Tag: teaching

Teaching Tip: AI in the OM Classroom– Panic, Possibility, and Pedagogy

The gulf between those working to integrate AI into their teaching and those swearing off its use entirely is growing wider by the month. It’s not just about comfort with technology; it’s about pedagogical identity, ethics, trust, and the role of higher education in a rapidly changing world, reports Faculty Focus (Aug. 13, 2025). 

Some faculty are experimenting with AI-graded orals. Others are defaulting to analog tools like in-class handwritten exams. Still others are choosing not to address AI at all—perhaps hoping it will fade.

AI may or may not upend higher education, but in the meantime, it’s prompting urgent questions: What are we assessing? What do we value? How do we prepare students not just to perform, but to think, reflect, and adapt in a world where generative tools are the norm?

Faculty skepticism toward AI isn’t unfounded (data privacy, environmental electricity toll, murkiness of “scraped” datasets, student creativity loss, voice and bias, etc.). It’s easy to reduce the AI debate in education to one issue: cheating. And yes, generative AI makes it easier than ever to outsource writing, coding, or even lab reports.

But neither is pretending this technology doesn’t exist. AI isn’t just a technological shift; it’s a mirror reflecting what we value in education, labor, and society at large. In today’s classroom, silence or neutrality sends a message.

So the most important place to start is also the simplest: your syllabus. Be specific about when, how, and why students are or are not allowed to use generative tools. If AI is restricted for certain assignments, explain the rationale. If it’s allowed, clarify what constitutes appropriate use—and what crosses the line into misrepresentation. Our goal is to  model critical thinking. When we articulate our stance on AI, we teach students how to approach emerging technologies with intention rather than fear or opportunism. It’s a pedagogical opportunity. It invites students to see learning as more than task completion—and faculty as more than enforcers of boundaries.

Our students don’t need us to have all the answers. They need us to model how to live with the questions. They need to see that thoughtful, ethical, human learning is still possible, especially in a world full of algorithms.

Guest Post: Testing and Teaching at Stockton College

Today’s Guest Post comes from Prof. Bill Quain, at Stockton College, NJ. Bill has previously taught at Florida International U. and U. of Central Florida, and held endowed chairs at both.

Testing Is Teaching TooI

A few days ago, Jay and Barry’s OM Blog talked about the importance of testing in OM classes. I, also, have long been an advocate of using tests to teach.  Nothing focuses the mind more than when you are going to be asked to prove that you understood it.  But, I don’t usually give memorization tests.  In fact, most of my tests, even if they are forced choice (multiple choice) are open book exams.  I try to make them so thought-provoking that the students know in advance that they must know WHERE the content is located so that they can formulate answers.  However, my favorite type of test is problem solving.

 I do not take attendance in my classes.  To me, THAT is a waste of precious class time.  Almost all of my students know their own name, so what can be gained by calling them out?  Of course, it does help the professor learn the students’ names, and that is a good thing.

Instead of attendance-taking, I give a lot of quizzes, all unannounced.  The students are allowed to miss one or two.

Here is the main difference between my tests and those of other faculty members.  My students take each quiz and test as an individual, and then they take it in a group.  Each student’s grade is 80% from the individual score, and 20 % from the group’s score.  This process helps students learn, and it solves so many class problems.

For example, at the end of the group test, each student knows how they did, and they learned the right answers from their group.  In addition, if a group has a problem with a question, I just throw it out – not because it was too difficult, but because if a group cannot figure it out, it was a bad question. The students love this, and it cuts down so much on arguments.  My classes are happier, the students learn more, and I get better evaluations.  This is a trifecta of good news.