AI in Schools: Tools to Support, Not Substitute, Great Teaching

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

While scrolling insta the other night, I came across the story of Derek Li, a Chinese entrepreneur who removed his sons from traditional schools and is experimenting with AI-led education (says a lot about my social media algorithm). These kinds of posts and inquiries make me angry (and fearful of Skynet). I immediately started thinking, “Can algorithms truly replace the human teacher? Can education become more efficient, or even more effective, by replacing teachers with algorithms?”

To be clear, there are many areas where AI can help make education more efficient (and maybe more effective): creating learning progressions based on the standards, lesson planning, scheduling, brainstorming ideas, communications, possibly even tracking student progress (without using student names or other identifying information). But the idea of replacing teachers with AI, indeed anxiety inducing, is misguided and oversimplified. Because, as most educators know, at the foundational level of all effective learning are relationships, connections, emotional and social development, and human judgment… all the things no algorithm can reliably replicate.

What AI Can Improve

When it comes to education, AI can play a strong supporting role in the following areas:

  • Lesson planning & content generation: AI can assist in structuring units, generating ideas, adapting content to different levels.
  • Administrative and scheduling tasks: Freeing teachers from logistical burdens so they can focus more on teaching.
  • Feedback loops and assessment data: AI tools can help identify gaps, track progress, offer drill-practice or adaptive learning. 
  • Curriculum Writing, Alignment, and Improvement: In recent workshops, I’ve seen presenters use AI to identify essential standards, generate learning progressions based on those standards, and then eventually develop guaranteed and viable curricula. 

These are valuable efficiencies. But, more than anything, they are support functions. In no way are they a substitute for what good teachers do or bring to the classroom on a daily basis. 

Why Teachers Matter

Replacing teachers and the human element of school with AI overlooks very important dimensions of good education:

  1. Social-emotional development & relationships
    • Before students can engage deeply with academic material, many other needs must be met (safety, connection, belonging, emotional regulation, etc.). Some call this “Maslow before Bloom,” or “relationships before rigor.”
    • Teachers see more than content delivery. They often recognize when a child is dealing with stress, trauma, anxiety, or other outside-school pressures. These sociocultural factors (family situation, socio-economic status, identity, culture) massively influence brain development and subsequent learning.
  2. Mentorship, modeling, moral/character development
    • Teachers are mentors, role models, means by which students learn not just facts, but how to think, to work with others, to manage failure, to persist.
    • Human presence allows for empathy, adapting to nonverbal signals, trust (features that algorithms will always struggle to replicate).
    • I’ve seen a similar model where the ed tech entrepreneur uses “guides” to help facilitate some of the “connection” within a normal classroom. I have lots of questions about this and would be interested in seeing the data on its effectiveness. 
  3. Collaborative learning, peer interaction, group dynamics
    • Lots of human learning happens in social, group settings. Students learn from one another; discussion, debate, and working in teams foster deeper understanding. If students are spending most of their time interacting with machines/screens, those peer and human interactions may be limited, reducing the benefit of collaborative learning.
    • John Hattie’s meta-analyses show that collaborative and cooperative learning have moderate effect sizes (collaborative learning = .40/cooperative learning = .55). VISIBLE LEARNING+2VISIBLE LEARNING+2
  4. Long-term, holistic outcomes
    • Many qualities we deem necessary for functioning as a citizen in society, including social responsibility, creativity, resilience, and kindness, are nurtured through human relationships, interactions, and shared experiences. Algorithms can’t do that. 
    • Also, there’s still limited evidence on long-term effects of full AI-led schooling: what about emotional well-being, social skills, creativity, ethics, fairness, bias, etc. — all areas where human teachers are crucial both for guidance and oversight.

Risks & Downsides of Too Much Technology and Overreliance on AI

Most parents can probably attest to ways technology has changed their child/children. To that point, new research shows some startling effects technology (and social media) can have on children: 

  • Mental health, attention, screen time, social comparison
    • In The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt argues that the rise of smartphones and social media and a lack of play and human interaction with others correlates with increases in anxiety, depression, self-harm among teens, especially since around 2010. He links these changes to what he calls the “phone-based childhood,” which displaces in-person interactions, free play, and unsupervised activity. Wikipedia+2New York University+2
    • Other risks include sleep loss (and its subsequent effects), attention fragmentation, addiction to the stimulus of screens, social comparison, and loneliness. Unplugged Canada+2New York University+2
  • Reduced opportunity for embodied, real-world learning
    • Learning that involves physical presence will always be hard to replicate with AI, including interacting with other students, hands-on work, field projects, and labs.
    • Play, social games, imaginative play, risky play, and collaborative projects are foundational, especially for younger children. 
    • Also, Hattie’s list considers “technology with high school students” to have a smaller effect size than human relational or instructional strategies. VISIBLE LEARNING+1
  • Bias, equity, fairness, cultural context
    • AI systems are designed by people and trained on data; they can and do embed biases. Currently, they’re not very good at picking up cultural or individual differences, or responding sensitively to them.
    • Also, would this reliance on AI/algorithms widen equity gaps because not all students have equal access to technology or robust internet/devices? 
  • Screen fatigue & disengagement
    • Students may be less motivated if too much is mediated by screens. Authentic human feedback, encouragement, peer interaction often drive motivation more than automated systems.

Conclusion

AI is powerful. It’s smart. And there are things it can do to make many parts of education more efficient. But efficiency alone is not enough. If we lose what makes education human, including relationships, empathy, belonging, and social learning, then we risk undermining learning, not enhancing it.

While we find ways to integrate AI into our daily practices, we must always remember that there’s no substitute for great, human, in-person teaching. Because in the end, good education is not just about what students learn, but also about who they become. Teachers, not algorithms, are the way we get there. 

Kids Don’t Need Facts. They Can Google That Stuff Later…

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

 

It was the year 2008. I got my first “smartphone” (a Samsung). I couldn’t believe I (and everyone else with a smartphone for that matter) had the internet (and social media) at my fingertips! What a momentous occasion! Around the same time, I also started substitute teaching. In 2007, I graduated from ISU with a degree in Communication. I didn’t like where I was working or what I was doing (a marketing job in the city). So, I started subbing to make extra money and ended up LOVING it. 

When I got my own classroom, technology and phones were even smarter (and more affordable)! My students started getting their own smartphones (most of the time, their phones were better and smarter than mine!). Educators began contemplating how to incorporate smartphones into the classroom/learning. In addition to the 1-1 initiatives some districts were implementing, educators embraced a more financially friendly trend: Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). If districts/schools allowed it, students used their own devices for learning and research purposes while in class.

This trend was the impetus for a new and popular idea for learning: “Kids don’t need to know facts/dates/names/etc. They can just google that stuff later.” For many educators, this idea just made sense. Some saw this as a way to maximize learning efficiency in their classrooms, “We don’t have to spend time on fluffy facts. We can focus on teaching skills. Then, kids can apply those skills in all content areas across the board.” However, this idea was NOT backed by research. But, like other popular education theories not backed by evidence or research, it felt good. It felt freeing. It felt logical. It felt like educators could leave out fluffy facts and focus on skills.   

Today, during my morning commute, I listened to a podcast on Natalie Wexler’s book, Beyond the Science of Reading. During the episode, Wexler obviously talked about the science of reading. But, she also talked about the science of learning and how writing connects to both the science of reading and the science of learning. She also talked about some common misconceptions regarding learning and what the evidence really says (I’ve added some for emphasis):

  • Kids don’t need facts because they have Google: Actually, kids desperately need facts and knowledge. The more factual information and prior knowledge students have stored in long-term memory, the more efficiently and effectively they can learn new things. 
  • Kids just need skills: Actually, 1.) skills aren’t always as easily transferable from one domain to another  2.) skills like critical thinking depend heavily on a person’s prior knowledge in a subject. Both ED Hirsch and Natalie Wexler talk about how critical thinking cannot be taught effectively without first ensuring that students possess sufficient background knowledge. 
  • Writing in for reading and for learning: When it comes to reading, I always say, “If students are reading about it, they should be writing about it.” When it comes to learning and cognition, when we write, we are actively retrieving information we have stored in long-term memory and then putting it into our own words. Super powerful stuff! 
  • Equity: Most educators know that students from disadvantaged backgrounds come to us with far less experiences and knowledge than their peers in wealthier settings. In fact, research suggests that students from low-income families hear approximately 4 to 30 million fewer words than their peers from higher-income families. Same applies to facts and other knowledge. Leveling the playing field requires that families and schools create environments that promote meaningful conversations and language interactions with young children. 
  • Technology in learning: Technology is a POWERFUL tool (AI is evolving and changing the way we do things every single day. I used AI to generate the image for this blog). Students should use technology in school. But, as educators, we have to help them use it the right way. Students MUST engage in the arduous writing process in order to reap the learning benefits associated with writing. 

Any other common learning misconceptions come to mind? Let me now! 

Celebrities And Their Social Media Blunders: What Are We Teaching Our Young Ones?

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Roseanne Barr, Samantha Bee, Lena Dunham, Kathy Griffin, Azealia Banks, Josh Rivers (I’m sure there are more). All these people have one interesting thing in common: they’ve recently used a social media platform to discuss/gripe/complain/assert/share questionable (or flat out disparaging/racist/rude/sexist/etc.) information to copious amounts of people. Consequently, as a result of their online behavior, many of them have issued public apologies, retracted some of their statements, and/or are seeking redemption.

Sure, we see these people in positions of power (it’s not just celebrities) also receiving consequences for their actions. This may demonstrate for children that there are consequences associated with our behaviors. However, the consequences are very reactionary. For the victims, the damage has already been done. Point being, these people in power, with huge social media followings, should never be saying or doing these things to begin with. Our children are witnessing these people in power display this kind of behavior regularly. They see it on TV, they hear it on the radio, they see it on various forms of social media or on the internet, they hear about it from their peers/parents, etc.

As educators, I see it as our responsibility to combat these negative influences and take a more proactive approach to this issue. I’m no expert in digital citizenship. But, based on my limited understanding of the concept, it sounds like it should be an essential part of the curriculum as we continue growing and developing in the digital age. I mean, just based on some of the digital citizenship elements, descriptions, and goals, it’s quite apparent that schools should emphasize:

  • Digital communication – helping students understand the plethora of communication mediums and the standards and responsibilities associated with each medium.
  • Digital etiquette – helping students grasp the notion that various mediums require standards of etiquette. The etiquette of these mediums includes appropriate behavior and language.
  • Digital rights and responsibilities – helping students understand that, yes, they have access to platforms that have the potential to reach thousands of people online. But, with this power comes immense responsibility. Children need to demonstrate responsibility when engaging in online communities.
  • Digital footprint – helping students understand that information exists about them on the internet as a result of their online activity.

Overall, we need to inculcate our children with the necessary knowledge and skills to successfully navigate the precarious terrain that is the online world. They must be able to demonstrate responsibility, empathy, restraint, good decision-making, caution, control, and respect (just to name a few).  I see digital citizenship curricula as a way to help us accomplish that goal.  In a time when narrowing the curriculum is so pervasive, this may sound like I’m asking a lot.  Yet, I truly believe we must educate our children so that they can survive and thrive in the digital world.

Like/Comment/Share! What are your thoughts on the recent celebrity/people in positions of power social media blunders? What should we do about it to help our students? Does your school have digital citizenship curriculum?  If so, how is it structured?  When do you fit it in?  Let me know!

Technology Restriction and Confiscation: There Are Better Strategies for Teaching About Being Safe in a Connected World

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Last year, I attended a Protecting God’s Children workshop at a Catholic parish up north. These workshops are required if you plan to work with children in any capacity through the church or in parish schools. A group of approximately 20 people were in attendance that evening. The age range in this group was quite large. We had some teenagers, middle-aged people, and some elderly folks.

Obviously, we talked about the importance of maintaining appropriate relationships with all children. We watched videos and read articles about the safety of children within our care. We discussed various scenarios and were quizzed on making appropriate choices while interacting with children. Pretty standard stuff for anyone interested in getting into education or working with children (public or private).

Interestingly, when we started talking about inappropriate online relationships and social media, an intriguing conversation commenced over appropriate technology usage. A woman in the group started saying that her own children wouldn’t experience these types of problems because she restricts their usage by confiscating their technology before they go to bed at night. In addition, she had their passwords to all their devices and their accounts (which she checked regularly). What is more, as a punishment, she would also take away their phones if they ever misbehaved. One or two other parents chimed in and stated they followed a similar protocol in their homes.

I tried to remain cool, calm, and collected. I tried to refrain from entering the conversation. I tried focusing on other things (like the new Star Wars movie that would soon be in theaters). But, if you know me, you know I have a really hard time with this. Thus, I engaged.

I started with an easy question. “Excuse me… do your children have any social media accounts?” Of course, they responded, “Absolutely not!” (that they know of, LOL). I figured this would be their response. I then decided to ask some leading questions that would surely help. “Do you have video game systems or a SMART TV in your home?” They all said yes. I stated that, if so inclined, one could use either a video game system or a SMART TV to surf the web. They responded that the TV was password protected and that, like phones and tablets, video games were confiscated at a certain time. “What if your child has a project to do that requires him/her to use technology past the technology curfew?” They responded that they would supervise their children as they completed online work. I saw where this was going. But, I thought I would try one more inquiry. “What about when your child goes on a sleep over to a friend’s house?” They stated that they knew the parents of every single friend their kids had, and that they trusted those parents.

I thought with my leading questions, these parents would soon see that they would not only become exhausted in their efforts to monitor their child’s online usage/presence, it would be almost impossible to fully monitor ABSOLUTELY everything. I thought they would see that if a child really wanted to, he/she would find a way online (where there’s a will, there’s a way). I was wrong. They continued to wholeheartedly believe that technology restriction and confiscation would keep their children safe from the dangers of the online world.

I’m not saying don’t set boundaries with children when it comes to technology. However, I’m proposing that rather than trying to hide children from the realities of the online world, we focus on teaching our children how to safely and successfully navigate those precarious situations. Just a few tips:

  • Keep yourself and your children informed about the internet and its rapid changes.
  • Teach kids about the different types of online dangers that exist and what to do if they come across any of them.
  • Teach kids how to keep personal information safe and private.
  • Teach kids about passwords.
  • Encourage your child to come to you if he/she encounters a problem.

Like/Comment/Share!