Learning is the goal, of course. I believe strongly that if Americans are going to be employable in a global economy then we cannot leave out amazing tools like Generative AI. Other nations are doing things better. What can we learn about those educational systems that work well and we're not using? Why not? How can we make the entire system work better without leaving learners behind?

My hope, of course, is to encourage equitable educational access to all learner populations. The new ideas and new opportunities are coming in so fast we have to make sure we are scaling up systems so that a new way of learning is not rolled out every semester. I am curious to know hoe GenAI can help with that.

I found this statement to be particularly interesting. While I support AI and its collaboration in education, I also believe that some walls need to be created to help distinguish between AI generated ideas and human ones. Then I asked myself how are AI generated ideas NOT human?

There is certainly a need for a collaboration where both AI generated ideas can exist along side human ideas and perspectives. These parameters need to be in place soon as quantum computing is here already and the potential for an explosive library of new information is on the horizon, so too, the explosive potential for harm.

This point is very key to the theme of this section of the article!

This is a sound approach that makes perfect sense

This statement sums up my sentiments regarding the proliferation of GenAI technology and its uses. On one hand, Gen AI is a tool that provides learners with guidance, or suggestions as it relates to ideation for assignments. On the other, it is a crutch, that robs learners of critical thinking skills that we as humans have relied on up to this point. This technology was promoted to be assistive to users in various industries. However, it has started to make some jobs obsolete and has reduced learners' abilities to think for themselves as often as they once needed to do before the emergence of this technology.

This is why there is such great value with in-person leader-led facilitation. When the learner is in the presence of an instructor, it is easier to gauge based on the learners behaviors and responses what knowledge they actually possess. However, as the world embraces GenAI tools, it will slowly become the norm for educators and evaluators to allow learners to use the technology. I can recall a time in my educational upbringing where math teachers impressed upon us the importance of knowing arithmetic and not relying on calculators which was relatively newer technology in the 80's. "You won't always have a calculator in your pocket" they would say. Little did they know that the advent of cell phones would change that. Gen AI has with great speed become ubiquitous and learning professionals will begrudgingly need to embrace its usage; even though it will degrade the human creative process and thinking in my opinion.

This paragraph speaks to my concerns regarding the impact of AI on future generations of learners. With the continued acceptance and usage of AI, the Alpha and Beta generation of learners will not be responsible for the "hard work" of learning. Instead, Gen AI will provide learners with quick acceptable answers that evaluators will reluctantly have to accept due to the sophistication and intelligence of the technology all the while wondering if the answers provided by the learner was an original thought, or an AI response.

Having a child and a step-child in high school, I have first-hand heard how they are able to get around the use of AI detection tools by their teachers. Kids always find a way. It's exactly as mentioned in #9, the calculating learner; a student who carries out the minimum of effort for the maximum benefit. I don't agree that anyone is able to fully stay informed on the litmitaions of these technologies.

I believe that with the introduction of GenAI, we will see a significant shift in long-held educational practices. No longer will it be relevant to teach subjects like grammar, spelling, even writing conventions. The shift will move, I imagine, into something that looks more like thoughtful reflections and who knows? I wish I knew the answer...

I agree that educators are really all over the place when it comes to GenAI and education. You have educators (especially in the upper grades) that vehemently abhor the use of AI with their students, and on the other end, you have educators that understand its potential and know that it is not going away. I believe that most children now own some type of personal device, whether it's an Alexa in their rooom, a tablet, phone, or computer, and they will continue to have access to AI. Embracing this power of a computer in your pocket is where schools are running far behind on equipping their educators with the tools to grab the reins.

I agree that educators are really all over the place when it comes to GenAI and education. You have educators (especially in the upper grades) that vehemently abhor the use of AI with their students, and on the other end, you have educators that understand its potential and know that it is not going away. I believe that most children now own some type of personal device, whether it's an Alexa in their rooom, a tablet, phone, or computer, and they will continue to have access to AI. Embracing this power of a computer in your pocket is where schools are running far behind on equipping their educators with the tools to grab the reins.

Throughout this master's program, several courses have placed a strong emphasis on reflection. Initially, I found the reflection process to be tedious. However, after completing a few reflections, I began to recognize its value in learning. By the end of each course, I was more aware of my progress and could truly appreciate how much my knowledge had expanded over the weeks. Reflection is something I would like to incorporate more with my current students.

In my experience, I have found that this strategy of emphasizing the learning process over the product is extremely effective in adapting to AI in education. Instead, students are motivated to use AI as a tool to enhance their understanding of a complex topic we are learning. This mindset not only builds deeper engagement with the material but also prepares students to use AI responsibly in the future.

I agree with this statement. As much as we can assume that AI will replace the need for memorizing information and certain skills, it will ultimately be useless if the person relying on it cannot accurately interpret the information.

Already, I have had to shift the way that I go about grading work for my high school students. The reality is that there are always going to be several kids who use AI to do their classwork. The traditional classroom setup must change and accommodate to AI because it is so easily accessible for students, and incredibly hard to detect in some cases.

I think this is a powerful statement to start off this article. This is a conversation that I have had numerous times with coworkers, friends, and family. Generative AI is such an unknown gray area that I think all educators are trying to carefully navigate right now. In my opinion, the best thing we can do as educators is teach our students how to safely and ethically use AI to minimize the idea that AI will "fix" all of our problems.

This passage strikes a chord with me because it highlights the importance of focusing on creativity and application in education. As an educator, I’ve seen how projects that push students to think creatively or apply knowledge in new ways reveal their true understanding and skills. It’s a reminder that education should prioritize tasks that require more than just regurgitation of information—tasks where students must think critically and solve problems.

The Harvard Business Review quote adds an interesting dimension. If GenAI can enhance creativity, then the question isn’t whether to use it but how to use it meaningfully. I can see a scenario where students use GenAI to brainstorm ideas or analyze scenarios, but the real value would come from their ability to refine and apply those ideas in unique ways. Personally, I believe the potential for GenAI to “augment” creativity aligns well with teaching practices that emphasize innovation and collaboration.

At the same time, this makes me wonder about the balance between GenAI’s contributions and ensuring students are genuinely demonstrating their own capabilities. Could relying on GenAI too much in creative tasks hinder the development of independent thinking? I see a great opportunity here but also a need for clear boundaries and thoughtful integration into learning experiences. How do you think we can strike that balance effectively?

This section makes me reflect on the common misconception that tools like GenAI or even Google can replace human knowledge. As an educator, I see how tempting it might be for students (and even teachers) to rely heavily on these tools, but this dependency can create significant gaps in critical thinking and problem-solving. The quote about interpreting information resonates with me because technology can provide data, but understanding and applying it require skills and context that only humans bring.

Personally, I agree with the statement that solving complex problems requires more than just finding information online. It reminds me of situations in my professional role where I’ve had to assess the validity of data or consider the nuances of a problem—something no search engine or AI can do without my input and expertise. GenAI can be a powerful assistant, but the “knowledge in our head” is what allows us to navigate ambiguity and discern quality.

I wonder if relying too much on tools like ChatGPT might weaken students’ ability to critically evaluate information or even know where to start when they don’t have a foundation of knowledge. While GenAI can support learning, I see a real danger if we let it replace the essential process of building and applying our understanding. What do you think—is there a way to balance using these tools without diminishing the development of core skills?

This excerpt raises an essential debate about generative AI’s (GenAI) potential in education. As an educator, the skepticism about technological “silver bullets” resonates because history has shown that while innovations can enhance learning, they rarely transform it without systemic change.

GenAI stands apart because of its creative capacities, but whether it can “solve” education depends on how it’s integrated. The phrasing here implies both potential and caution: while GenAI might revolutionize content creation, it also challenges traditional educational frameworks. For example, its ability to produce human-like writing prompts ethical concerns about originality, assessment, and skill development.

Personally, the comparison to Edison’s claims highlights a historical pattern of overpromising. However, GenAI’s distinct capabilities could make it more impactful than prior technologies if implemented with a balanced understanding of its strengths and limitations. What do you think about its role in assessing student creativity or fostering collaboration? Philip Hickman

This sentence really caused me to pause and self-reflect. Often times, my mindset is how to include technology and embrace the changes. I do believe this does need to happen, but not as much as I try to force it. I also believe as teachers, we have come to believe that memorization is the key. The ideas have started to change. I try to link the learning we are doing to real life so students can see the extension of the classroom. I need to be more intentional when having my students showcasing their work.

This is a great approach not only to working around AI, but also a great strategy to increase student engagement and reduce student apathy. In my experience when students can see real world or authentic value in an assignment, they tend to care more and give more effort toward the assignment. For example, during my economics unit I have the students do a "shark tank" like project where they create a product or a business to pitch to their classmates to invest in. The students are way more engaged in that project than when I lecture about the role than when they are lectured about the role that entrepreneurs play in the economy because it makes the topic more "real world" and meaningful.

I truly do not think banning AI is the way to go in schools. I think that it is our responsibility as educators to prepare students to go out into the world. The fact is, AI is going to be a part of their lives in careers regardless of what field they choose to go into. I by no means am saying that we should let kids use AI whenever and in any situation, but I do think we need to embrace it and teach students how to responsibly use it. This will not be easy, and we will run into road blocks, but I do feel that outright banning it is not the way to go.

This strategy touches on something I try to do as a teacher. When students have to apply their knowledge in a creative fun way, it makes it more engaging but also makes it harder to use AI like Hodges and Kirschner mentions. While being an elementary teacher, it can make it more difficult to do this when students are still learning the basics of ELA and math. This spot also quotes from a Harvard Business Review about how AI can still be used, but I think the user would have to have more background knowledge. The student would need to know what to type into the GenAI so it can adequately give proper feedback on ideas. It also is not so different from using a search engine to brain storm ideas. I do not see it as a negative use of AI.

This is something that often adults seem to forget about GenAI tools. Since AI is going to be around for awhile, I believe it's important to teach our students how to correctly use it as a tool. This is something that will be hard to since my district (and possibly others) have already banned all AI usage for students.

Any thoughts on just embracing AI into the curriculum and effectively teaching students how to use it?

This is a topic that has been a discussion point for the teachers at my school. We know that AI is here and the students are using it, but many are concerned with students using it to cheat. A solution that some proposed is mentioned here in this article, with using AI detectors. But, as the article mentions there is a problem with reliability of these models. The more I learn about these tools, the more I feel that they can not be put out there as a catch all solution to students using AI to cheat. It seems like it has the potential for false positives, leading to unearned consequences for students.

I love incorporating work where students get to work with others. It's very easy to with the labs we complete in our Chemistry course. The students are given a set of instructions and have to be able to read and follow along as they conduct the experiment in the classroom. They rely on one another where technology really wouldn't help them at all. They can then engage in the post-lab questions together in class where I can monitor that they are working together and not where one student is copying the answers from the other. They get a lot out of the lab, not only because it is hands-on, but because they get to work through the experiment and questions with another student.

I think this is a really important point that students and most people may not be aware of. Oftentimes, our students are trying to quickly get through the assignment so they can move on to work for another class, not have homework, and/or be able to go on their phone because they are done with their work. They are quick to copy down an answer without thinking through what they are writing. They aren't really taking the time to learn but rather checking the box (for most students, not all).

I had a student cheat on a test using AI. He turned in a broken phone and kept his normal, working phone. As he was sitting in the hallway behind my classroom, another teacher found him with his phone and turned it in to me. When I looked, he had taken pictures of my test and uploaded them to AI. AI had provided him with the correct answers to all of the questions, including ones with graphics. First, I battled calculators for cheating and cell phones and now we're adding AI to the list!

Outside of a writing class (or a writing-intensive content class), you can use metacognitive wrappers shared out through Google Forms or such to help students reflect on their thinking and also have ways to refer back to their reflections.

Yeah, I hate it when people think purely technical solutions will solve social problems. Like, there's a category difference going on. Technology will be a gas pedal, accelerating whatever dynamics were already going on.

I think people who fall to this temptation make a confusion between data and knowledge, which are two different types of things. GenAI produces tokenized words in a string that are statistically most associated with each other, but it's not really producing meaningful conceptual connections that can be used at application level or above, which means our students really can't have learning that transfers.

Strategy 5 is often used in my middle school science classroom. Most of our labs are hands-on/interactive provoking students to use their personal experiences to reflect on our content. With this being our source of exploration, the use of GenAI is not impacting their overall learning on our science labs. This strategy welcomes group work and individual time as students navigate lab concepts. This however, requires a lot of scaffolding from the teacher as we need to eliminate as many human errors as possible. In some cases, we do use GenAI resources to bring in real-world scenarios that otherwise could not be conducted in the classroom. Labster and phET simulations are often integrated into our class content but they too have their limitations. Any other recommendations that can be utilized in science to enhance the learning expereince?

As a first-grade teacher in a Title I school, I’ve witnessed how limited access to technology can impact student learning. While AI tools offer a lot of potential, students without reliable internet or devices at home often struggle to participate fully. Additionally, English Language Learners in schools face barriers when AI tools lack multilingual support.

Also, It’s unclear how these tools handle sensitive student information. In previous courses for MALDT we have graded content based off of safety and privacy of personal information. This makes me wonder more about what these AI tools do with this data.

I feel there are a lot of background details that go into implementing tools within our classrooms. While GenAI can be a supportive tool, I feel that many educators and students alike, lack the training to use these resources. It's true that educators need to be flexible in our teaching strategies but we also need to be confident in the resource, trusting that it values the privacy of our students and supports them in the learning process rather than handing students the answers. It can be tricky to navigate students use of technology even if I am in the room with them.

In my first grade class, we use writing journals where students document their thinking process. This aligns with the idea of focusing on the process of learning rather than the final output. It is a great way to document their academic journey. While I agree with this, it requires a large amount of time for feedback. This can be particularly difficult in a lower elementary class because you have to meet one-on-one with each student to help transcribe for some students (especially at the beginning of the year). In large classrooms, what do you think are some feasible ways to do this?

In asynchronous settings, it is hard to assess authentic learning. Strategies like oral assessments or in class reflections, as the article suggests, could mitigate this, but these are harder to scale. Do others think strategies like modifying assignments or emphasizing creativity are scalable to larger classrooms?

One of the biggest issues my colleagues and I have faced, is that students are gaining access to our curriculum quizzes before educators provide the assessment. If students are able to catch wind of a test question, and type it into an AI account, some of our tests pop up with the displayed answers. While we have the ability to alter the tests, it becomes difficult when it is a unit assessment. Depending on what source educators and students use, there may be fluidity in who gains access to content.

This is a big one that I do within my class. I do not tend to assign homework, because I like to be able to monitor my students' progress in class. In addition, I like them being able to ask me questions when I am in-front of them versus emailing me after school, or just texting their peers for answers. I feel that because I have students do almost all in-class assingments (including working on essays) they are less likely to just use AI because they know that I will be walking around the room and checking in. Whereas, if they are given it to work on at home, then I cannot monitor where they are getting the information from.

This is an area that I have tried to explain to my students. AI is not 100% accurate and they tend not to believe me. However, my colleagues and I have noticed that if you are trying to have ChatGPT write a paper and there needs to be specific quotes from a novel included and you ask ChatGPT to include them, they either are wrong or don't actually exist in the story.

Has anyone else noticed any falsehoods when using AI?

As an English teacher, this is an area that I am struggling with when it comes to the usage of AI in the classroom. We have not been able to find a good system or software that can detect if AI was used. Most of the time, I can tell by the writing style or word choice that a student did not write it, but it is hard to prove. Therefore, I am trying to find authentic ways to get students to not only write, but to write their own work.

What would you add to this list?

What is your impression of this statement? Do you agree? Disagree?