Several teachers at Emanuel school have investigated the potential of receiving feedback on their teaching from AI this term (see below pdf for full instructions).
Teachers first checked with a class in advance if they were happy to have their voices recorded in the next lesson, in the knowledge that all names would be anonymised and that audio files would be deleted at the end of the process.
Teachers then used the “transcribe” function on Microsoft word from the start of the observed lesson to record the audio and then quickly turn this into text within the word document. The “with speakers and timestamps” option enables further information about who is speaking and how long for.
Having gone through the transcript to anonymise all names and having deleted the audio file, staff could then feed the transcript directly into ChatGPT along with the below prompt adapted to their context:
I want you to take on the role of an expert head of <subject> at a UK secondary school who has been teaching other people how to teach good lessons for a very long time. Pretend you are observing my lesson and are going to give me structured feedback with three points each on “what went well”, “even better if” and “Now do this”. I will shortly upload a transcript of a lesson I have just taught. It is worth noting there are several errors in the transcription so it may not all make sense. I am speaker 1. Every other speaker is a pupil, all of whose names have been abbreviated to their first letter. The lesson was for a <x> ability Y<x> group on <topic> as part of the <exam board> <subject> course. Ask me some clarification questions first and I'll then add the transcript.
ChatGPT then provided structured feedback, so that teachers could meaningfully reflect on their own practice. ChatGPT can also perform further analysis of the transcript, such as the take up time the teacher gives for each question, the amount of “teacher talk” in the lesson, and interesting statistics on what the teacher is saying (e.g. instruction vs questioning, positive vs negative language etc…)
This impartial, low stakes feedback from an AI allowed teachers to openly and honestly engage with their own practice and reflect on areas they might wish to improve on.
Key Learning
Staff feedback on this tool has been very positive, with comments such as:
"An easy-to-use tool that gave me real pause-for-thought on the pace of my lessons and how I use questioning.”
“I agreed with 90% of its feedback. I have been told some of these things before when I was observed by a human. I believe it’s a great thing to do once in a while to make us reflect on our own practice and pick up on a few points that we have not thought about.”
“The feedback was quite thorough and definitely useful (it picked out things like the use of everyday examples and targeted questions as WWWs and suggested more mini AfL of new key terminology as an EBI.) The process is really easy to take as a helpful insight to your teaching and feels removed from any judgment.”
However, several limitations have been noted including the limit on how much text can be input for free on ChatGPT, the fact that transcriptions generally contain many errors (particularly true for language teachers), and that the AI has no sense of the context of the lesson, cannot see the board or resources and cannot analyse the body language of the teacher and pupils. It was generally acknowledged that feedback provided by a human is far superior. Teachers should certainly take on AI feedback with a pinch of salt and consider the wider context of their lesson that the AI is unaware of. The AI should be considered an assistant in their own reflection, rather than a reliable evaluator.
Whilst AI should not replace human feedback, we certainly feel this tool can be a positive addition to a staff CPD programme. It is well documented that for teachers to improve their practice they need to meaningfully reflect on how they teach. The reality, however, is that reflecting on your lessons with no external opinions can be a time consuming and difficult process, where it is hard to objectively judge what you’re doing well and how to improve. Thus, having an easy-to-use option for feedback and reflection could prove an invaluable tool to teachers looking to improve their lessons.
Risks
- There are potential GDPR concerns with the recording of pupil’s voices and associating this with their names. Staff must ensure pupils have consented to the recording, that their names are anonymised when the transcript is uploaded to ChatGPT and that the audio file of the lesson is promptly deleted.
- Early career teachers or PGCE students may lack sufficient experience to meaningfully discern between what is helpful and relevant AI feedback and what isn’t.
- As AI will only be able to comprehend the words from the lesson, and none of the non-verbal communication, classroom interaction or general context, there is a risk its feedback will lack relevance or be oversimplified.
- Teachers should not become dependent on AI generated feedback or use it to replace their own reflection or human observation of lessons.
- As AI has not been specifically trained in giving educational feedback, the quality of feedback can be generic and potentially overly praising.
