Charles Sturt University senior staff and researchers have given evidence at a parliamentary hearing of the Australian Parliament’s House Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training on Tuesday the 30 January, as part of the Committee’s inquiry on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the Australian education system.

The inquiry is timely not just because of the rapid emergence and evolution of generative AI but because it comes at a time when the Australian Government is exploring major policy and funding changes for the whole of the education system.

It has the potential to make recommendations to the government that could shape the way Australia’s education institutions adapt to other new technologies and the opportunities and risks they offer.

The University’s submission to the inquiry argues against the blanket ban introduced by or being considered at other universities (and in schools), in favour of a principles-based approach to the use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT.

Charles Sturt University Librarian and AI Strategy Development Adviser Mr Carlo Iacono said that the University is already exploring ways to make effective use of generative AI and similar tools.

“Charles Sturt University has been actively consulting with students, staff, and schools on generative artificial intelligence in teaching and research,” Mr Iacono said. “We want to make sure that our students and graduates have both the skills to use these tools, and the ability to judge when their use is appropriate.”

Mr Iacono said Charles Sturt’s stance on generative AI is that it is a new tool that could prove useful in education and research, though at present much of the potential of AI is unrealised and comes with some risks.

“A key concern, discussed at the Committee hearing, is that using AI tools could undermine effective learning,” Mr Iacono said.

“We want to be sure that students understand the content of courses and can apply it effectively. For example, we have already amended the University’s policies on student misconduct to make it clear that tools like generative AI can only be used for an assessment task if specifically permitted in instructions on the task.”

Charles Sturt has established staff and student consultative committees to support a better understanding of the issues and challenges around generative AI and similar tools, and to inform appropriate action by the University, as well as a working group to develop training for staff and students.

The University is also discussing the issues around generative AI with regional school principals as part of its regular consultations with them.

Discussions at the hearing also covered concerns about connectivity in regional, rural and remote areas and students’ access to new tools and technologies.

“It was reassuring to learn that the Committee is looking at these issues,” said Mr Iacono. “Any recommendations coming out of this inquiry can’t be based on the assumption that regional students, schools and universities have the same resources and capabilities as their counterparts in metropolitan areas.”

ENDS