Disrupted History

In a rapidly changing digital landscape, history’ teachers are challenged to guide students to transcend the mere performativity of “fact regurgitation”. Our students need to cultivate the critical thinking skills and digital literacy that are required of active citizens.

In 1984, educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom introduced us to the concept of the “2 sigma problem.” Bloom’s challenge for educators was based in his identification of the gap in learning outcomes between those students who were able to receive one-on-one tutoring and those who were taught through conventional classroom instruction. The problem of how this gap might be closed posed a challenge that haunted educators for decades – until now.

A recent plenary address at Edutech 2023, held on a noteworthy Thursday, August 24th, resonated deeply with the Disrupted History mission. Lee Hickin, Microsoft ANZ’s Chief Technology Officer, spoke of a future where educators might finally conquer Bloom’s 2 sigma problem with the aid of Generative AI chatbots. Hickin indicated that he was optimistic that the use of chatbots within teaching would soon present an opportunity to personalize learning experiences to the extent previously reserved for the one-on-one interactions so prized by Bloom.

Hickin anticipated that “soon” students would have an AI study buddy at their side supporting their learning…

Soon is now.

Two AI-powered chatbots are already in regular use within my history classroom. Alongside the increasingly omnipresent ChatGPT, two chatbots, HistoryBuddy and HistoryPeeps, are routine digital companions for my students. They serve as catalysts for historical learning and study guides on the side. AI is a tool that enables my students to more effectively “work like historians”… but these tools are new and unfamiliar to students. Students need to develop thinking routines to guide them in their use of AI.

The following routines are offered as simple starting points for younger students as they begin using AI as a study buddy.

Routine 1: Start Prompt Writing with “2 Eyes and a Beak”

It’s crucial that students possess the ability to craft effective prompts. Prompts are the keys that unlock the treasure trove of AI support. Teaching students about “2 Eyes and a Beak” offers a means by which younger students can begin drafting prompts. This routine develops prompts based upon students writing two “I-statements” and a well-directed verb (the “V”).

The first “I statement” students write into their prompt in this routine should refer to themselves as a learner – and establish themselves as the audience and learner for AI responses. For example:

I am an Australian high school student aged 14 who is studying History.

The second “I statement” should refer to the specific content that they hope the GAI will assist them with. The second “eye” clarifies and refines the objective of the AI so as to better allow for a targeted response.

I am trying to understand why studying History as a subject discipline is considered important by so many people.

The second “I statement” in the 2 Eyes and a Beak approach has a powerful benefit. It forces students to consider their purpose when they create prompts for their use of generative AI.

The “V” refers to the need to direct the GAI’s response with verbs. For example:

List, in bullet point form, five reasons why History is considered an important school subject discipline to study. 

Students’ consideration of the verbs that they wish to use in the prompt has been helpful in the teaching process. Students, when engaging with the 2 Eyes and a Beak method, have increasingly engaged in rich conversations about the meanings of cognitive verbs that often underpin a History syllabus and that guide assessment tasks.

Students who are making use of this routine are developing an increased awareness of the important differences between verbs such as: explain, define, discuss, outline, list, compare, synthesise, develop, argue, summarise and so on.

After establishing the routine of “2 Eyes and a Beak” (two “I-statements” and a well-directed verb (the “V”) students tend to adapt their prompts but maintain the practice of making multiple establishment statements prior to a directive. These statements are helpful in generating useful responses from the AI. After the two “I-statements” and a well-directed verb (the “V”) thinking routine is part of the way of working in students, they quickly adapt to writing prompts based upon a “2 plus V model”. For example:

Act as an historian who is expert in the philosophies of the classical world. You are to help me to understand the significance Rome in the development of Stoicism. Outline for me, in bullet point form, three ways in which stoicism in Rome differed from that of Ancient Greece.

As educators, we recognize, however, that the prompt is just the beginning. Teachers need to equip our students with the skills to challenge, question, and assess AI-generated information. This is where Routine 2: “Boss the Bot” and Routine 3: “Call out the BS” come into play.

Routine 2: “Boss the Bot”

Empowering students to see themselves as directors of AI interactions, we encourage them to “boss the bot.” This involves a dynamic dialogue where students scrutinize responses.

The conversational nature of GAI platforms can lead to a sense of students anthropomorphizing the experience of interacting with what are essentially inanimate creations – “machines” if you like. Through teaching students to “boss the bot“, students are taught to challenge perceived errors and shortcomings in the responses given by the Generative AI.

Through bossing the bot, students come to recognize that Generative AI affords them an opportunity to enter into a conversation with – and an interrogation of? – responses. For example, students may reply to a Generative AI response with:

Your third reason is inaccurate. Correct this.
or
Be more specific in your explanation of…
or
Tell me more about…
or
Your answer is unclear to me. Rephrase your answer as if I am a 10-year-old student.

Through “bossing the bot”, students learn that they have the agency to steer the chat of the chatbot into spaces that best serve their learning. Through “bossing the bot”, younger students and novice users of AI cease using this tool as a search engine and unleash further potential in AI to support their learning.

Routine 3: “Call out the BS”

Again, the significance of this “bossing” process lies not only in the acquisition of historical knowledge but also in nurturing critical thinking. Students need to be equipped with the skills to challenge, question, and assess all forms of information – not just that which is AI-generated. This is where “Boss the Bot” and “Call out the BS” work in tandem.

“Bossing the bot” involves a dynamic dialogue where students scrutinize responses and call out inaccuracies. The acronym “BS” takes on a profound meaning in this process, cautioning students to be alert to:

Botched Scholarship

Bot-Scrambled information

Bias-Stacked perspectives,

and

Baseless Scripting.

By cultivating the practice of “calling out the BS”, we’re fostering not only skills in AI literacy but also a sense of agency and student voice in the digital landscape.

Encourage Transparency, Collaboration, Record Keeping, and Factchecking

Transparency, accountability, and collaborative learning are values that we hold dear. Encouraging students to be open about their use of AI in the process of learning, to document their AI interactions and to fact-check their endeavors not only ensures authenticity but also nurtures a culture of trust.

It is important that students and teachers embrace th crucial role of lateral reading in fact-checking AI-generated content cannot be overlooked. Inspired by the Stanford Civic Online Reasoning Project, we equip students with the tools to cross-reference, scrutinize sources, and discern potential misinformation. These skills, interwoven with historical analysis, cultivate a generation of critical thinkers who can navigate the complexities of the digital era.

History has a well-established pedagogy that draws inspiration from the intellectual and scientific thinking of the late nineteenth century. This pedagogy was, however, at its inception considered innovative and progressive. At a time of classicist dominance, the study of history moved beyond the study of the classics. At a time when rote learning dominated schooling, the first expressions of historical pedagogy were developed by what would now be called pracademics. Historical pedagogy in schools emerged first among a small cohort of teachers who saw the needs of their times.

Their constructivist inquiry-based approaches drew inspiration from science. Its proponents were prepared to reimagine and challenge the orthodoxies of schooling at the time. While not without their flaws, these early pedagogues foresaw the role that history teachers could play in building the skills of future citizens. They saw the teaching of history as part of a quest for the betterment of democratic society. The study of history to these pioneers meant that students would “work like historians”. They encouraged critical thinking, an embrace of process, debate over ideas, and the development of empathy. They eager embraced innovative and evidence led approaches to teaching and learning.

Today’s, history teachers are called to explore a fusion of emergent digital technologies and pedagogical innovation which may enrich the way we teach and learn history. The path we tread upon is one of immense potential, where the teachings of the past seamlessly intersect with the technologies of tomorrow. As we traverse this landscape of history education enriched by AI-powered pedagogies, let us remember the strategic position that history holds within the curriculum. It’s not just about imparting historical facts; it’s about nurturing information and digital literacy, fostering critical thinking, and preparing students for a future where knowledge and technology intertwine seamlessly.