We're witnessing profound changes in how students think and learn, yet many of these transformations remain largely undiscussed in educational circles.
The framing of AI adoption in education as a "decision" we get to make reflects a common but flawed assumption about technological change.
The notion that we can orchestrate the integration of transformative technologies like AI into education overlooks historical precedent. Just as the Internet's adoption wasn't centrally "decided," AI's integration is already occurring organically across countless individual choices and actions. The transformation is emergent rather than decreed.
Students who mistake AI-generated answers for genuine expertise exemplify one end of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Their superficial interaction with AI creates an illusion of mastery without the deep understanding that comes from genuine engagement with the material.
Equally problematic is the opposite extreme: educators who, based on limited exposure to AI, make sweeping dismissals of its capabilities or educational value. This mirrors the same cognitive bias - making broad judgments from narrow experience.
Those who talk about simple prompts often miss out on the power of complex, many paragraphs long, incrementally improved mature prompts. These are the sparks to launch new insights and artistic expression.
Rather than positioning ourselves as gatekeepers of AI in education, we should focus on understanding and adapting to its evolution. Our role isn't to decide whether AI transforms education - it's to help shape how that transformation unfolds through countless small, daily choices in our classrooms and institutions.
The future of AI in education will be written not through grand pronouncements or policy decisions, but through the collective experiences, experiments, and adaptations of millions of educators and students. Our task is to engage thoughtfully with this metamorphosis, not to imagine we control it.
Thanks Jeppe. A very interesting post. Intellectual mirroring, illusion of expertise isolated learning practices are indeed significant issues. My hope is that problem solving, creativity and risk-taking will be enhanced by AI. The traditional hierarchies of education have been changing for some time now, and I agree we need to adapt our own teaching to encourage better cognitive behaviour.
I love how you pull together different strands in the AI in education discussions into an analysis that, to my mind, really raises the level of debate. I particularly like your concluding point about the need to look at how AI is intervening in the learning process at a fundamental level— this is something I’m really interested in.
The good news is that I’m finding many of my students (13-18 yr old) are actively resisting invitations to use AI. Many are as healthily sceptical as we are and as cautious as we are. The idea that “they will all” rush to cheat in assignments is simply not true. Gen Z and Alpha are not a homogenous block who “all” behave in the same way. As individuals, like older individuals, there is a wide range of responses. It’s about building a culture of academic integrity in the classroom and having enough depth in the human teacher-pupil relationships to counteract.
Guy, I think that's an important point in itself; any attempt to control or regulate the use of generative AI in higher education must account for the fact that this technology is being used in all other walks in life as well.
Had a conversation yesterday with my yr2 Law degree Gen Z daughter about exactly this. She is fully aware of the issue of losing depth & nuance. She is also fully aware of how massively workplaces, including law firms, have taken up the use of LLMs. This leaves students in the very grey area of trying to figure out how to balance the skills they need to write essays, to pass exams, and then to access workplace practices. Fortunately from what I have seen of Gen Z, not just as a parent but as a teacher, they are a very adaptable bunch. We have been handwringing about their screen use; but this may turn out to be exactly the kind of digital dexterity that they need for the new AI age.
The framing of AI adoption in education as a "decision" we get to make reflects a common but flawed assumption about technological change.
The notion that we can orchestrate the integration of transformative technologies like AI into education overlooks historical precedent. Just as the Internet's adoption wasn't centrally "decided," AI's integration is already occurring organically across countless individual choices and actions. The transformation is emergent rather than decreed.
Students who mistake AI-generated answers for genuine expertise exemplify one end of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Their superficial interaction with AI creates an illusion of mastery without the deep understanding that comes from genuine engagement with the material.
Equally problematic is the opposite extreme: educators who, based on limited exposure to AI, make sweeping dismissals of its capabilities or educational value. This mirrors the same cognitive bias - making broad judgments from narrow experience.
Those who talk about simple prompts often miss out on the power of complex, many paragraphs long, incrementally improved mature prompts. These are the sparks to launch new insights and artistic expression.
Rather than positioning ourselves as gatekeepers of AI in education, we should focus on understanding and adapting to its evolution. Our role isn't to decide whether AI transforms education - it's to help shape how that transformation unfolds through countless small, daily choices in our classrooms and institutions.
The future of AI in education will be written not through grand pronouncements or policy decisions, but through the collective experiences, experiments, and adaptations of millions of educators and students. Our task is to engage thoughtfully with this metamorphosis, not to imagine we control it.
Thanks Jeppe. A very interesting post. Intellectual mirroring, illusion of expertise isolated learning practices are indeed significant issues. My hope is that problem solving, creativity and risk-taking will be enhanced by AI. The traditional hierarchies of education have been changing for some time now, and I agree we need to adapt our own teaching to encourage better cognitive behaviour.
Thanks so much Adrian! I am glad you liked the post.
I love how you pull together different strands in the AI in education discussions into an analysis that, to my mind, really raises the level of debate. I particularly like your concluding point about the need to look at how AI is intervening in the learning process at a fundamental level— this is something I’m really interested in.
I am thrilled to hear you enjoyed this post, Danielle. Thank you so much for your kind words and for spreading the word! 💥
The good news is that I’m finding many of my students (13-18 yr old) are actively resisting invitations to use AI. Many are as healthily sceptical as we are and as cautious as we are. The idea that “they will all” rush to cheat in assignments is simply not true. Gen Z and Alpha are not a homogenous block who “all” behave in the same way. As individuals, like older individuals, there is a wide range of responses. It’s about building a culture of academic integrity in the classroom and having enough depth in the human teacher-pupil relationships to counteract.
How much of this follows from the way AI is being used in many classes vs students finding their way on their own.
Guy, I think that's an important point in itself; any attempt to control or regulate the use of generative AI in higher education must account for the fact that this technology is being used in all other walks in life as well.
Had a conversation yesterday with my yr2 Law degree Gen Z daughter about exactly this. She is fully aware of the issue of losing depth & nuance. She is also fully aware of how massively workplaces, including law firms, have taken up the use of LLMs. This leaves students in the very grey area of trying to figure out how to balance the skills they need to write essays, to pass exams, and then to access workplace practices. Fortunately from what I have seen of Gen Z, not just as a parent but as a teacher, they are a very adaptable bunch. We have been handwringing about their screen use; but this may turn out to be exactly the kind of digital dexterity that they need for the new AI age.
Well put, Madeleine. Thanks for sharing and for reading along!