notes were enhanced with AI components such as ChatGPT and Python for more in-depth explanations of concepts and parts that can interact with students.

          2. A module dedicated to assisting students’ revision of the course materials was added to the Learning Management System, in which students were given prompts to seek help from ChatGPT.

          3. For the group project, students were instructed to make good use of AI tools (such as ChatGPT) for data analysis, idea generation, diagram production, improvement of report writing, etc. Students were also clearly instructed to acknowledge the use of these AI tools and their roles in the project.

          • Via the questionnaire results, the students shared that the blended learning module could improve their interest in class and they were more motivated to learn the concepts of the course. The students agreed that learning the foundational concepts prior to class had enhanced their understanding of the materials.

          • Some students shared their preference to use responses from ChatGPT for revision.

          • Students shared that they used several generative AI tools for data analysis, figure generation, writing computer codes, report writing, etc. They also expressed the need to check critically as responses from the generative AI tools contained inaccuracies occasionally.

          The course instructor found these new components useful resources to assist students’ learning.

          • The course teacher needed to take extra effort to prepare for the blended-learning module and to be familiar with the generative AI tools to be adopted.

          • Students needed to be given clear instructions and guidance on how they could use generative AI tools to assist their learning and the group projects.

          • The course teacher would like to keep updated of the rapidly developing AI tools and incorporate appropriate ones into the course.

          • The course teacher would like to explore applying the same approach to other courses of similar nature.

      • Teacher’s name: Dr Florin C. Serban
        Department:  Communication Studies

        Faculty: School of Communication
         

        Subject title: Generative AI for Writing and Design
        Year level: 2     
        Class size:  30
        Mode of delivery: Face to face

        List of materials collected: Students’ in-class work of teaching and learning activities

        • For a Professional Writing course, students used to write their own personal branding statements. In the 2023/2024 AY, students were asked to write prompts on ChatGPT and create brand statements with the help of this Generative AI tool.

          For a Media Design course, students used to search for illustrations on Google. In the 2023/2024 AY, students used Generative AI tools such as Midourney, Dall-E-3, Adobe Firefly, StableDiffusionXL to create illustrations based on their prompts.

        • It was a mix of student curiosity regarding GenerativeAI tools and a need to engage with these new Generative AI tools as the instructor tried to keep students updated with the latest technology that could be used for writing and design courses.

        • Students got to refine their prompt writing and were asked to pay constant attention to how different prompts will lead to different results. They were asked by the instructor to have a critical approach regarding the capacity of these AI tools to output high-quality and reliable content. Students got a chance to understand 1) how these technologies work, 2) what they need to do in order to get better results and 3) how to evaluate the output of these technologies.

        • The students were happy with the implementation of the new TLAs design, mentioning they would have used these tools anyway on their own, but not with the same results.

        • The only challenge came for the design course. As students don’t have free access to Midjourney, Dall-E-3, StableDiffusionXL they had to use the instructors’ laptop to use these GenerativeAI tools. It would be great if in the future the university could offer access to students for some of these Generative AI tools.

        • It is evident there is a lot of trial and error when dealing with these tools. As long as the instructor has a good understanding of how the AI technologies work, students should be exposed to TLAs using these tools. However, there are plenty of times when the AI output is unexpected or not up to the standard. The students will always ask ‘why is this the case?’ and the instructor should not be embarrassed to admit that we don’t have an answer for all these questions. I would rather use these tools in class with students and do my best to explain how and why some outputs appear than to wait until I have an exhaustive understanding of these tools before I share them with my students. I recently heard an analogy that I enjoy: these tools don’t have a road-map; they are a compass. Be prepared to discovered unchartered territories when using them and don’t be frustrated in the process.

  • To be announced...

  • To be announced...

bottom of page