Discouraging Over-use of Translators in Online World Language Classes, Part 2

The best way to learn to write well is to write and review the selected errors with an instructor for learning and practice. When I was teaching in-person, I would assign a composition in my French classes at the end of the unit to be done without any notes or references. I would then gather up the mistakes students made and we would commit to study them and learn to correct them. It is a great method to promote accurate and fluent writing in second language.

Teaching online, however, my work submissions from students in free-write compositions, even in one-on-one classes, were often AI-generated to such a high degree that the students really could not claim ownership. In one-on-one lessons, I did not always let on that I knew what they had done or sometimes I just made light of it. I could turn it into a useful exercise by asking the student to explain some tenses they used or some structures. But it is not the same. I felt like going into remote learning I had lost an important language training practice.

I have been enjoying success with a new kind of exercise for teaching composition. I will not claim to have invented it as surely someone, somewhere, has already done so. But I do say this method is not one I have seen or used before.

The student is presented with a series of prompts that constitute a composition in the target language of two to four paragraphs. The Innovation app presents them with one prompt at a time.

The prompt is a set of sentences that are in random order. One task for the student is to read these and arrange them in the best order. I design these using the unit theme vocabulary, so it is good practice in reading comprehension as well as in composing cohesive writing samples.

Often, especially for younger learners, I remove a word from each sentence and put it in a word bank. So now students have to not only rearrange the sentences, but they need to fill in the blanks based on context. Again, it’s a support for reading and composition.

Another strategy, especially for advanced learners, is to display the verbs as infinitives for the student to conjugate. In addition, I can remove the transitional phrases and ask students to supply them. Sometimes I include a prompt asking the student to add one sentences of their own, perhaps by providing an example of what it being discussed.

The prompts are displayed to students as images and not plain text, which creates an obstacle for those who would want to paste it into an AI to do the work for them. Displaying the prompt as an image file forces the student to write for themselves. An added benefit is that this promotes more lengthier writing for students who normally write way too briefly.

Innovation makes this easy! I select the “Single Short Answer task” from the Short Answer controls. I add each prompt with the answer key.

Then I add the screenshot of the prompt.

The short answer app at Innovation lets me place obstacles in the way of AI use and helps me generate practice exercises that help students develop their composition skills in the target language. Students have practice seeing and copying language in its standard and correct forms. They practice reading comprehension and the current theme vocabulary. They can rehearse transitional expressions and devising cohesive compositions. Prompting students to “Add one sentences of your own” prompts synthesis.

The tasks are easy and quick to score. From the course playlist, select Task, score One Student, and easily compare the student’s response to the answer key.

Although my preference is still for a free-write composition assignment, I can see many advantages to this one. I began developing this task with a mind to place obstacles in the way of student misuse of AI translators to do their work. I think I ended with an exercise that may arguably be actually better than free writing.

Discouraging Over-use of Translators in Online World Language Classes, Part 1

AI assistance and translators such as Deepl and Google Translate are very accurate and useful tools. When I assign my French students certain tasks, I expect they will use these tools to help them just as I would have expected students in-person thirty years ago to use a French-English dictionary to help with spelling and new words on certain tasks.

The problem is that the temptation to just have the AI generate the work is a strong one. It is important for remote instructors to place obstacles in the way of this practice, which not only undermines the student’s training but represents an ethical pitfall.

Imagine this scenario: an online AP Spanish class where major assessments are take-home tasks like essays and video-recordings of presentations. Using the traditional paradigm for this assignment, the student is given guidelines and due dates and a rubric with a graphic organizer. The instructor provides all that. Then the due date comes, all the work is in, and the instructor begins to review the work. What impressive vocabulary! What elegant grammar! And yet, reflecting on the spontaneous language generated by these same students in video-conference live sessions, it is hard to believe that this work could come from some of them.

All of my remote courses begin with a training film of sorts in which I explain the concept of academic integrity and ownership of one’s work submissions. I explain that it is expected that students will learn all of the new words they incorporate into their work submissions so as to maintain ownership of the task. I demonstrate using a translator properly and improperly.

A very useful strategy is one I have used since in-person days decades ago: simply ask the student the meanings of the words in their work that I suspect they do not know. In the remote learning context, this can be difficult to arrange, since there is no easy way to pull a student aside during class and conduct the interview about their work. That’s where Innovation comes in.

Sample student work that was too perfect for their demonstrated abilities.

It only takes a few minutes to select words and phrases from the student’s work submission that I believe they do not likely know. I select seven to ten words or phrases and I generate a short answer translation quiz using Innovation’s Quick Short Answer.

I enter a title, maybe set the category, and enter the words with English first, an equal sign, then the French.

Innovation’s app separates the word from its meaning by the equal signs. Once I have generated the quiz, I access the quiz Master app. I set the time limit to 1 minute for 7-10 words and I turn on the high security.

With the high security on, the assessment will submit and lock the student out if the student leaves the window to click on something else. Only the teacher can re-admit student to the quiz. The window resizes to full screen when the student starts the task and if they resize it smaller, the proctor records it. The proctor also records start time, how much time spent on the questions, whether text was pasted, and more.

As a final step, I lock the quiz up to only certain access codes. This allows control of how many times a student can restart the task. Simply select the Task dropdown from the playlist and then select Lock. Instructors can view the access codes from the Task dropdown or can generate one key by clicking the One Key button next to the title.

Sometimes, I will ask that the local facilitator proctor the student during the quiz so that they cannot look up the words on their own device.

So now what does one do with the results? When first introducing this strategy to students, I explain that it will not affect their grade “this time” and that it is a good reminder to make sure students have full “ownership” of their work. I may randomly select students for this verification, or if it’s a small class I may include it as a portion of their grade for a task and send one to everyone.

It’s not necessary for a student to get 100%. I usually take the quiz first to test it out; to see how many I can do in 1 minute. Even if they do not get 100%, I can learn a lot from their responses. For example, one student got 44% right of 8 and did so by skipping around. I interpret the skipped words as ones she forgot and intended to get back to later. Another student only got 33%. I interpret that as definitely being a sign that his work submission had too many looked-up words he did not know. I let him off with a warning this time and a reminder about academic integrity and ownership.

I once had the experience of taking over a class part way through the year. No structures had been in place to discourage inappropriate use of AI. The grades were all outrageously good. Some students were rarely in attendance and only handed in work that was graded. They did this work using AI, so it was no real effort. This really is a terribly corrupt system, especially given that there are students in nearby schools taking in-person classes who have to really do the work for their marks. There are honest students with good attendance who have lower grades for their honesty. It was an AP level course. Now, you might argue that the students would not possibly be ready for the AP exam if they took the course this way. One would think that would deter them from cheating. But upon reflection, it’s clear that having a 98 in an AP class on one’s transcript, even if one only scored 2 on the exam, could be valuable for college admissions considerations. So, no, it does not deter them.

Remote learning has enormous potential. I have great confidence in it. We instructors, we need to learn how to maintain the same standards as we had during in-person sessions. We cannot allow a situation to arise such that students in remote classes can just become pass-through vehicles for AI translators that do all their work. That situation would become a sort of scam. In part 2 of this topic, I will present a strategy for teaching composition in this new world of AI-assisted homework.