Which version of AI literacy are your students engaging with in your class? How does your approach complement or conflict with other teachers in your building? Why does this matter?
But who is actually teaching the core student AI literacy skills? Or are students being asked to do that work for themselves inside a regulation-first integration framework?
You have to start somewhere. Letting another year pass without student facing AI literacy is absurd at this point, and dangerous as many of the student misuse cases are indicating. Teachers need thoughtful case uses inside disciplines to integrate into their curriculum—at least as a possible point of complication. Many districts are asking for this assistant right now. And teachers don’t have time to build it themselves. The naysayers will continue to resist, but in my training work, that subset is gradually shrinking. It is time to start building and leading. I get that your school still has a lot of resisters. But times are changing elsewhere.
I think besides the 'how to use AI' and for 'what purposes', if every teacher recognizes the varied approach and could explain to students the 'why' of their choices, it could help students understand how AI integration is a thoughtful process focused on the learning that the teachers would like to see for the students in their own classes. That might mitigate the confusion that might arise for students.
This phenomenon is a critical problem. I'm stuck on a couple of things. First, while I understand the appeal of not "eliminating these 3 pathways," the reality is that different teacher approaches within grade levels and disciplines means there will continue to be a patchwork of strategies, regardless of how well co-ordinated a school becomes. Must all 7th grade teachers select one AI approach? Or every member of the science department? It seems like schools will need to pick a lane and attempt to coax all their teachers to at least acknowledge and accept it. A teacher who continues to "opt out" of AI may no longer be able to teach in a school that adopts a more progressive and forward thinking strategy. Which brings me to my second point - AI strikes me as significantly different than WAC. I don't know enough about it's history, but was it as polarizing and divisive as AI? I would think even teachers in non-English classes recognized the importance of a uniform approach to writing in their classes, no? Here, we still have significant numbers of educators not just refusing to engage with AI, but actively demonizing the technology and actively trying to keep it out of classrooms altogether. That is a major hurdle and added layer of difficulty - combine that with the compressed timeline and I'm losing my optimism that this problem can be solved in a way that benefits students.
I feel for educators who bring excitement, wonder, care, and really hard work into their classrooms, but who get conflicting messages about what's appropriate or academically honest regarding AI use. Although it's a little early to know exactly what we're losing with widespread AI use after 2 years, I'll take a guess and say that 21st Century learning skills (the 4 Cs) are most in danger. Perhaps the pathway discussion is best addressed in the larger state/provincial or national associations, rather than say, by each school's English department. I know that I tend to follow and read those who hold views most like mine, which says that I shouldn't be the only one making decisions for other educators - nor should my voice necessarily carry more weight. Because my view only seems balanced TO ME! Thanks for constantly wrestling with these topics, Nick!
There’s more pathways: the graduate student handbook AI prohibitions contradict the meta-message of the undergraduate AI literacy course, the university partnership with tech (provide MyU-GPT to all students!) conflicts with academic freedom and syllabus-by-syllabus AI statements of individual faculty, some faculty use AI for course design and grading, some institutions have a “safe sandbox” for AI but some have nothing, the state legislature passes bills requiring the state department of education to mandate AI policies and a plan for AI literacy for all schools, presidential executive orders may apply, and YouTube videos narrate writing someone else’s thesis in 30 minutes. Meanwhile Harvard and U Mich disallow AI use in applying to graduate school but some law schools require a Gen AI essay, most schools and graduate programs are silent on “AI-to-apply,” but at least one medical school uses AI to determine which applicants to interview. It’s chaos.
“In one class, AI assistance signals academic dishonesty. In another, it's a required research tool.” Are not both true, in different contexts? Pupils do need to understand when to use or refute its use, and the differing subject-specific approaches are perhaps helping to teach that, as are the different pathways. “Writing” is used for a plethora of purposes with, granted, baseline commonalites such as the use of disciplinary vocabulary, correct grammar etc.
There is no “one approach” to writing. I don’t want a student to write literary critique in the same form, structure, tone, style, voice or register as a science experiment write-up, for example.
But who is actually teaching the core student AI literacy skills? Or are students being asked to do that work for themselves inside a regulation-first integration framework?
You have to start somewhere. Letting another year pass without student facing AI literacy is absurd at this point, and dangerous as many of the student misuse cases are indicating. Teachers need thoughtful case uses inside disciplines to integrate into their curriculum—at least as a possible point of complication. Many districts are asking for this assistant right now. And teachers don’t have time to build it themselves. The naysayers will continue to resist, but in my training work, that subset is gradually shrinking. It is time to start building and leading. I get that your school still has a lot of resisters. But times are changing elsewhere.
I think besides the 'how to use AI' and for 'what purposes', if every teacher recognizes the varied approach and could explain to students the 'why' of their choices, it could help students understand how AI integration is a thoughtful process focused on the learning that the teachers would like to see for the students in their own classes. That might mitigate the confusion that might arise for students.
This phenomenon is a critical problem. I'm stuck on a couple of things. First, while I understand the appeal of not "eliminating these 3 pathways," the reality is that different teacher approaches within grade levels and disciplines means there will continue to be a patchwork of strategies, regardless of how well co-ordinated a school becomes. Must all 7th grade teachers select one AI approach? Or every member of the science department? It seems like schools will need to pick a lane and attempt to coax all their teachers to at least acknowledge and accept it. A teacher who continues to "opt out" of AI may no longer be able to teach in a school that adopts a more progressive and forward thinking strategy. Which brings me to my second point - AI strikes me as significantly different than WAC. I don't know enough about it's history, but was it as polarizing and divisive as AI? I would think even teachers in non-English classes recognized the importance of a uniform approach to writing in their classes, no? Here, we still have significant numbers of educators not just refusing to engage with AI, but actively demonizing the technology and actively trying to keep it out of classrooms altogether. That is a major hurdle and added layer of difficulty - combine that with the compressed timeline and I'm losing my optimism that this problem can be solved in a way that benefits students.
I feel for educators who bring excitement, wonder, care, and really hard work into their classrooms, but who get conflicting messages about what's appropriate or academically honest regarding AI use. Although it's a little early to know exactly what we're losing with widespread AI use after 2 years, I'll take a guess and say that 21st Century learning skills (the 4 Cs) are most in danger. Perhaps the pathway discussion is best addressed in the larger state/provincial or national associations, rather than say, by each school's English department. I know that I tend to follow and read those who hold views most like mine, which says that I shouldn't be the only one making decisions for other educators - nor should my voice necessarily carry more weight. Because my view only seems balanced TO ME! Thanks for constantly wrestling with these topics, Nick!
There’s more pathways: the graduate student handbook AI prohibitions contradict the meta-message of the undergraduate AI literacy course, the university partnership with tech (provide MyU-GPT to all students!) conflicts with academic freedom and syllabus-by-syllabus AI statements of individual faculty, some faculty use AI for course design and grading, some institutions have a “safe sandbox” for AI but some have nothing, the state legislature passes bills requiring the state department of education to mandate AI policies and a plan for AI literacy for all schools, presidential executive orders may apply, and YouTube videos narrate writing someone else’s thesis in 30 minutes. Meanwhile Harvard and U Mich disallow AI use in applying to graduate school but some law schools require a Gen AI essay, most schools and graduate programs are silent on “AI-to-apply,” but at least one medical school uses AI to determine which applicants to interview. It’s chaos.
“In one class, AI assistance signals academic dishonesty. In another, it's a required research tool.” Are not both true, in different contexts? Pupils do need to understand when to use or refute its use, and the differing subject-specific approaches are perhaps helping to teach that, as are the different pathways. “Writing” is used for a plethora of purposes with, granted, baseline commonalites such as the use of disciplinary vocabulary, correct grammar etc.
There is no “one approach” to writing. I don’t want a student to write literary critique in the same form, structure, tone, style, voice or register as a science experiment write-up, for example.
Whoa! You have my head spinning.