AI Scandal

In the era of AI, quality teaching will matter more than ever

License Creative Commons

David Cerdá

The uproar surrounding Artificial Intelligence is so vast that the first opportunists have already entered the fray: the days of traditional lecturers are numbered. However, the most captivating voices are not these; instead, it is those who purport to champion social justice while simultaneously endorsing the widespread use of AI in education, parroting the same old refrain: knowledge is no longer relevant.

The perieducational crowd (a term for those who hover around classrooms without actually stepping inside) is up in arms over the so-called Artificial Intelligence. These individuals have combined their limited understanding of genuine educational practice with an equally superficial grasp of technology. Or, if they are teachers themselves, they must suffer from a serious lack of self-esteem to believe that a bundle of flashy algorithms could displace them from the classroom. I, Robot: the latest technological uproar has erupted, completely disregarding the inherently interpersonal and social nature of learning. (Etymological note: “robot” has Slavic roots and means “servant”.)

AI is undoubtedly a revolution and, like all technological revolutions, its scale is smaller than its early advocates would have us believe; nevertheless, its impact on productivity, even at its current stage, is remarkable. One might think that it presents a golden opportunity to combat bureaucracy—an affliction that, while burdensome for businesses, is utterly debilitating for educators. And indeed, it could be, provided there were (ha, ha) political will. Yet instead of addressing this, instead of slaying the seven-headed bureaucratic monster, we have chosen the familiar path—attacking teachers, because we thrive on it.

Jordi Nieva Fenoll writes in elDiario.es that “the role of teachers will be reduced to content generation and the organisation of interactive, in-person activities to develop abstract reasoning, which, regrettably, remains all too rare”. Mr. Nieva is a professor, yet his statement places him squarely within the perieducational camp, especially when his article is accompanied by a photograph of a primary or secondary school classroom. But let us take a closer look at his argument. Content creation is already one of the least significant aspects of teaching, so God knows why it should suddenly become crucial in the future. As for organising “interactive, in-person activities to develop abstract reasoning” (I had to read that several times, and I do not usually struggle with comprehension), one would assume that everything done in a classroom is inherently interactive. And why, of all things, abstract reasoning?

Despite the misleading photographs and clickbait tactics of elDiario.es, Mr. Nieva seems to be referring to university lectures (or pseudo-lectures) that consist merely of information being dumped on passive attendees, who then transcribe it into notes. To no one’s surprise, this model of poor teaching was already outdated thirty years ago, and long before ChatGPT appeared, students could already download online notes whenever a lecturer attempted to subject them to such a waste of time. To put it simply, AI will certainly impact mediocre teachers, just as it will affect mediocre lawyers, journalists, and so forth. AI will erode mediocrity—at least in fields where incompetence cannot be hidden behind a façade of employment. However, what it will do for excellent teachers is make them even more indispensable, as they are the ones who prepare future professionals—the same as ever: those with profound knowledge, those whose careers are built on a solid intellectual foundation.

This brings us to the second aspect of the scandal: the self-proclaimed defenders of social justice who nevertheless support the widespread adoption of AI in education, advocating for an “inclusive school, focused on the being and well-being of the student”, for whom knowledge has ceased to be relevant (if, indeed, it ever was). Nothing could be further from the truth: if left unchecked, and if assessment criteria remain unaltered (with a reduction in take-home assignments and greater emphasis on exams), AI will only serve to exacerbate existing inequalities. The United States, a system where coursework is abundant and rigorous examinations are scarce, with 40% of students struggling with basic literacy, already offers a reflection of this technologically enhanced folly: universities are now admitting students who have remained untouched by the education system—one that has become little more than a cosmetic fix with a rubber-stamped certificate that leaves ignorance virtually intact. What the website rincondelvago.com once suggested, AI will complete: those who fail to develop a passion for learning and are deprived of the privilege of being challenged will ultimately come to nothing. In short, this technology enhances the capabilities of the capable while rendering the incapable even more so; it empowers the best while making the vulnerable even more vulnerable. It is an excellent assistant, but it deceives the student who simply delegates their work to the machine.

I trust that honest teachers will do what they have always done: demonstrate, through their actions and presence, that becoming competent, cultured, and intelligent is a strategy—both personal and professional—that never becomes obsolete. In the era of AI, quality teaching will matter more than ever.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons