AI Conversations for Language Learning Digital Portfolios
Objectives
As part of the second-year course, Strategies for Autonomous Learning in French as a Second Language (FSL226), Professor Bello integrated opportunities for students to experiment with maintaining conversations with AI, mirroring real-life interactions, and to reflect on how these experiences compared to communicating with human beings. The goal was to foster creativity, digital literacy, and critical thinking about the strengths and limitations of AI in language learning. Students were asked to document their interactions (via screenshots or audio recordings) and include them in their portfolios, along with a personal reflection on the differences between conversing with an AI system and a person.
Process
- Choose to complete either a written or oral conversation with ChatGPT, Copilot, or another AI tool outside of class.
- For written activities, have a text-based conversation with the AI and save the conversation or take screenshots. For oral activities, record a 2–3 minute audio conversation using the AI’s voice feature.
- Upload your conversation evidence (screenshots or audio file) to your digital portfolio.
- Write a brief reflection comparing your experience communicating with the AI to communicating with a human. Consider aspects such as ease of conversation, naturalness, and any challenges or surprises.
- If you include this activity in your portfolio, discuss your observations in your end-of-term portfolio reflection, noting the strengths and weaknesses of using AI for language practice.
Future-Focused Skill Development
This assessment aligns well with the University of Calgary’s STRIVE model, particularly transparency, responsibility, and integrity. By requiring students to document their AI interactions and reflect on the differences between communicating with AI and humans, the assessment supports transparency; students develop clarity about how generative AI is used in language learning and are encouraged to openly discuss its role in their educational experience. The process also fosters responsibility, as students must be accountable for both the content and process of their conversations, recognizing when they are relying on AI and critically examining its contributions to their learning. Finally, by asking students to reflect on the strengths and limitations of AI, the assignment promotes integrity: learners are invited to engage in values-based discussions about appropriate and ethical use of AI, and to critique the accuracy and naturalness of AI-generated interactions. This holistic approach helps students build essential digital literacy and ethical reasoning skills, in line with the STRIVE model’s future-focused vision for assessment design.
Student Feedback
The following includes anonymized excerpts (translated by Professor Bello) from the reflections submitted in Assignment 2 (digital portfolios):
Comparing human and system oral interaction
Excerpt 1 – […] I spoke with more ease when speaking (with a friend) compared to when I spoke with ChatGPT. I think there are a number of reasons (for that). After the conversation with the ChatGPT, I practice more often with my francophone friends […] so I learned a lot of words.
Excerpt 2 – […] I asked it (ChatGPT) to include a subject adapted particularly for levels B1-B2 (CEFR model) so I could discuss it with more comfort and defend a variety of opinions. […] Before completing this activity, I thought generally that the subject (francophone countries) would be easy to discuss. However, at the start of the video, I felt anxious at the thought of communicating with a robot. As a result, I had some difficulty to find the correct words to express myself correctly. […] The next time I’ll try this activity, I wish to have a more collaborative conversation where I would ask ChatGPT to share its own opinions, facts, and other information to maintain a sense of elaboration and continuity in this exchange.
Comparing human and system written interaction
Excerpt 1 – I practiced writing emails and email responses by asking ChatGPT to respond as one of my colleagues. I chose this interactive written activity because it allowed me to integrate the written strategy on which I reflected during my first course written activity. First, I did preliminary research on how to structure an email written in French. […] Then, I sent it to ChatGPT, read what it wrote, and responded (repeating this process numerous times). […] (This process) enriched my vocabulary through reading (the exchange with ChatGPT).
Excerpt 2 – The first activity felt the most difficult because I was nervous to communicate with ChatGPT at the start, and I wanted to respond to the questions as quickly as possible. In terms of communicative methods, I saw the benefits for practicing my writing.
Activité(s) (optionnelle et encouragée pour le portfolio numérique) – section de la production écrite ET/OU de la production orale
Discussion à l’écrit avec ChatGPT ou Copilot
Je vous encourage à essayer d’avoir une conversation avec le système de ChatGPT OU votre compte de l’université qui vous donne accès à Microsoft Copilot. C’est une occasion de travail sur votre écriture et de trouver une manière créative de maintenir une conversation comme si vous parliez avec une personne.
N’oubliez pas de sauvegarder la conversation et/ou de préparer une capture d’écran que vous pourrez télécharger sur votre portfolio numérique.
Si vous décidez d’ajouter cet exercice à votre portfolio comme activité d’écriture, je vous invite à comparer les différences entre écrire à l’intelligence artificielle (IA) et écrire ou envoyer des SMS à une personne.
Discussion à l’oral avec ChatGPT ou un autre outil d’IA
Une autre possibilité est d’essayer de maintenir une conversation avec un outil d’IA tel que ChatGPT – https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-can-now-see-hear-and-speak
Vous pouvez faire un enregistrement de 2 à 3 minutes que vous pourrez télécharger sur votre portfolio numérique.
Si vous décidez d’ajouter cet exercice à votre portfolio comme activité orale, je vous invite à comparer les différences entre une discussion avec un programme vs une personne.