Learning Ecosystems

‘What I learned when students walked out of my AI class’ — from timeshighereducation.com by Chris Hogg
Chris Hogg found the question of using AI to create art troubled his students deeply. Here’s how the moment led to deeper understanding for both student and educator

Teaching AI can be as thrilling as it is challenging. This became clear one day when three students walked out of my class, visibly upset. They later explained their frustration: after spending years learning their creative skills, they were disheartened to see AI effortlessly outperform them at the blink of an eye.

This moment stuck with me – not because it was unexpected, but because it encapsulates the paradoxical relationship we all seem to have with AI. As both an educator and a creative, I find myself asking: how do we engage with this powerful tool without losing ourselves in the process? This is the story of how I turned moments of resistance into opportunities for deeper understanding.

In the AI era, how do we battle cognitive laziness in students? — from timeshighereducation.com by Sean McMinn
With the latest AI technology now able to handle complex problem-solving processes, will students risk losing their own cognitive engagement? Metacognitive scaffolding could be the answer, writes Sean McMinn

The concern about cognitive laziness seems to be backed by Anthropic’s report that students use AI tools like Claude primarily for creating (39.8 per cent) and analysing (30.2 per cent) tasks, both considered higher-order cognitive functions according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. While these tasks align well with advanced educational objectives, they also pose a risk: students may increasingly delegate critical thinking and complex cognitive processes directly to AI, risking a reduction in their own cognitive engagement and skill development.

Make Instructional Design Fun Again with AI Agents — from drphilippahardman.substack.com by Dr. Philippa Hardman
A special edition practical guide to selecting & building AI agents for instructional design and L&D

Exactly how we do this has been less clear, but — fuelled by the rise of so-called “Agentic AI” — more and more instructional designers ask me: “What exactly can I delegate to AI agents, and how do I start?”

In this week’s post, I share my thoughts on exactly what instructional design tasks can be delegated to AI agents, and provide a step-by-step approach to building and testing your first AI agent.

Here’s a sneak peak….

AI Personality Matters: Why Claude Doesn’t Give Unsolicited Advice (And Why You Should Care) — from mikekentz.substack.com by Mike Kentz
First in a four-part series exploring the subtle yet profound differences between AI systems and their impact on human cognition

After providing Claude with several prompts of context about my creative writing project, I requested feedback on one of my novel chapters. The AI provided thoughtful analysis with pros and cons, as expected. But then I noticed what wasn’t there: the customary offer to rewrite my chapter.
…
Without Claude’s prompting, I found myself in an unexpected moment of metacognition. When faced with improvement suggestions but no offer to implement them, I had to consciously ask myself: “Do I actually want AI to rewrite this section?” The answer surprised me – no, I wanted to revise it myself, incorporating the insights while maintaining my voice and process.

The contrast was striking. With ChatGPT, accepting its offer to rewrite felt like a passive, almost innocent act – as if I were just saying “yes” to a helpful assistant. But with Claude, requesting a rewrite required deliberate action. Typing out the request felt like a more conscious surrender of creative agency.

Also re: metacognition and AI, see:

In the AI era, how do we battle cognitive laziness in students? — from timeshighereducation.com by Sean McMinn
With the latest AI technology now able to handle complex problem-solving processes, will students risk losing their own cognitive engagement? Metacognitive scaffolding could be the answer, writes Sean McMinn

The concern about cognitive laziness seems to be backed by Anthropic’s report that students use AI tools like Claude primarily for creating (39.8 per cent) and analysing (30.2 per cent) tasks, both considered higher-order cognitive functions according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. While these tasks align well with advanced educational objectives, they also pose a risk: students may increasingly delegate critical thinking and complex cognitive processes directly to AI, risking a reduction in their own cognitive engagement and skill development.

By prompting students to articulate their cognitive processes, such tools reinforce the internalisation of self-regulated learning strategies essential for navigating AI-augmented environments.

EDUCAUSE Panel Highlights Practical Uses for AI in Higher Ed — from govtech.com by Abby Sourwine
A webinar this week featuring panelists from the education, private and nonprofit sectors attested to how institutions are applying generative artificial intelligence to advising, admissions, research and IT.

Many higher education leaders have expressed hope about the potential of artificial intelligence but uncertainty about where to implement it safely and effectively. According to a webinar Tuesday hosted by EDUCAUSE, “Unlocking AI’s Potential in Higher Education,” their answer may be “almost everywhere.”

Panelists at the event, including Kaskaskia College CIO George Kriss, Canyon GBS founder and CEO Joe Licata and Austin Laird, a senior program officer at the Gates Foundation, said generative AI can help colleges and universities meet increasing demands for personalization, timely communication and human-to-human connections throughout an institution, from advising to research to IT support.

Partly Cloudy with a Chance of Chatbots — from derekbruff.org by Derek Bruff

Here are the predictions, our votes, and some commentary:

• “By 2028, at least half of large universities will embed an AI ‘copilot’ inside their LMS that can draft content, quizzes, and rubrics on demand.” The group leaned toward yes on this one, in part because it was easy to see LMS vendors building this feature in as a default.
• “Discipline-specific ‘digital tutors’ (LLM chatbots trained on course materials) will handle at least 30% of routine student questions in gateway courses.” We learned toward yes on this one, too, which is why some of us are exploring these tools today. We would like to be ready how to use them well (or avoid their use) when they are commonly available.
• “Adaptive e-texts whose examples, difficulty, and media personalize in real time via AI will outsell static digital textbooks in the U.S. market.” We leaned toward no on this one, in part because the textbook market and what students want from textbooks has historically been slow to change. I remember offering my students a digital version of my statistics textbook maybe 6-7 years ago, and most students opted to print the whole thing out on paper like it was 1983.
• “AI text detectors will be largely abandoned as unreliable, shifting assessment design toward oral, studio, or project-based ‘AI-resilient’ tasks.” We leaned toward yes on this. I have some concerns about oral assessments (they certainly privilege some students over others), but more authentic assignments seems like what higher ed needs in the face of AI. Ted Underwood recently suggested a version of this: “projects that attempt genuinely new things, which remain hard even with AI assistance.” See his post and the replies for some good discussion on this idea.
• “AI will produce multimodal accessibility layers (live translation, alt-text, sign-language avatars) for most lecture videos without human editing.” We leaned toward yes on this one, too. This seems like another case where something will be provided by default, although my podcast transcripts are AI-generated and still need editing from me, so we’re not there quite yet.

‘We Have to Really Rethink the Purpose of Education’
The Ezra Klein Show

Description: I honestly don’t know how I should be educating my kids. A.I. has raised a lot of questions for schools. Teachers have had to adapt to the most ingenious cheating technology ever devised. But for me, the deeper question is: What should schools be teaching at all? A.I. is going to make the future look very different. How do you prepare kids for a world you can’t predict?

And if we can offload more and more tasks to generative A.I., what’s left for the human mind to do?

Rebecca Winthrop is the director of the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution. She is also an author, with Jenny Anderson, of “The Disengaged Teen: Helping Kids Learn Better, Feel Better, and Live Better.” We discuss how A.I. is transforming what it means to work and be educated, and how our use of A.I. could revive — or undermine — American schools.