Like many instructors, I spent years using and teaching with the TI-83 and TI-84 Plus calculators. These devices were considered the standard in classrooms across the country. They were reliable, widely available, and supported by nearly every textbook publisher. For a long time, I had no reason to question whether they were still the best tools for the job.

That changed when my courses transitioned to fully online instruction, and I began using Honorlock to proctor my exams. The issue was not the calculator itself. The real issue was what was hidden from my view when students were using the calculator. During testing, students were often looking down, out of sight of the webcam for long periods of time. I could see their faces but not their hands or their work. From an academic integrity standpoint, this was a major problem. I had no clear way to verify what was happening just below the webcam frame.

As someone who takes academic honesty seriously, I knew I had to make a change. That change came in the form of StatCrunch.

At first, the move to StatCrunch was driven entirely by concerns about exam integrity. Because StatCrunch is accessed directly through the testing screen, students no longer had to look down or shift their focus off screen. It kept their attention on the test and within view of the webcam. This single adjustment immediately improved my ability to monitor exams and reduced the risk of students accessing unauthorized tools or materials.

An improved student experience

Exam security was a primary need. To my surprise, I found that students reported higher satisfaction with the platform. They liked that they did not have to memorize sequences of calculator key presses to run a basic statistical test. They appreciated the cleaner interface and the ability to work directly with real data sets. Many students, even those with prior experience using graphing calculators, found StatCrunch to be more intuitive and less intimidating.

Another unexpected benefit was that test completion times dropped significantly. Students were no longer slowed down by the mechanics of navigating multi-step commands on the calculator. They could get results quickly and focus more energy on interpreting those results correctly. That, in turn, allowed me to shift more of my instruction toward critical thinking. Instead of spending large portions of class time explaining how to find a confidence interval using a series of keystrokes, I could focus on what a confidence interval means, how to explain it in plain language, and how to make decisions based on the output.

It also allowed me to stop teaching students how to use a calculator that was never really designed for statistics in the first place. The TI-83 and TI-84 are graphing calculators with a few statistical functions layered on top. Some of the features I needed had to come in the form of downloaded programs, which was a logistical challenge in any classroom medium. StatCrunch, by contrast, was built from the ground up for data analysis.

This experience even prompted me to rethink my approach in other courses, such as College Algebra. Once I saw how much more efficient and transparent things became using modern tools like StatCrunch, I started reevaluating my use of the TI calculators more broadly. That led me to explore Desmos and other platforms that provide powerful visualizations and eliminate the need to teach around the limitations of outdated hardware. What began as a change for one course evolved into a shift in my overall philosophy of technology in math instruction.

Far-reaching benefits

In hindsight, I regret not making this switch sooner. What started as a fix for one problem ended up solving many others. It improved the integrity of my exams, boosted student engagement, reduced confusion, and created more space in my course for meaningful learning.

There will always be a place for the TI calculator in some classrooms, especially where testing environments and course goals are different. But for online instruction, especially when paired with remote proctoring, I have no hesitation in saying that StatCrunch has become the right tool for the job.

And I am not going back.

Embracing Change

The questions surrounding AI have drastically changed within the past year. Questions surrounding technology range from “what is this?” to “what are its limits?” In the dynamic landscape of higher education, AI has been a transformative force, reshaping the way faculty teach and students learn.

Earlier this year, Pearson conducted a survey focused on generative AI (GAI) and ChatGPT in higher education, to examine faculty sentiment. Recently, Pearson revisited that survey, releasing it a second time to evaluate how feelings toward, and actual usage of, GAI has evolved. In just 6 months, a shift has occurred. There has been a 14% decrease in the level of concern for ChatGPT, and now over half of the respondents have familiarity with ChatGPT and its applications within education. This shift in perception paints an inspiring picture of an educational community willing to discover the transformative potential of GAI.

The Influence in Higher Education

Many believe that AI holds the power to revolutionize education – the degree of change remains up for debate. Some instructors aren’t yet making changes to their courses. Others are discovering a powerful ally in GAI when it comes to tasks like grading homework and enhancing course materials. Integrating AI into their workload allows instructors to save time and refine their courses to focus on their students.

Enthusiasm or Concern?

In the initial release of our survey a significant portion of participating instructors had reservations about the potential benefits of generative AI - this “game-changing technology.” Many respondents struggled to envision how GAI could benefit them. When the question was revisited this fall, one instructor commented that ChatGPT gives their students a “running start on their writing” allowing them to start with a structured foundation rather than a blank page. They found that “students can produce better papers when they use ChatGPT productively.”

Results this fall indicated that the percentage of faculty who are “excited” or “enthusiastic” is almost equal to the number who responded as “concerned” - 28.6% and 26.7% respectively. Faculty are leaning into GAI as another tool for learning and developing new content. Conversely, some expressed concern surrounding cheating, academic dishonesty, and plagiarism detection. In fact, one instructor believes “students who wish to do minimal work now have an amazing new way to cheat, and they are definitely doing so!” To help combat these concerns, some faculty are having open conversations with their students, and instructors are adjusting their testing protocol.

“This is really going to make us think about authentic assessment, and what learning means. Students are going to need to be able to use the technology to create code, aggregate data. But how will they know what to ask and if the answer is reasonable,” a faculty member commented. Furthermore, someone else said that ChatGPT presents the opportunity for students to think more critically and to fact-check more often.

Charting a Course Forward

When first distributing the survey, a notable 40% of respondents initially believed ChatGPT would change the industry, and have an immense impact on them. However, upon revisiting this question in the more recent survey, only a modest 10% of respondents experienced a discernible influence from the GAI tool. It is not uncommon to harbor apprehension towards change; however, sometimes it is not as daunting as it seems.

Since individuals and organizations are working through how to use this technology at the same time it continues to develop, many instructors have had to (or plan to) adjust their course requirements. Some are increasing citation requirements or making assignments more interactive. This journey of transformation effects all disciplines. One writing composition instructor started using ChatGPT in their class earlier in the year, and now has integrated it into their lesson plans. They explain that their “students love learning what it does well and what it does poorly, and by exploring its capabilities, they learn a lot about writing expectations and standards.” Thus, by integrating ChatGPT into their lesson plan, this instructor is guiding students to think critically about GAI and its competencies. Another instructor uses it to demonstrate how to compose code in other languages and plans to continue to adapt their class as GAI grows.

Embracing these tools as part of a collaborative teaching effort is the path forward. As one instructor comments, “students are going to need to be able to use the technology to create code, aggregate data, but how will they know what to ask and if the answer is reasonable?” When using AI in a partnership alongside traditional teaching, the instructor can step in, judiciously apply these tools, and help students discern when to employ them versus where conventional methods are more appropriate.

A Vision for the Future

The shift to familiarity and adaptation of ChatGPT and other GAI brings a new era of higher education. Similar to other major societal shifts, higher ed faculty find themselves with the opportunity to help lead the charge in forging this new path for themselves and their students by creating guidelines, and understanding how best GAI can be used. Even if you’re still reticent to embrace it, consider a common sentiment from our survey respondents - GAI creates the opportunity for open dialogue with students.

Every college math instructor has been there. The students have been actively engaged in class. They’ve completed their homework (for the most part). The majority have even turned in the test review that you provided. Yay! Then you grade the tests. Questions were left blank, many scored shockingly low, and several students left sad notes in the margins. Some did well, but so many failed that the bell curve is upside-down! How is it they learned so little?!

Then, we dive into the ice cream to ease the pain (or maybe that’s just me).

Well, put the ice cream back in the freezer, my friends, because there is hope! A few tweaks to the way you design test exercises could potentially improve test scores and right that bell curve, not by lowering standards, but by more accurately assessing student knowledge by asking more focused test questions.

How many levels of cognition are you assessing?

One of the challenges that college math students face is that most math exercises require several levels of cognition and a variety of mastered objectives. Consider the exercise: “Solve 5𝑥(𝑥−2) = 3𝑥−2.”