This is an interesting review for a couple of reasons. The overall score for this AI video creation tool was 52% and Tony Bates comments, "If I was basing the score solely on my views of good higher education teaching, it would be a clear fail." But why? There's a clear division in the grading: on ease of use, target group, and comprehensiveness the grades are fine. In learning outcomes we see a divide: no problem with 'students will learn' but one on 'assessment' and zero on 'critical thinking'. These are weaknesses of videos generally, though. But the tide has turned; Bates gives 4/20 for ethics, transparency and overall satisfaction (I don't know how you can say "I don't see any issues here" on ethics and then give it 3/5, almost a fail. Or 0/5 on transparency when you can actually see the content slides and edit them before it makes the video. Bates writes of the AI tools, "they are merely replicating the worst aspects of teaching in higher education. There is no attempt to encourage critical thinking, alternative explanations, innovative thinking, either on the part of learners or instructors themselves." But is it fair to assess a 'short instructional video' against these criteria? Not everything does all things, nor should they. The assessment rubrics are overgeneralized here, and should be adapted for the specific intent of the tool. See also: Pedagogical Biases in AI-Powered Educational Tools: The Case of Lesson Plan Generators.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
