The Role of Disruptive Technologies in Shaping Reflective Practice-Based Learning
Insights from AI and Ethical Considerations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54337/ecrpl25-10929Keywords:
Generative AI, Reflective practice-based learning, Exploration, Inquiry, Higher educationAbstract
The release of OpenAI's ChatGPT in 2022 marked a new era in AI-supported education, bringing to light both the potential benefits and challenges of using AI-driven tools like chatbots in learning environments. Concerns surrounding shallow learning and potential misuse of AI have made educators cautious about integrating such tools in their teaching. This article examines how AI, particularly in academic work, can foster deeper exploration and engagement, drawing on Hannah Arendt's theories on "the human condition" to frame these insights. Using a case study that includes screenshots and transcribed dialogues from students’ interactions with ChatGPT in written assignments, this study analyzes data from approximately 100 third-year students. In response to a rapidly evolving digital landscape, the study considers the role of disruptive technologies like AI in reflective practice-based learning (RPL) and the importance of technological literacy for both education and professional practice. By situating AI within Arendt's vita activa and vita contemplativa frameworks, we explore how AI can enhance exploration and thus support RPL. Further, the article addresses ethical concerns around AI, investigating the balance between enhancing academic integrity and fostering exploration in an AI-influenced environment. Ultimately, this study contributes to discussions about the future of RPL, considering the implications of AI and other emerging technologies for educational practices. The findings aim to inform the development of pedagogical frameworks that integrate technological literacy and reflective practices, providing a foundation for understanding the ethical and practical considerations essential for future research and implementation.
References
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, H. (1963). On revolution. Viking Press.
Arendt, H. (2005). Responsibility and judgment (J. Kohn, Ed.). Schocken Books.
Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.
Biesta, G. (2012). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the teacher. Phenomenology & Practice, 6(2), 35–49.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE Publications.
Brinkmann, S., & Tanggaard, L. (2010). Kvalitative metoder: En grundbog. Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Dau, S., & Nielsby, U. (2021). Professionel dømmekraft og refleksiv praksislæring. I L. H. Horn, P. M. Pedersen & M. Georgsen (Red.), Teori og praksis i professionsdidaktik: En bog om refleksiv praksislæring (s. 63–75). Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Khan, I. H., & Suman, R. (2022). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on education: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 61, 2842–2846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.516
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Horn, L. H., Pedersen, P. M., & Georgsen, M. (Red.). (2021). Teori og praksis i professionsdidaktik: En bog om refleksiv praksislæring. Aalborg Universitetsforlag
Jensen, C. G. (2021). Udforskning og læringsspil. I L. H. Horn, P. M. Pedersen & M. Georgsen (Red.), Teori og praksis i professionsdidaktik: En bog om refleksiv praksislæring (s. 217–230). Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchenhoff, H., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Milligan, L. (2014). Insider-outsider-inbetweener? Researcher positioning, participative methods and cross-cultural educational research. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2014.928510
Nielsen, K. A., & Nielsen, B. S. (2006). Action research and critical theory. In K. Aagaard Nielsen & L. Svensson (Eds.), Action and interactive research: Beyond practice and theory (pp. 63–82). Shaker Publishing.
Rosa, H. (2021). Resonance: A sociology of our relationship to the world (J. C. Wagner, Trans.). Polity Press. (Original work published 2016)
Sharma, K., & Yadav, D. (2022). Generative AI in education: A new era or the end of inquiry? Journal of Educa-tional Technology & Society, 25(3), 34–45.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Tlili, A., Huang, R., Chang, T.-W., Zhang, X., Burgos, D., Liu, D., ... & Jemni, M. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00235-9
Yarbrough, D. B., & Stern, B. S. (1981). Understanding research in education. University Press of America.
Upadhyaya, P., & Vrinda, V. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Ethical implications and challenges. AI & Society, 36(3), 651–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00999-4
