As I type this, I'm on a plane to Costa Rica for a long weekend of birdwatching as a treat to myself for turning 50. I'm going to keep this edition of the newsletter short and sweet, but you should plan on some photos of colorful birds in next week's edition!

It's Publication Week!

My new book, The Norton Guide to AI-Aware Teaching, co-authored with Annette Vee and Marc Watkins, is now available as a paperback! I received my author copy last week, and I've already heard reports from colleagues that their pre-ordered copies have arrived. Head over to LinkedIn to see my reaction and my son's reaction to the book's arrival.

The book is available through major online retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble, and it should also be available from smaller online retailers if that's your preference. You can also order it directly from Norton. And if you're interested in using the book for a faculty reading group, let me know. I can hook you up with a bulk order discount from Norton.

AI-Aware Program-Level Learning Outcomes

If you’ve heard me give a presentation about AI-aware teaching lately, then you’ve probably heard me talk about the coordination problem I see in higher ed. It’s great for instructors to make informed, intentional choices about the role, if any, of AI in their courses, but students don’t take individual courses in isolation. They take multiple courses at a time and, importantly, courses over time as part of their majors and programs. At some point, departments and programs and schools are going to have to consider how to respond to the challenges and opportunities posed by generative AI at the curricular level.

In the latest episode of Intentional Teaching, I talk with one academic leader who is working on that coordination problem. Deborah Barnett is assistant dean for education at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, where she has been talking with her faculty colleagues, recent alumni, and employers of her school’s graduates about the ways that AI is changing the work of public health professionals. Deborah has distilled her findings in a draft document she’s titled “The Three Pillars of an AI-Competent Public Health Professional.” In the interview, Deborah shares about the need for schools of public health to respond to AI, the new AI competencies needed by those who work in public health, and the ways that her “Three Pillars” document can inform and shape curriculum revision in the near future.

Most of the examples of curricular responses to AI I've found lean toward school-wide red-light policies on AI, like UC Berkeley’s School of Law. They announced this summer a policy prohibiting the use of AI on any student work submitted for credit. While that’s a coherent policy, I find UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health approach much more interesting. It’s the only one I’ve seen that attempts to update program learning outcomes in response to AI. As Deborah noted in our conversation, her school hasn't implemented those new learning outcomes across their curriculum, which is an important caveat, but I’m very interested to learn how that plays out.

Thanks to Jenae Cohn, executive director of the Berkeley Center for Teaching and Learning, for connecting me with Deborah when I started asking around for examples of program-level responses to AI!

​You can listen to my conversation with Deborah Barnett here, or search "Intentional Teaching" in your podcast app.