For what it is worth, I think what you call teacher disconnection is the key. We have all been disappointed in the personalized tutorbot approach to applying generative AI to education. Until we see products that use AI to solve educational problems, it is impossible to meaningfully train anyone.
The cumulative impact of unfulfilled educational initiatives and chronic resource constraints has eroded teacher engagement. While initial pragmatism drove adaptability and problem-solving, persistent systemic barriers and unmet promises have fostered widespread cynicism among educators. This shift reflects deeper institutional challenges that warrant thorough examination.
That said, I do take issue with the claim that "it is impossible to meaningfully train anyone." Training teachers on generative AI encompasses distinct needs: preparation for future educators, guidance on managing student AI use, and instruction on AI as a pedagogical tool. While all three areas matter, supporting teachers in responding to current student AI use is particularly urgent, especially in K-12 where resources are lacking.
Collapsing these separate training needs into one category risks prematurely dismissing valuable professional development opportunities. This is why I focus on Dan Meyer in this post. Dan Meyer's critique of AI and his attending concept of AI literacy focus too narrowly on one dimension of the AI training landscape This limited scope inadvertently undermines support for broader teacher training initiatives at a time when educators urgently need practical guidance for navigating AI in their classrooms.
For what it is worth, I think what you call teacher disconnection is the key. We have all been disappointed in the personalized tutorbot approach to applying generative AI to education. Until we see products that use AI to solve educational problems, it is impossible to meaningfully train anyone.
The cumulative impact of unfulfilled educational initiatives and chronic resource constraints has eroded teacher engagement. While initial pragmatism drove adaptability and problem-solving, persistent systemic barriers and unmet promises have fostered widespread cynicism among educators. This shift reflects deeper institutional challenges that warrant thorough examination.
That said, I do take issue with the claim that "it is impossible to meaningfully train anyone." Training teachers on generative AI encompasses distinct needs: preparation for future educators, guidance on managing student AI use, and instruction on AI as a pedagogical tool. While all three areas matter, supporting teachers in responding to current student AI use is particularly urgent, especially in K-12 where resources are lacking.
Collapsing these separate training needs into one category risks prematurely dismissing valuable professional development opportunities. This is why I focus on Dan Meyer in this post. Dan Meyer's critique of AI and his attending concept of AI literacy focus too narrowly on one dimension of the AI training landscape This limited scope inadvertently undermines support for broader teacher training initiatives at a time when educators urgently need practical guidance for navigating AI in their classrooms.