{"id":95484,"date":"2025-05-19T01:15:19","date_gmt":"2025-05-19T05:15:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/danielschristian.com\/learning-ecosystems\/?p=95484"},"modified":"2025-05-19T14:06:42","modified_gmt":"2025-05-19T18:06:42","slug":"what-i-learned-when-students-walked-out-of-my-ai-class-hogg-other-items-re-ai-in-our-learning-ecosystems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danielschristian.com\/learning-ecosystems\/2025\/05\/19\/what-i-learned-when-students-walked-out-of-my-ai-class-hogg-other-items-re-ai-in-our-learning-ecosystems\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018What I learned when students walked out of my AI class\u2019 [Hogg] + other items re: AI in our learning ecosystems"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2018What I learned when students walked out of my AI class\u2019<\/strong><\/a> — from timeshighereducation.com by Chris Hogg
\nChris Hogg found the question of using AI to create art troubled his students deeply. Here\u2019s how the moment led to deeper understanding for both student and educator<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

This moment stuck with me \u2013 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\u00a0engage with this powerful tool\u00a0without losing ourselves in the process? This is the story of how I turned moments of resistance into opportunities for deeper understanding.<\/p>\n

\n

In the AI era, how do we battle cognitive laziness in students?<\/strong><\/a> — from timeshighereducation.com by Sean McMinn
\nWith 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<\/em><\/p>\n

The concern about cognitive laziness seems to be backed by\u00a0<\/span>Anthropic\u2019s report<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that 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\u2019s 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.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Make Instructional Design Fun Again with AI Agents<\/strong> <\/a>— from drphilippahardman.substack.com by Dr. Philippa Hardman
\nA special edition practical guide to selecting & building AI agents for instructional design and L&D<\/em><\/p>\n

Exactly how we do this has been less clear, but \u2014 fuelled by the rise of so-called \u201cAgentic AI\u201d \u2014 more and more instructional designers ask me:\u00a0“What exactly can I delegate to AI agents, and how do I start?”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a sneak peak\u2026.<\/p>\n

\n

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

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.
\n…
\nWithout Claude’s prompting, I found myself in an unexpected moment of metacognition.<\/strong><\/span> When faced with improvement suggestions but no offer to implement them, I had to consciously ask myself:<\/span> <\/strong>“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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\n

Also re: metacognition and AI, see:<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

In the AI era, how do we battle cognitive laziness in students?<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0— from timeshighereducation.com by Sean McMinn
\nWith 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<\/em><\/p>\n

The concern about cognitive laziness seems to be backed by\u00a0<\/span>Anthropic\u2019s report<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that 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\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

By prompting students to articulate their cognitive processes, such tools reinforce the internalisation of self-regulated learning strategies essential for navigating AI-augmented environments.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

EDUCAUSE Panel Highlights Practical Uses for AI in Higher Ed<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0— from govtech.com by Abby Sourwine
\nA 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

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, \u201cUnlocking AI\u2019s Potential in Higher Education<\/a>,\u201d their answer may be “almost everywhere.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\n

Partly Cloudy with a Chance of Chatbots<\/strong> <\/a>— from derekbruff.org by Derek Bruff<\/p>\n

Here are the predictions, our votes, and some commentary:<\/strong><\/p>\n