Alan Turing, first wrote about the concept of machines that could learn in a paper published in 1950.  In his paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence, he discussed how to build an intelligent machine and then test its intelligence. In 1956, a proof of concept was presented thanks to funding by RAND, the Research and Development Corporation.  The Logic Theorist, by Allen Newell, Cliff Shaw, and Herbert Simon was presented at the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence (DSRPAI).  

Over the next two decades, AI continued to grow and was refined by the researchers.  The attendees at DSRPAI were avid supporters and worked with the Defence Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to fund AI research and several institutions.  Computers were extremely expensive and the patience of researchers and those who funded the research waned. The biggest limitation for AI was limited memory capacity of the current computers.  Even in the absence of government funding and public hype, AI research continued to grow and thrive.  Between 1990 and the early 2000s, the early goals of AI were realized.  In 1997, the grandmaster of chess, Gary Kasparov played a game of chess with the IBM creation, Deep Blue, a chess playing computer program.  Also in 1997, Microsoft introduced the speech recognition program Dragon.  

The limitation of computer storage has virtually been eliminated, allowing the rapid growth of AI in the public realm.  In today's world of big data it is virtually impossible for a human to process all the data that is available; however, with AI, this is not an issue.  When you call a company or use the chat feature, many times, your conversation is with the computer using AI.  

The future of AI here.  How we use AI is the big question.  There are so many questions that must be answered in the world of computers and ethics.

So, how are you using AI in your classrooms and in life?

Anyoha, R. (2017, Summer). History of AI. Science in the News:  Special Edition: Artificial Intelligence. ​https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/special-edition-artificial-intelligence/

Submitted by Anthony G. Shannon and Jacob G. Munday

Abstract
The Boyer model of scholarship is misunderstood at several levels. The categories can be distinguished, but not necessarily separated. This can result in non-traditional scholarly activity which is not always appreciated externally by granting bodies and regulatory authorities, and interiorly by CEOs and academics who do not see scholarly activity which informs teaching as essential, particularly when the nature of the research is non-routine, or the scope is industry-oriented: such as in business, management and accounting, or with fractional staff from accounting firms and banks.

​To read the complete paper, please download the file below

Submitted by Emeritus Professor A G (Tony) Shannon, CESA Academic Dean

Introduction
 
This document is a first attempt to try to help students in their initial research efforts, such as capstone projects. They frequently find the structure of such reports difficult and cannot interpret what it means to go more deeply into something that that they have already written.
 
Another motivation was that I have examined doctoral theses from three different universities in recent months, and the guidance is often quite vague; this can make the examination process unreliable. I have read dozens of such theses over many years and am aware of my likes and dislikes, but they may differ from the other examiners. The variability of marking schemes can contribute to the unreliability of the process especially when external examiners are engaged to safeguard standards of validity and levels of achievement.
 
Many of our members are research candidates for higher degrees and many are supervisors and advisors and external examiners for such degrees. The purpose of these guidelines is to attempt to improve the reliability of research degree examinations. It has been prompted from acting as external examiner for many different universities with seemingly quite different expectations for the HDR assessment processes. Thus, these suggestions are intended for discussion among candidates, supervisors and examiners.


To read the complete paper, please download the file below

Submitted by Peter Forster
Reproduced from CESA Report "73," Volume 1, Number 12, Pages 26 - 28

Introduction
The early records of the City of London reveal little about the “good men of the mistery of writers of court letter”.  These writers or scriveners (a form of spelling dating from Butler 1680) were professionals – bound by a code of ethics and of standards of performance, although they practised from “shoppes” in the City of London and elsewhere, “…I did resort ‘to a scriveners shoppe’ to have a letter written to my wife’s mother” (1602).

To read the full paper, download using the link below.

Submitted by Emeritus Professor Tony Shannon AM

Introduction
Capstone units seem to be increasing in popularity as a step from undergraduate study into the world of employment, particularly during the COVIC-19 remote teaching periods [8,9]. Their assessment with folio reports also seems to enrich the realism, especially in commercial subjects.

To read the full paper, click the download link below.
 

Everyone has a favorite teaching tip?  What is yours?

When I was teaching (I'm a full-time administrator now), I taught university seniors who would become business teachers the following semester.  My favorite tip was to model my classroom under the same guiding principles as they would be facing as teachers.  In other words, I didn't have assignment deadlines.  Instead, the students were assigned a mock teaching date near the end of the semerster/term.  They were required to provide me with all of their materials on the day that they taught.  This included:

• A detailed lesson plan
• A copy of their presentation materials
• An explanation of how they would be teaching the foundational vocabulary, the way they would teach the content knowledge, and the gaols for how the students would use the content knowledge
• A copy of all student handouts
• A copy of all assessments with an answer key and rubric
• A reflection of the planning process

We worked on these items for about 10 weeks and the students received feedback from me along the way, but nothing was "due" until the day that they taught.  This was the only way I could simulate the planning process for their own classroom of the future when they were in charge.  There would not be a professor telling them to have the lesson completed by a specific date.  

Tamra Connor
Professor, Business Education
Associate Dean for Accreditation and Operations
​Illinois State University