Great perspective! Reminds me of the pedagogy of the oppressed by Paulo Freire. He argued for a collaborative relationship rather than a top down one. We may end up there soon enough.
I agree with your analysis, and I do not see how we can sustain an educational system like that in the long run. A few students are calling it out already, and more will follow.
So what is the next level of education we need? I have tried to make education more relational, grounded in dialogue and reflection. I have removed books and replaced them with videos and AI tutors. I believe this is the right direction, but in my sixth-semester class, only half the students show up. Telling me I am not there yet - I have not created something that is meaningful and engaging enough for more students to show up.
My sense is that the existing educational system has taught them to learn superficially rather than engage with each other in meaningful learning. They struggle with focus, depth, and critical thinking. They seem to think that agreement is the goal of discussion, and they want me to teach them and give them the answer rather than wrestle with ideas themselves.
At the same time, they are deeply concerned that AI will take learning away from them, allowing them to bypass the process and go straight to the output.
I am trying to change that, and I hope we are right about AI. I hope we do not all become dependent on AI for thinking and problem-solving, and in the process lose the ability to think for ourselves. That is my hope, and that is why I continue to take part in this revolution in education.
Thank you for this. What you're describing -- students who ask for answers rather than engaging with uncertainty -- is exactly what decades of proxy-based education has produced. The habits run deep.
The attendance question is hard, but I wonder if it's partly the wrong metric. Relational education doesn't scale the way the old system did, and maybe it shouldn't. The students who show up may be the ones ready for what you're building.
I agree with your analysis that the problems AI uncovers are actually not new. I sometimes feel that we have been playing pretend for decades. I also agree that exams are a proxy but I wouldn't say that they "don't work". I would say they are problematic, but they are to a large extent our last resort. A "relationship in which the teacher’s genuine purpose is to understand what the student knows - and in which the student understands that purpose and participates in it honestly" that sounds wonderful, this can and does work in small classes or graduate work, but with 50+ students per lecturer it seems hopeless. Counterintuitively the AI era might require a more balanced teacher-to-student ratio. Anyway, thanks for your writing!
Great perspective! Reminds me of the pedagogy of the oppressed by Paulo Freire. He argued for a collaborative relationship rather than a top down one. We may end up there soon enough.
I agree with your analysis, and I do not see how we can sustain an educational system like that in the long run. A few students are calling it out already, and more will follow.
So what is the next level of education we need? I have tried to make education more relational, grounded in dialogue and reflection. I have removed books and replaced them with videos and AI tutors. I believe this is the right direction, but in my sixth-semester class, only half the students show up. Telling me I am not there yet - I have not created something that is meaningful and engaging enough for more students to show up.
My sense is that the existing educational system has taught them to learn superficially rather than engage with each other in meaningful learning. They struggle with focus, depth, and critical thinking. They seem to think that agreement is the goal of discussion, and they want me to teach them and give them the answer rather than wrestle with ideas themselves.
At the same time, they are deeply concerned that AI will take learning away from them, allowing them to bypass the process and go straight to the output.
I am trying to change that, and I hope we are right about AI. I hope we do not all become dependent on AI for thinking and problem-solving, and in the process lose the ability to think for ourselves. That is my hope, and that is why I continue to take part in this revolution in education.
Thank you for this. What you're describing -- students who ask for answers rather than engaging with uncertainty -- is exactly what decades of proxy-based education has produced. The habits run deep.
The attendance question is hard, but I wonder if it's partly the wrong metric. Relational education doesn't scale the way the old system did, and maybe it shouldn't. The students who show up may be the ones ready for what you're building.
Thank you, Jeppe.
Please keep doing what you’re doing — it’s a great source of inspiration to me.
It encourages me to keep experimenting and learning about how we can facilitate better learning for students with AI.
Thank you so much Flemming!
I agree with your analysis that the problems AI uncovers are actually not new. I sometimes feel that we have been playing pretend for decades. I also agree that exams are a proxy but I wouldn't say that they "don't work". I would say they are problematic, but they are to a large extent our last resort. A "relationship in which the teacher’s genuine purpose is to understand what the student knows - and in which the student understands that purpose and participates in it honestly" that sounds wonderful, this can and does work in small classes or graduate work, but with 50+ students per lecturer it seems hopeless. Counterintuitively the AI era might require a more balanced teacher-to-student ratio. Anyway, thanks for your writing!