As a learning designer in a centralized teaching and learning unit, it’s my job to explore new technologies, particularly AI. But I’ll admit, I didn’t jump right in. As Generative AI (GenAI, a subset of AI that can produce content, ideas, and data by learning from existing data and patterns) has become prevalent, so have a wide range of concerns about its usage: authenticity, critical thinking, bias, representation, plagiarism, and sustainability, to name a few.
For a while, I felt paralyzed. How am I supposed to make decisions about this emerging technology that I don’t fully understand? But scholars like Maha Bali reminded me that we need to engage with AI in order to discuss its implications and influence its outcomes. As leaders, educators, users, and creators, we have choices. So, here’s how I have been thinking through when and how I’m going to use GenAI in a way that aligns with my values.
I value originality.
I create original work as a learning designer, as well as personally as a writer and artist, and I don’t want GenAI to train on my work. If I use GenAI, I will use a proprietary tool from my university (e.g., CoPilot), a tool with a paid subscription (like ChatGPT Plus), or another tool that won’t use my work.
I value transparency.
Working in digital learning, I am a partner on academic content. I respect my instructors’ hard-earned expertise and original work, and I won’t use their work with GenAI tools without their permission. In addition, if instructors’ content appears on platforms that use GenAI, I will inform them where and how it is used. As GenAI use increases in our course development processes, I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using specific tools, and we will work together to decide whether and how GenAI will be applied.
I value collaboration.
I work with amazing instructors to create online courses and other digital learning experiences. With a team of experts, I guide instructors through the process of brainstorming, outlining, and developing academic materials that we organize into a guided, accessible experience. My teammates and I bring a broad range of skills to this complex work, and we collaborate to create unique and valuable learning experiences. GenAI can help us with parts of this process, but I won’t use GenAI to replace our work with material that lacks the rich human experience and expertise that informs effective teaching and learning.
I value scholarship.
Higher education centers on the exchange, synthesis, and development of ideas. We build on others’ work while crediting them for their contributions. We do this to support our arguments, demonstrate our scholarship, and contribute to an ongoing conversation. While I can use GenAI for research, I can’t depend on it to accurately quote or cite others. Therefore, I won’t assume what GenAI writes or cites is accurate, and I will do my own research. In addition, if I use AI in my work (or in collaborative work), I will cite it.
I value sustainability.
Estimates vary on how much energy GenAI uses, and it depends on what you’re using it for. We do know that simple text queries don’t use as much energy as generating images or video requires. Is it worth using GenAI to create an image of your dog as an astronaut, or a dress composed of hundreds of kittens? As much as I love cute animals, I will minimize using GenAI to create images or videos, particularly for nonessential tasks. Additionally, I will weigh the impact of saving significant time and energy on essential tasks against the potential sustainability costs.
I value critical thinking.
I don’t want the easy answer. I want the complexities, the nuance, the human experience that makes an article or study or creative work unique. I won’t rely on GenAI to create something simplistic, biased, or inaccurate. If I use GenAI, I will use it to generate ideas, answer simple questions, or create an initial outline or template. From there, I will edit and rewrite what it provides, checking for bias, representation, and accuracy. Further, I will advise instructors on how to guide their learners in taking a similar approach.
I’m far from an expert in GenAI, and it’s a moving target. But deciding how I will engage with it has given me some peace of mind in a chaotic, ever-changing world. My best wishes on your own AI journey.
Heather Hans, MLIS is a senior learning designer at Duke University. She is energized by learner-centered design, good UX, and expanding access. She enjoys travel, wildlife gardening, and pie.
References
Bali, M. (2024, June 16). What Can We Refuse in AI? Reflecting Allowed. https://blog.mahabali.me/pedagogy/critical-pedagogy/what-can-we-refuse-in-ai/
Hillier, M. (2023, February 20). Why does ChatGPT generate fake references? TECHE. https://teche.mq.edu.au/2023/02/why-does-chatgpt-generate-fake-references/
Brown University Library. (2025, February 5). Generative Artificial Intelligence: Citation and Attribution with AI Tools. LibGuides at Brown University. https://libguides.brown.edu/c.php?g=1338928&p=9868287
Nicoletti, L., & Bass, D. (2023, June 9). Humans are biased. Generative AI is even worse. Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-generative-ai-bias/
Duke Learning Innovation & Lifetime Education. (2024, August 12). Generative AI and Teaching at Duke. Duke Learning Innovation & Lifetime Education. https://lile.duke.edu/ai-and-teaching-at-duke-2/
