The student view on how to prepare for the age of AI

University of Technology Sydney students have told a parliamentary inquiry what do about AI in education.

University of Technology Sydney student Leo Shchurov. Picture: Nikki Short

Rapid developments in artificial intelligence mean the key skills that need to be taught by the education system are curiosity, adaptability, and critical and analytical thinking, according to two University of Technology Sydney students who gave evidence to a parliamentary committee on Tuesday.

Computer science honours student Leo Shchurov told the committee automation was becoming so accessible that even people with no IT skills could use ChatGPT, or other similar platforms, to create a script to do their work for them.

Mr Shchurov said two skills that remained important in an AI workplace were curiosity and adaptability.

Fourth year law and information technology student Raphaella Revis said she would add critical and analytical thinking to the list of key skills in the age of AI.

“What I would like to see is people being taught how to analyse AI itself,” she told the hearing of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, which is inquiring into the use of AI in the education system.

She said that for AI to offer benefits, humans needed to think and analyse.

“I don’t think we should let AI purely automate everything because that takes out a lot of the human elements,” Ms Revis said.

Both students said assessment in the age of AI should not focus on giving students a grade or a number, but instead giving a broader picture of their knowledge and skills.

Mr Shchurov said one of the worst aspects of the education system was year 12 school assessment, which reduced a student’s achievement to one number “without giving a proper multifaceted representation of what each student is capable of”. He said the structure of year 12 destroyed curiosity because if a student became curious about something, teachers couldn’t explore it if it didn’t contribute to the final mark.

“Once the students learn that it’s not worth going out of their way to do cool things because it doesn’t contribute to the final mark, that’s when they start to lose their curiosity and that’s when they stop being able to adapt to new changes,” Mr Shchurov said.

Ms Revis said that there needed to be “purpose-based assignments” and students needed feedback on where they could improve.

“I think there does need to be a bit more emphasis on practical applications and mixing and integrating generative AI into assignments to reflect the future of the workplace,” she said.

Ms Revis said it was important for school and university students to develop their analytic skills and be able to exercise their own judgment independent of AI.

“Then whichever industry they’ll go into, they can look neutrally at the output of the AI,” she said.

Looking at the field of law, Ms Revis said it should not, and would not, automate entirely because, for example, it was unlikely to take into account personal factors or the intent that lay behind a person’s action.

Mr Shchurov said that in the engineering and IT faculty where he studied, tutors were generally neutral or supportive of students using AI.

Ms Revis said the law faculty did not permit students to use AI.

Ms Revis said lecturers needed training in using AI in teaching and assessment, including in how to detect when AI was used by students and “not to just blatantly suspect students of it”.