This week, I share some thoughts on the question,
“How can educators help students navigate AI responsibly?”
Last week, I wrote an initial response to Jonathan Haidt’s latest TED Talk, asking, “How can educators help students embrace challenge in a world where technology makes so many things easier?”
You can read the entire post here, but the short version (as it is a long post) is that my biggest concern with how easy technology is in our world today (and it is only going to get easier) is that if we do not properly teach and guide students, that is where the biggest problems are going to arise. Building on Haidt’s idea from his TED Talk on being a “Techno-Skeptic,” I share that if curiosity is “part skepticism and part wonder,” being “Techno-Curious” is more beneficial as it identifies both the pitfalls and opportunities.
The speed of technological change is also not just a “young-person” problem.
Many adults are making many of the mistakes (as I have) that we are concerned about students making, and my belief is that didn’t come from “over-teaching” technology in school; it came from underteaching and dumping technology in schools without important conversations with staff.
But after about 2000 words in the initial post, I promised myself I would write a part two response to the TED Talk. There are many places where I have differing ideas, but there are many places where I agree, and I wanted to start there.
First, a story.
Years ago, I was asked to speak to a group of students on social media at a Texas High School.
Speaking to high school students can be really intimidating, and is a reminder of why it is so important to build rapport with students as a teacher. With a room full of adults, if they don’t like you, most often (not always!), they will listen to you and be respectful. But if students in an auditorium connect with you quickly, they will let you know in some way.
Before I was about to speak, the principal stood up to me and gave me the most informal introduction. So informal that it felt like he had no idea about my work or my perspective on technology.
He said, “Hey, everyone…This is George Curious (seriously) from Canada (there are actually cities and provinces there, and I didn’t just roam across the country at the time. I did have an address), and he is going to talk to you all about technology today, so please give him your attention and a warm welcome.”
The students’ “welcome” was an audible groan.
Huh?
I had never even said anything, and the students were already annoyed with me. I figured out real quick what was happening based on my experience of working with students. They assumed the next hour would be filled with “don’t do this” and “don’t do that,” and they weren’t up for a lecture from another adult.
Knowing this, I started by saying, “Hey, everyone! Thanks for having me today! Do you all know what cyberbullying is?”
They responded again with a “groan,” but it was at least an affirmative one.
“Great! Don’t do that. Anyways, here is what I am going to talk to you about today.”
Immediately, they were intrigued (Thank goodness!).
Of course, later on, I addressed some of the pitfalls and concerns of technology use, but mostly the focus was on what students should do with this technology and on examples of young people who had already used it to improve their own lives and those of others. It wasn’t “hypothetical” but more an opportunity to follow and/or alter their own path moving forward.
The response from students was fantastic, and I remember several of them coming up to me after and saying, “We never hear this from adults; we always seem to be getting in trouble for things that we might do in the future, and never told what we could do.”
That stuck with me.
It was not about students simply existing with technology, but about raising expectations for what is possible. Focusing solely on “cyberbullying” feels like you are saying, “Please don’t be horrible people.” I would rather set high expectations and have students miss them slightly than start at the lowest possible level.
Part of this thinking was inspired by a workshop in 2015 that I led with both students and staff together in the same room, where a student shared a variation of the following statement (not my quote) in response to a teacher who kept saying we should not allow students to use technology.
The most surprising thing about that interaction with the student was what happened immediately afterward in the room.
The same teacher who would not budge all day was immediately open to the idea when a student said that comment. I loved that he focused more on helping those he served, and his openness was inspiring.
So if you take that same statement and replace the words “social media” with “technology” or “Artificial Intelligence,” the rest of the statement is still true.
For example, “Artificial Intelligence is like water. It is everywhere. You can either let us drown or teach us to swim.”
Does that feel any less true of a statement? And although we can learn so much from young people, I also believe that they still crave guidance and support.
It is pretty hard to be excited about a future where the degrees they worked for seem to be becoming irrelevant, while hearing praise for the technology that seems to be coming for their futures.
This was one of the most interesting passages from the AP Article linked above, and the part bolded really reminded me of that student interaction almost a decade ago in my workshop:
Part of the backlash from graduating students stems from the dismal job market they’re entering. The unemployment rate for college graduates ages 22 to 27 has reached its highest level in a dozen years.
Sami Wargo just graduated from Marquette University in Milwaukee, where an AI expert was the undergraduate commencement speaker despite a student petition demanding that the school find someone else.
“Given how AI has become an increasing threat towards our jobs, especially for our graduating class, we thought it was a little bit tone deaf,” said Wargo, who majored in digital media and minored in advertising.
Chris Duffey, an AI evangelist at Adobe who recently used AI to “co-author” a book titled “Superhuman Innovation: Transforming Business with Artificial Intelligence,” took the stage anyway.
“Innovation,” he told the students, “will reveal what can be done, but only you can decide what should be done.”
Wargo said she joined other students around her in booing his message.
The 21-year-old has applied for around 30 jobs but hasn’t landed one yet.
Many of the job descriptions say applicants must “collaborate with AI,” but “I don’t know what that means,” she said, noting that most of her classes banned her from using AI.
I have never advocated for the “unlimited” use of technology in schools. But I have advocated that no matter the waters we face in the future, teaching students to “swim” is one of the most essential things we can do.
I do want to get back to the Haidt TED Talk, realizing there will be a part three to this post.
(I could have left that out, and just edited the post to say there are “3 parts to this,” but I use blogging not only to share my learning, but also to learn. That is one of the best parts of the writing process.)
Let’s start with what we agree on.
First of all, I do want to share his “4 New Norms” from “The Anxious Generation.”
When I look at the last one on “more independence, free place, and responsibility in the real world,” I agree 100% with the premise, but the “real world” also has technology. The term “offline” would have made more sense, because I guarantee you the posts on social media from Haidt help sell his book and communicate his ideas, leading to “real” sales and a movement with serious momentum.
As I have said before, and as it aligns with my views, I think it would be great to teach students how to leverage the same tools he and, likely, his “team” use.
But I get what he is saying, and I agree.
We have become more paranoid in our world, and the things I used to do as a kid, my kids seem limited in doing.
Again, I do not know the accuracy of the story, but if it were totally true, would that be surprising?
When I was a kid, my parents asked me to be home before dark and to avoid getting in trouble. That was basically it, and most of the time, I complied.
I will not pretend that I do not have some anxiety as a parent, but watching my kids go up and order food at a restaurant, or ask for something on their own, not only instills pride in me, but in them.
It reminds me of the adage “prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child,” which I do my best to follow. 100% we need kids to have more independence now, so they do not become overly reliant later.
Now, the other three “norms” Haidt shares, I don’t necessarily disagree with, but I don’t fully agree either.
The last norm shows some variance, as he says kids should have “more” independence and free play. But the other three feel “absolute,” where I feel they need flexibility.
Weirdly enough, none of my kids have their own phones (my oldest is 9), and I am not sure when we will make that leap, but the age of 16 is not magical, and every kid is different. But there is also a part of me that doesn’t a) like to be told how to parent and b) doesn’t want to tell others how to do the same. We still teach them to use technology through our example, and by creating alongside them.
Again, there are problems, and I do not disagree with many of the same issues Haidt raises in his talk and past work.
But I believe that teaching is the best way to prepare students for future success. Prevention of the inevitable often delays a problem more than it solves it.
So let’s jump to the three main points from the talk as listed in the screen capture below:
Notice that these three have more variance (at least the first two) than the 4 Norms from “The Anxious Generation,” and I think that bridges some great conversations.
Let’s look at each:
1. Protect brain development through puberty (at least)
I agree with this, but if you look at the point in isolation, that doesn’t necessarily exclude technology. But it should make us look at how we use technology in schools and in our own development.
In 2015, I wrote a post, “Taking Notes vs. Taking a Picture of Notes; Which Wins?” where I shared the following:
What is important here is how you make your own connections for deep learning. Taking a picture is obviously much less time-consuming (why would not just give the information over in the first place?) than writing notes, so with the extra time, the ability to do something with the information is where the powerful opportunities for learning happen…
When I speak, I try to challenge people to create something with the information I have shared, whether it is writing a blog post, reflection, podcast, video, or any other type of media. If they really want to process what I have shared, they will need to make their own connections, not the connections I have made for them.
Over a decade later, I can still remember writing that post and the points I made. I have learned that blogging about something and making my own connections has helped me to not only retain information, but also understand it in a totally different way.
I asked ChatGPT, “Can blogging positively impact brain development?” (I know it can be wrong, but I still wanted to share the answer as it does make a lot of sense, and it also tells me that I am pretty smart while doing it…Just kidding…kind of), and it shared the following:
Yes, there is a strong argument that blogging can positively impact brain development, particularly when it involves creating rather than consuming content.
Some of the cognitive benefits associated with blogging include:
- Reflection and metacognition: Writing about experiences and ideas requires people to organize their thoughts, make connections, and examine their own thinking. This strengthens self-awareness and deeper learning.
- Language development: Regular writing improves vocabulary, communication skills, and the ability to express complex ideas clearly.
- Critical thinking: Good blogging involves evaluating information, considering different perspectives, and building coherent arguments.
- Memory consolidation: Writing about what you’ve learned can strengthen retention because it forces retrieval and synthesis of knowledge.
- Creativity: Generating original content engages imagination, problem-solving, and idea generation.
- Audience awareness and empathy: Blogging for others requires considering how readers might interpret your message, which can strengthen perspective-taking skills.
The key distinction is that blogging is an active cognitive task, whereas many concerns about technology focus on passive consumption of content. Creating a blog post is cognitively much closer to writing an essay, keeping a journal, or publishing an article than it is to endlessly scrolling social media feeds.
Again, this is from ChatGPT, but everything above is what I have experienced in writing this blog for almost the past two decades.
Now, I am not saying this is the only way that the brain can be developed, but I do think that it can be beneficial to many students, including me as a kid.
I struggled terribly in school, and to this day, I have an issue with actual paper and physically writing notes of any kind. This technology today would have benefited me tremendously as a student in the past.
Again, the variance matters.
I would never stop a student from handwriting something if it benefited them, but would you stop me from blogging as a kid, even if you saw that I greatly struggled with handwriting?
Yes, we need to focus on brain development, which is why technology should be used for creation activities, more than anything, or at least significantly more than it is now.
I have now spent the last 6 hours writing two blog posts and responding to an 18-minute video after watching a 90-second Instagram reel. How has my brain, at the young age of 51, developed through this process? How many would have stopped at the 90-second video, or even scrolled 15 seconds in, no matter their age?
My hope through this process is not only to understand Haidt’s position, but also to understand my own better.
There is more agreement than not, but I also believe I am not advocating for anything different than I have for several years.
Much of Haidt’s ire seems to be directed toward EdTech companies, yet many teachers who have leveraged technology in meaningful ways with their students, who share many of the same concerns but have taken different approaches, are feeling the brunt of his efforts.
That last statement is just something I have had to work my way through, and I am not sure I would have gotten there if I hadn’t started writing.
And with that, I will address the next two points in Part 3.
My brain development can only take so much at a time!
