Editorial: Navigating the double-edged sword: empowering educators to make informed decisions about generative AI in higher education using the approach-avoidance conflict theory

What the paper says

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the business world and education (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Paul et al., 2023). According to the McKinsey Global Institute, generative IT will add between $2.6 trillion and $4.4 trillion to the global economy (O'Brien, 2023). Moreover, researchers predict that generative AI will become ubiquitous and revolutionize the job market, replacing some traditional professions and creating new professions (Orchard and Tasiemski, 2023; Waxman, 2023).With the advancements of AI, it is imperative that instructors in higher education settings decide now how they will deal with what some believe is disruptive technology in their daily classroom pedagogical practices. This paper provides a lens with which higher education instructors can approach the decisions related to AI use and the pedagogical indifferences. Addressing various perspectives, assumptions and misconceptions about generative AI in the classroom is critical during this time of change in our global society in which higher education instructors prepare students for the future.Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, can be utilized to compose essays, summarize literature, and write computer code (van Dis et al., 2023). Educators have long faced challenges related to academic honesty and plagiarism (Krou et al., 2021). Although this emerging technology is the fastest-growing web application, most instructors have not openly discussed AI tools in the classroom (Nietzel, 2023) or developed guidelines on how they should be used (Surovell, 2023). Higher education instructors are pondering how to embrace the tool or discipline its overuse on classroom assignments. As a result, students lack clear guidelines on how the technology should be used and a sufficient understanding of this important emerging technology.We propose that instructors should not only discuss this technology in the classroom but should also ensure that they do not make false assumptions. In this paper, we discuss common misconceptions about generative AI in the higher education classroom, the benefits of applying the approach-avoidance conflict (AAC) theory to the situation and propose alternative views related to classroom pedagogy.We employ the approach-avoidance conflict (AAC) theory to explain the discord instructors experience with generative AI in education. AAC occurs when two approximately equivalent conflicting motivations are present simultaneously (Walker et al., 2023; Barker et al., 2019; Ehrlich and Fasbender, 2017; Lewin, 1935). Appetitive stimuli are rewards or positive stimuli that intrinsically motivate an individual to approach, whereas aversive stimuli are unpleasant or negative stimuli that drive an individual towards avoidance (Weber et al., 2022). When appetitive stimuli are greater than aversive stimuli, the default response tendency is approach. However, when aversive stimuli are greater than appetitive stimuli, the default response tendency is avoidance. These conflicting characteristics or effects must be reconciled for the individual to decide to either avoid or approach the task or goal (Klackl et al., 2023).As generative AI is introduced into the classroom environment, instructors identify aversive stimuli regarding ways in which this technology could adversely impact their classroom. Therefore, they seek to avoid, ban and discourage the use of generative AI. However, through education, discussion and development, instructors determine appetitive stimuli, which motivate them to consider the use of AI in the classroom. Once these conflicting motivations are reconciled, instructors will decide the way in which they will approach generative AI in their classroom.We seek to provide insight into the common aversive misconceptions about generative AI in the classroom and provide alternative appetitive information. With this insight, instructors can make an informed decision about the way in which they would like to address this emerging technology in their classroom.Employing the AAC, we will present common aversive assumptions followed by alternative appetitive stimuli.First, faculty may view artificial intelligence as an unethical technology that represents yet another tool to assist with cheating (Van Slyke et al., 2023). Therefore, they believe that it should be banned in their classes. In response to this emerging technology, some universities, companies and even entire countries have banned ChatGPT (Van Slyke et al., 2023; Waxman, 2023). The tendency to initially desire to reject a new technology is discussed in the literature (Schwarz et al., 2014).Within the IT acceptance literature, over time, individuals overcome this initial resistance and move to accepting new technology. We propose a similar process with generative AI. We stress the importance of moving beyond an initial rejection stage to seek ways to incorporate this emerging technology into course material. We posit that business students should learn how to use this emerging technology in order to enhance their productivity. For example, prompt engineering is becoming an important skill to increase efficiency. Therefore, we propose that learning how to effectively use AI is an important skill that business students should be taught in order to effectively compete in the technology-forward business environment.Some instructors believe that we should ignore the existence of generative AI. If we don't discuss generative AI in our class, then students will not know about it. However, by not discussing this emerging technology, instructors fail to provide guidance on the way in which it should be used in their class. Students could overuse it (by using it to write their entire papers) or not acquire the skills necessary for their job in the future.Instructors should include a thorough statement in their syllabus about the extent to which generative AI should or should not be utilized in the class. This use may vary depending upon the discipline and assignment being assessed. By clarifying their policy, instructors will be able to address disciplinary issues with students who do not follow their policy. With this same thought in mind, students benefit from a policy in the course syllabus that sets the expectations for AI use. If there is no stated generative AI policy, then it will be more challenging to prove academic dishonesty (Carraher Wolverton et al., 2017) and will be more difficult for students to navigate the course.Next, faculty may assume that students understand the risks associated with relying on information from generative AI. Treating generative AI as a robust search engine, some faculty believe that their students will figure out how to use this innocuous technology without instruction.Although generative AI rapidly provides copious amounts of information, all of it may not be accurate. With hallucination rates for AI reaching approximately 29–33% of responses (Hua et al., 2023), students are at risk for relying on inaccurate information. Therefore, instructors should provide students studying business with an understanding of the danger of using generative AI in important situations. As many business students are unaware of how artificial intelligence is trained, we postulate that this material should become a part of the core knowledge of a business education.Moreover, as AI is trained on large amounts of extant data, racial, gender and ethnicity biases are present within generative AI (Kenthapadi et al., 2023; Baidoo-Anu and Ansah, 2023). We posit that without being made aware of these risks, students may inadvertently perpetuate the bias or incorrect information they receive from this emerging technology. Even more so with AI being embedded in common applications that students use outside the classroom.Finally, faculty may assume that students have utilized generative AI and know the appropriate ways to use generative AI. Faculty may assume that students understand the correct uses of generative AI in specific academic situations.In fact, many students have not tried this technology, with only 43% of college students reporting to have used AI tools like ChatGPT (Nietzel, 2023). Therefore, we propose that the initial step in teaching about artificial intelligence is to encourage students to gain experience with generative AI in the classroom before they test using it in a high-stakes professional setting. By explaining the risks of relying on information gained from this technology, instructors can educate students on the proper way to make use of this powerful technology. Furthermore, students will learn about this technology and the pros and cons of its use in today's society.Thus, with a general understanding of how AI is trained and the opportunities and hazards of using this technology tool, instructors should provide the students with guidelines for how to effectively employ this technology in a classroom setting. With the potential for hallucination, faculty should focus on teaching the students to utilize AI in low-risk, appropriate educational situations where they can potentially identify incorrect information gained from an AI before relying upon potentially false information (Weise and Metz, 2023). Higher-level thinking skills will need to be used in situations in which students are analyzing and predicting AIs' accuracy with responses generated.AI could be utilized in many of today's classrooms. With the abundance of options, the first step to implementing AI is to consider that AI is embedded in many technology tools that are already in use. For example, spelling and grammatical checking tools are a form of AI. The second step for instructors is to consider the content being taught to students. Depending on the content, the learning objectives and the scope and sequence of the lessons, assessments can be designed with AI in mind. For example, if the content is learning to code in a beginning programming course, the instructor would need to decide if AI use is allowed with each assignment and what specific AI tools that includes.When thinking about AI in the classroom, instructors should consider Bloom's Taxonomy and Depth of Knowledge. These considerations can help think about levels of knowledge and the assessment being designed. Asking a student to identify an incorrect algorithm is quite different than asking the student to write an algorithm that supports a real-world problem. AI assessments can support both types of learning goals.For instructors, using AI tools to create assessment rubrics, models, lesson plans, quizzes and discussion prompts can be a beneficial way to enhance instruction. However, it should be noted that with AI output, the product should be checked for accuracy. Instructors should also be aware of AI advancements that may need to be mastered to prepare students for the future. In the case that instructors do not want AI to be used, the instructors should be clear about expectations in an assignment-by-assignment discussion.By examining both aversive stimuli and appetitive stimuli, instructors can better reconcile conflicting motivations to decide whether they will approach or avoid generative AI in their classroom. By choosing to avoid this topic, will instructors leave their students with a gap of knowledge in the workplace? Alternatively, if instructors approach this topic, then will they replace other essential information from their curriculum?Another topic surrounding the flourishing of generative AI involves not only whether to teach the technology in the classroom but also the merits and implications of employing the technology to assist in teaching and engaging students. For example, generative AI can provide anytime explanations of course terms in addition to supplying examples, so the instructor can shift time towards other analytical concepts. In fact, over 30% of instructors have used chatbots to propose creative ideas for their class (Waxman, 2023). It is important to consider the future of jobs and daily life activities that will use generative AI and how we can prepare our students for this brave new world.