Q: What advantages does research offer to the decision-maker over seat-of-the-pants decision making?
A: To answer this question, I want to address the bias I had going into my research. Before I looked at my first article, I expected to find that educators and education systems would have had a largely negative reaction to ChatGPT and an overall mindset that it is a tool that should be kept out of the classroom. I expected to find that ChatGPT would have provoked the same reaction that I've been told the calculator got: that it should be kept away from people learning. What I found - though I cannot say what changed circumstances may have led to this - is that most researchers were far more interested in how to integrate and use ChatGPT effectively as opposed to avoiding it altogether. My working theory on this subject matter is that - due to the internet and readily available nature of ChatGPT as a tool - educators are willing to accept new tools and willing to understand that students will use them regardless of formal rules. I also believe parents are more 'hands off' in education than they've ever been, and thus don't particularly care what tools their students are using. However, this thought is just another example of "seat-of-the-pants" bias that is not founded on anything but thought.
Now that I have completed my research and finished my initial rough draft, I thoroughly explored the avenue of proper research following my 'seat-of-the-pants' initial thoughts and biases. What I have learned is that my preconceived notions of the outrage over ChatGPT are rather overblown, the tools used to detect it don't work, and that educators are more willing than ever to accept progress in their field.
Comments