I agree that the discussion about AI and education needs to move towards a more detailed examination of this relationship. I suggest we stop thinking of it as one discussion when it is two related but separate discussions. The first is about AI in the workplace - how school employees use AI to support their work and workload. The second is about AI and student learning. We also need to be far more accurate in the terminology we use - in nearly every conversation I have people use AI when they are really talking about LLMs. AI in other forms is surfacing in schools. however, LLMs are the most prevalent tools used in my school today. It does a disservice to the debate if we are not precise.
At the same time as this popped into my inbox a parallel blog post from Daisy Christodoulou landed. Daisy included linked slides to two presentations she gave recently. In those slides, she advised that when looking at the impact of AI in any process we should start by going back to examine the process itself, its purpose and how AI enhances that process. That is something that resonates with me as a rule of thumb.
So let's take the second table in this post as an example. I checked and couldn't find the table in any of the referenced articles so I am guessing it is created to illustrate the potential of aligning a model/theory of learning with potential AI benefits. It made me reflect on a conversation that I have been engaged in with faculty ad-hoc. Most schools have some form of a set of principles about teaching but very few have a school-accepted model of learning. It seems to me that developing such a model is going to be foundational sooner or later. Only once you have that in place can you examine how AI enhances or disrupts learning in your context. That seems to be the nuance that is needed. I wish I could say I find the second table a convincing example but for me, it falls short. For example, the four pillars of learning make sense but where is memory? Or thinking?
Perhaps I am being very picky at a time when we are still figuring out the foundations. Perhaps I am wrong - actually, it is highly possible I am wrong in some or all aspects, as I am just a layman in the area. That's why we need to dig into this and actually do the work required.
I agree that the discussion about AI and education needs to move towards a more detailed examination of this relationship. I suggest we stop thinking of it as one discussion when it is two related but separate discussions. The first is about AI in the workplace - how school employees use AI to support their work and workload. The second is about AI and student learning. We also need to be far more accurate in the terminology we use - in nearly every conversation I have people use AI when they are really talking about LLMs. AI in other forms is surfacing in schools. however, LLMs are the most prevalent tools used in my school today. It does a disservice to the debate if we are not precise.
At the same time as this popped into my inbox a parallel blog post from Daisy Christodoulou landed. Daisy included linked slides to two presentations she gave recently. In those slides, she advised that when looking at the impact of AI in any process we should start by going back to examine the process itself, its purpose and how AI enhances that process. That is something that resonates with me as a rule of thumb.
So let's take the second table in this post as an example. I checked and couldn't find the table in any of the referenced articles so I am guessing it is created to illustrate the potential of aligning a model/theory of learning with potential AI benefits. It made me reflect on a conversation that I have been engaged in with faculty ad-hoc. Most schools have some form of a set of principles about teaching but very few have a school-accepted model of learning. It seems to me that developing such a model is going to be foundational sooner or later. Only once you have that in place can you examine how AI enhances or disrupts learning in your context. That seems to be the nuance that is needed. I wish I could say I find the second table a convincing example but for me, it falls short. For example, the four pillars of learning make sense but where is memory? Or thinking?
Perhaps I am being very picky at a time when we are still figuring out the foundations. Perhaps I am wrong - actually, it is highly possible I am wrong in some or all aspects, as I am just a layman in the area. That's why we need to dig into this and actually do the work required.