Why paper & pen are not the answer to AI in education

I read a post recently which celebrated the return of the pen and paper as a way if mitigating against the use of AI in schools. Or more specifically, as a way of stopping pupils cheating.?

In many ways, this is a totally understandable response to a perceived problem. But, much in the way Italy tried to ban Chat GPT wholesale, this seems like a pretty short-term solution, which implies that AI is a problem in and of itself.??

On the flipside, there are plenty of people calling for the redefinition of what it means to learn, and more specifically, do homework (because this is the bit we have always worried about losing control over anyway!) This too is a tricky stance to maintain, because ultimately, that feels like a big shift in thinking and mindset.??

The reality is, that in the immediate present, pen and paper are winning – with the need for coursework to be monitored and the exam infrastructure more-or-less the same as it was 100 years ago, it doesn’t feel like AI has much hope of thriving in schools.??

However, whilst the exam system may be slow to adapt to this new reality, the truth is, the classroom and teachers can make some relatively small changes that should only benefit learners.??

Here’s my top 3 adaptations to ensure AI helps learning, rather than circumvents it:?

1. Make the journey and not the outcome, the learning?

It’s fairly well established that teaching someone else is an effective way of cementing your own learning. So, if you treat using Chat GPT as an exercise in demonstrating what you know by teaching the bot, you’re on to a winner. If the work is not assessed on the quality of the essay, but on the quality of the engagement with the bot; the prompts you add to refine and explore, the corrections you make, the suggestions you add to the content, the knowledge you demonstrate by telling it what it’s missed out, then you’re allowing pupils to engage with what the AI is good at and highlighting the critical role of the human, all whilst demonstrating knowledge and learning and critical thinking!?

?

1. Demand transparency and return the favour?

Assume that if pupils have access to technology, then they have access to AI – a chat GPT variant is built into Snapchat, so it’s really never far away! As such, you need to make it clear that this is a tool you’re imaging they might be using and that it needs referencing. Much like in the example above, I would prefer a pupil copy and paste a whole conversation with a bot and let me evaluate their input, than I would have them pretend they did it. Equally, if you make it clear when you’ve used content created by AI, it allows for a two-way conversation. I had chat GPT write something for an Englsih essay, showed it to my class and asked them what they thought – it took them about a minute to figure out that I hadn’t written it, and then as we unpicked it, we were able to evaluate the limitations of the bot’s answers and how they would have done it better. Making it normal to use AI is good, making it normal to use AI and talk about what has worked well and could have been better, is ideal!?

1. Look for the ways that AI multiplies your ability to support learning?

?Moving forwards, chatbots will undoubtedly play a role in the classroom of the future. Until this is more established ground however, something like ChatGPT offers an interesting opportunity to support pupils. Whilst it must always come with the relevant health warnings about hallucinations and incorrect information and bias, it can be a powerful prompt for a pupil who struggles. When pupils have their hands up in class, they are often not working, learning, or thinking; they’re waiting...for you. If instead of this, they can ask a bot, what’s a good first sentence for this..., how could this sentence be better, what’s a different way of expressing this..., what would Shakespeare have thought about this..., then you’re empowering them to move forwards. That doesn't mean you don’t check in with them. It means that you can focus on helping those that need it, knowing that they have a method of attempting to keep moving forwards whilst you get to them. ?

?

In light of the opportunities available, suggesting that pen and paper is the correct response to AI in education is a little bit like asking an army to fight with swords and shields; they’ll still look like an army; they’ll still fight for the cause; they may be well-organised and led by inspirational figures, but in the face of the opposition, they look like what they are – an anachronism which is at once endearing, necessary, perhaps, in certain situations even, but limited in what they can offer.??