On August 19, 2025, a full-capacity gathering of 200 U of A instructors, staff and students gathered for the Centre for Teaching and Learning's inaugural AI Day to explore the opportunities and challenges that generative AI is bringing to bear upon teaching and learning. Generative AI refers to tools like ChatGPT and Gemini that generate new content, such as text and images, in response to user requests.
The central question of the day — revisited through talks, demonstrations and panel conversations — was how the U of A, as a community of instructors and learners, should navigate this fast-evolving technology thoughtfully and ethically, in a manner that supports learning rather than undermining it.
Orest Zwozdesky, Métis Knowledge Keeper, opened the event with an important reminder that all technologies are human technologies and ought to be measured by whether or not they benefit human relationships. Katie Tamsett, vice president academic of the Students’ Union, underscored that students, alongside instructors, are experiencing the evolution of GenAI in real time — and the need for open, thoughtful conversations with instructors to make informed decisions on when to apply this technology in their learning.
The value of struggle
Keynote speaker Simon Bates, UBC’s vice-provost and associate vice president of Teaching and Learning, articulated a tension felt by many in the room. “I'm tremendously optimistic about the opportunities that AI offers,” he said. “But there are a number of things that I still worry about, and holding those two perspectives simultaneously is something that I've had to get more comfortable with.”
Bates underscored that struggle is a fundamental aspect of learning. He warned that GenAI’s frictionless convenience presents a seductive shortcut that “can be used to bypass the very skills — thinking, crafting, struggling, refining — that students come to a university to hone.” Without explicit guidance from instructors on how and why to use GenAI for assessed work, students may make easy choices rather than productive ones.
Bates empathized with instructor overwhelm regarding GenAI, given that it could be used to complete many familiar assessment methods such as research papers, take-home exams and discussion board posts. But Bates argued that the solution isn't as simple as forbidding students from using new tools to bypass old assessment methods. Citing Dawson, Corbin and Liu’s 2025 article “Talk is Cheap,” Bates advised, “these approaches say much but change little. They direct behaviour that they cannot monitor. They prohibit actions they can't detect."
Innovation showcase
Following the keynote, participants had the chance to see examples of GenAI in action at the U of A. In six breakout sessions, instructors from across campus shared hands-on and practical demonstrations of how they’re framing or applying GenAI in their teaching.
- Matt Knight from the 91ÒùĸÊÓƵ Business Family Institute demonstrated how he brings static case studies to life as dynamic, interactive simulations.
- Gordon Gow, interim director of Media and Technology Studies, showed how he partnered with GenAI to prototype and develop a physical board game for his course.
- Don Mason and Doris Abroampah demonstrated how GenAI can provide grammatical, vocabulary and content feedback to students in the English Language School.
- Ali Shiri, vice dean in the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, discussed how GenAI is reshaping research and writing and the risks and ethical concerns associated with this shift.
- Laura Velazquez and Jay Summach from the Centre for Teaching and Learning led a session on Gemini and Notebook LM, two of the Google GenAI tools that are available under the U of A license.
- Nancy Bray from English and Film Studies led a session on co-creating AI guidelines with students.
The AI inflection point
The day’s closing panel, “The AI Inflection Point,” explored issues ranging from academic integrity to the very nature of learning. Chaired by Ali Shiri, the panel brought together Geoffrey Rockwell (Philosophy and Digital Humanities), Carrie Demmans Epp (Computing Science) and Gillian Lemermeyer (Nursing).
Throughout, a recurring theme was the irreplaceable value of human relationships. Rockwell emphasized this in the context of assessment. “Fundamental to teaching and learning is a human-to-human relationship, and we need to maintain that,” he argued. “That's going to be one of the added values of a university: you can get someone who's on top of the research, who will read your assignment, take it seriously as another human, and respond to you.”
The panelists aligned in challenging the narrative that GenAI disposes students toward cheating. Demmans Epp, drawing on her experience as a computing science instructor — where generative coding tools have long existed — advocated for dialogue and trust. “If you have a conversation with the students, you develop a relationship with them; they're good.”
Lemermeyer argued that the focus on cheating obscures existing systemic pressures. “Digital and other technologies… reveal questions that were already there. Students aren't cheating because now we have GenAI. There were ways to cheat to get really good papers before, too… How do we contribute to that as a society, as a faculty? We do make it seem like high marks are not only the golden ticket to scholarships and grad school, but also your worth as a person. And that didn't start with ChatGPT.”
A complex journey ahead
AI Day was one stop in an ongoing journey. Across the university, faculties, departments and instructors will need to evaluate and re-evaluate the risks and opportunities of this evolving technology. The advent of low-cost, readily available GenAI is forcing us to examine the methods and aims of postsecondary education — but this examination, as uncomfortable as it may feel, might well be warranted. Together, the U of A is meeting this challenge with intellectual curiosity, a commitment to our students and a collaborative spirit.
