Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning (IJTEL) Special Issue Call: The Games People Play: Exploring Technology Enhanced Learning Scholarship & Generative Artificial Intelligence

Posted on 2023-09-18

While generative artificial intelligence has been a part of the wider artificial intelligence (AI) since its inception, it’s only recently that new advancements have been released for public consumption (and production.) We are all awash with the stories (Bozkurt, et al., 2023; Concannon et al., 2023; Sharples, 2022) and controversies (Glesson, 2022; Liang et al. 2023), promises (Baidoo-Anu & Owusu Ansah, 2023) and pitfalls (Costello, 2023; Wang et al. 2023) of AI. 

Recent guidelines produced by the National Academic Integrity Network (2023) state that educators should “be familiar with these tools and their availability, and recognise their limitations and affordances.” (p.8.) This special issue is intended to provide a transparent academic space to explore, play and discover how AI intersects with technology enhanced learning scholarship and practice.  As we are all working to wrap our collective (human) minds around AI, we are inviting submissions explicitly and transparently written with AI.  

What does AI really know about technology enhanced learning? What happens when you go “all in” with AI? We believe that facing generative AI in this way will provide an innovative, playful and scholarly platform for capturing and documenting this phenomenon in the moment. What does engaging in this process say not only about our discipline, but, our humanity and identity as scholars?  

As scholars we need spaces to develop our own critical AI literacies - and this is an exercise and opportunity to make the process of our own learning transparent (which is by no coincidence a suggestion for “countering” AI in the classroom.)  For this special issue, we invite you to generate a submission that contains three distinct sections: 1) an introduction; 2) the paper/report/or book review written by AI and 3) a critical reflection on the process. 

Here is a bit more guidance on each section:  

Introduction (not generated with AI) 

500-1000 words

At minimum, the introduction should include:  

  • your relationship with Generative AI in educational and scholarly contexts
  • a rationale for your choice of the topic; including an exposition of your relationship with the topic chosen. 
  • a transparent and detailed description of the AI tool(s) used to create the article (be very specific about the version of the tool, was it a pay version, open, etc.) 
  • the prompt(s) you used to generate the article
Position Paper, Short Report or Book Review entirely generated by AI 

Authors should select from one of the standard IJTEL submission types outlined below and generate an article within those guidelines. 

There can be minimal formatting edits made by (human) authors, but, for the most part it is expected that you will copy and paste directly from the AI outputs.  We acknowledge that there will likely be errors in citations, hallucinations and incorrect information. For the sake of this exercise, we are soliciting “as is” snapshots of what AI can do in this moment. We have purposely identified word counts that are attainable with non-subscription based tools, though, you are welcome to use any Generative AI tool(s) you wish. 

Position Papers (2,000- 3,000 words).

These contributions establish debate or critique a relevant policy or issue. Contributions may be provocative in nature, but must be rigorous and informed by relevant literature and make an original contribution to debate.

Short Reports (2,000- 2,500 words).

These can be reports on ongoing research, or on the challenges of critically engaged practice with  technology enhanced learning. These contributions may take novel or innovative formats.

Book reviews (not exceeding 1,000 words).

These are reviews of relevant books.

Critical Reflection (not generated with AI) 

500-1000 words

To conclude your manuscript, you should write a critical reflection on the process of generating the article with AI.  As you can see from the list below there are two broad aspects that the reflection should focus on. The first section asks you to reflect and report back on the process while the second asks that you reflect on what it means for you as a scholar and your discipline. Critical reflections should explore: 

Reflection on Process

  • What did it get wrong (references, etc.) 
  • What did it get right? 
  • How long did the process take? 
  • What would you do differently?
  • Was it difficult to write a long scholarly piece with Gen AI?

Reflection on Implications 

  • What are the implications for knowledge, scholarship, teaching and learning and assessment? 
  • What does this mean for you as a scholar? 
  • What does this mean for our discipline at large? 

Additionally, articles should include an abstract (150 words) summarising the submission. If you used AI to generate the abstract, please be transparent in the introduction.  

Timeline

Due to the timeliness of the topic, we are proposing an ambitious submission, review and publication schedule to allow for this issue to serve as a record of open learning.  We ask that you are cognisant of the tight timeline when submitting your manuscript.  

  • Deadline for submissions: October 23, 2023
  • Deadline for reviews: November 1, 2023
  • Authors notified: November 8, 2023
  • Deadline for revisions: November 17, 2023
  • Special issue publication date: December 8th, 202

 

Submission

Please include a note to editors that your submission is for the special issue.

Peer Review

Accepted manuscripts will be subjected to the standard double blind peer review process.  Additionally, reviewers will be provided with a checklist to guide the review process. Authors should also use this rubric to review their submissions before uploading to the submission portal.  

A note on authorship, and responsible use of GenAI: 

For IJTEL, we request that any submission must be the original work of the author that has not been published previously, as a whole or in part, either in print or electronically, or is soon to be so published. This requirement will be waived for this special edition only for the segment of AI generated text, excluding the introduction and critical reflection. We require authors to adhere to the responsible use of AI in adhering to the principles of transparency on the use of AI and respect for personal data and confidentiality by not entering any such data on a GenAI platform. Similarly with respect to copyright of other’s material. See also the APA guidelines on correct citation here 

Parting Thoughts

To conclude, as an editorial team we are very excited to provide this space for play. And, in the spirit of transparency, no portions of this call were generated by AI.  

Leigh Graves Wolf, Special Issue Lead Editor  
Orna Farrell
Fiona Concannon
Tom Farrelly

References 

Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484

Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., Farrow, R., Bond, M., Nerantzi, C., Honeychurch, S., Bali, M., Dron, J., Mir, K., Stewart, B., Costello, E., Mason, J., Stracke, C., Romero-Hall, E., Koutropoulos, A., . . . Jandrić, P. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 53-130. https://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/709

Concannon, F., Costello, E., Farrell, O., Farrelly, T., & Wolf, L.G. (2023). Editorial: There’s an AI for that: Rhetoric, reality, and reflections on EdTech in the dawn of GenAI. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v7i1.116

Costello, E. (2023). ChatGPT and the educational AI chatter: Full of bullshit or trying to tell us something? Postdigital Science and Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00398-5 

Gleeson, N., (2022, December 9). ChatGPT and the rise of AI writers: how should higher education respond? Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/chatgpt-and-rise-ai-writers-how-should-higher-education-respond 

Liang, W.,Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E. and Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns. 4(7), 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779 

National Academic Integrity Network. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: Guidelines for educators. https://www.qqi.ie/news/nain-publishes-new-genai-guidelines-for-educators 

Sharples, M. (2022, May 17). New AI tools that can write student essays require educators to rethink teaching and assessment. LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/05/17/new-ai-tools-that-can-write-student-essays-require-educators-to-rethink-teaching-and-assessment/ 

Wang, T., Lund, B. D., Marengo, A., Pagano, A., Mannuru, N. R., Teel, Z. A., & Pange, J. (2023). Exploring the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international students in higher education: Generative AI, chatbots, analytics, and international student success. Applied Sciences, 13(11), 6716. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116716 

 

====================================================================================

Review Checklist

Overall

  • Is it clear what the author(s) want to communicate regarding the use of GenAI, and the direction of the submission? 
  • Does the article contain four distinct sections,(Abstract, Introduction and Process, Position Paper/Short Report/Book Review and Critical Reflection) clearly labelled?
  • Does the title clearly express what the submission is about? 

Abstract

  • Does the abstract contain a short and clear summary of the submission, including key findings and conclusions. 
  • Does it meet the word count specified between 100 and 150 words? 
  • Does it include enough information to stand alone? 
  • Does it contain unnecessary information?

Introduction

  • Does the introduction meet the criteria of 500-1000 words?
  • Does it clearly explain the author(s) relationship with Generative AI in educational and scholarly contexts? This may include limitations of current knowledge in this field, or a personal explanation of why the work was necessary. 
  • Is a transparent and detailed description of the AI tool(s) used to create the article given (including very specific about the version of the tool -  was it a paid version, open, etc.) 
  • Does it adhere to the responsible use of AI in the author’s engagement with the chosen AI tool with respect to (a) adhering to the principles of transparency in their use of AI (b) respect for personal data and confidentiality by not entering any such data on a GenAI platform and (c ) respecting copyright of other’s materials  in not posting these into the platforms. 
  • Does it clearly define the prompt(s) used to generate the article?

Main body

  • Does the submission adhere to the word count for the AI generated submission type (e.g. position paper, short report, or book review)?
  • Does the submission adhere to the brief in terms of its focus? (e.g. position paper, report, review.)

Critical reflection

  • Does the author(s) adhere to the word count of between 500-1000 words?
  • Does the submission include a reflection on process that addresses the following prompts: 
  • What did it get wrong (references, etc.) 
  • What did it get right? 
  • How long did the process take? 
  • What would you do differently?
  • Was it difficult to write a long scholarly piece with Gen AI?
  • Does the submission contain a reflection on implications section, and that addresses the following prompts:  
  • What are the implications for knowledge, scholarship, teaching and learning and assessment? 
  • What does this mean for you as a scholar? 
  • What does this mean for our discipline at large? 
  • Are the conclusions supported by the main body of the generated AI text presented? 
  • Are any limitations of the approach discussed? 
  • Do the authors compare findings with any relevant literature or other perspectives, research findings, or theories in the research field? 
  • Do you have any concerns that this section was written with the use of GenAI? 

References and clarity of writing, etc. 

  • Are there any key references missing? 
  • Are references correctly used? 
  • Are APA guidelines for the referencing of GenAI followed? 
  • Do you have any concerns about the language, and the clarity or quality of the writing?

Overall review 

  • Accept submission
  • Accept with revisions
  • Decline submission

====================================================================================