You don’t even need to search, just scroll down to the “references” section and read/cite them instead.
Comment on A generation taught not to think: AI in the classroom
otter@lemmy.ca 1 day agoI always saw the rules against Wikipedia to be around citations (and accuracy in the early years), rather than it harming learning. It’s not that different from other tertiary sources like textbooks or encyclopedias. It’s good for learning a topic and the interacting pieces, but you need to then search for primary/secondary sources relevant to the topic you are writing about.
Generative AI however
- is a text prediction engine that often generates made up info, and then students learn things wrong
- does the writing for the students, so they don’t actually have to read or understand anything
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 hours ago
undrwater@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
It’s great! I felt the “no Wikipedia” was short sighted (UNLESS one of the teaching goals was doing research in an actual library!).
Disillusionist@piefed.world 19 hours ago
I see these as problems too. If you (as a teacher) put an answer machine in the hands of a student, it essentially tells that student that they’re supposed to use it. You can go out of your way to emphasize that they are expected to use it the “right way” (since there aren’t consistent standards on how it should be used, that’s a strange thing to try to sell students on), but we’ve already seen that students (and adults) often choose to choose the quickest route to the goal, which tends to result in them letting the AI do the heavy lifting.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
Encyclopedias in general are not good sources. They’re too surface level. Wikipedia is a bad source because it’s an encyclopedia not because it’s crowd sourced.
undrwater@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Wikipedia is better than an encyclopedia, IMO, because the references are super easy to follow.