That’s a great idea, Dustin. Cool way to get kids to think about how old handwriting is and how new AI is. I’ve uploaded pics of my handwriting to boys before to get them to decipher my handwriting but never to do say a psychic analysis of me from my handwriting. Nice!
I love the way you have framed the what tends to be understood a key debate within the overall discussions around AI and learning to show how the essential position is outside of the terms that have been defined (poorly and usually implicitly as you do a good job of showing). Also, fun to come across a second piece in a month in this area that references Friere. Two areas that I'll be thinking about based on your piece: First, the introductory section summarizing the history of teachers as innovators. I sometimes think that one way in which I'm a product of my culture is my interest in demonstrating a history and tradition behind my proclivities. I'm less inclined to say simply "Teachers are innovators" or "Teachers can be innovators" than I am to say "See how teachers (at least in these examples) have an established tradition as innovators". In any case, I noticed in a LinkedIn thread on "how to overcome teacher resistance to AI adoption" (LinkedIn doesn't seem very forthcoming on the origin of these threads) that a common theme was "Teachers are always willing to innovate if it can be shown to be in the interest of their students and if they are consulted". Of course, this thread clearly implied the context of some form of AI tool-producing company looking to sell into and to ensure adoption/engagement within an educational institution. I feel like this might be the kind of position that sounds like openness to innovation but actually misses the point, as with some of the arguments you outline. This isn't an attitude that seems aligned to either of the two jobs you define at the end of your piece. Second, I'm very interested in the conflict between conformity and exploration that you set up. That's definitely something I've felt throughout my life, including my educational and work experiences. I've seen it crop up in some of your other recent pieces, too - one with a quite lively comment exchange around perceived constraints of grading and "work products" in schools. One possible link between the two (teachers as innovator and the conflict between conformity and exploration): in its best moments, a teacher-student interaction is purely human, not only unconscious of institutional constraints (forgetting for the moment grades or timetables or curricula), but also perhaps unconscious of philosophical concerns (Education for what? What is a good society). It can be simply joyful to share and to grow, to want to do it in a way that feels right (in every way: deep, helpful safe) on the part of both teacher and student. Already a long comment so I won't try to bring to more of a conclusion. I very much appreciated the piece and will be thinking about its implications.
We can combine the best of old and new. Like writing with a quill pen and using AI to analyze handwriting and writing content, just a quick idea…
That’s a great idea, Dustin. Cool way to get kids to think about how old handwriting is and how new AI is. I’ve uploaded pics of my handwriting to boys before to get them to decipher my handwriting but never to do say a psychic analysis of me from my handwriting. Nice!
Nice. Great riposte, Terry. The challenge is getting the right people to read it.
I love the way you have framed the what tends to be understood a key debate within the overall discussions around AI and learning to show how the essential position is outside of the terms that have been defined (poorly and usually implicitly as you do a good job of showing). Also, fun to come across a second piece in a month in this area that references Friere. Two areas that I'll be thinking about based on your piece: First, the introductory section summarizing the history of teachers as innovators. I sometimes think that one way in which I'm a product of my culture is my interest in demonstrating a history and tradition behind my proclivities. I'm less inclined to say simply "Teachers are innovators" or "Teachers can be innovators" than I am to say "See how teachers (at least in these examples) have an established tradition as innovators". In any case, I noticed in a LinkedIn thread on "how to overcome teacher resistance to AI adoption" (LinkedIn doesn't seem very forthcoming on the origin of these threads) that a common theme was "Teachers are always willing to innovate if it can be shown to be in the interest of their students and if they are consulted". Of course, this thread clearly implied the context of some form of AI tool-producing company looking to sell into and to ensure adoption/engagement within an educational institution. I feel like this might be the kind of position that sounds like openness to innovation but actually misses the point, as with some of the arguments you outline. This isn't an attitude that seems aligned to either of the two jobs you define at the end of your piece. Second, I'm very interested in the conflict between conformity and exploration that you set up. That's definitely something I've felt throughout my life, including my educational and work experiences. I've seen it crop up in some of your other recent pieces, too - one with a quite lively comment exchange around perceived constraints of grading and "work products" in schools. One possible link between the two (teachers as innovator and the conflict between conformity and exploration): in its best moments, a teacher-student interaction is purely human, not only unconscious of institutional constraints (forgetting for the moment grades or timetables or curricula), but also perhaps unconscious of philosophical concerns (Education for what? What is a good society). It can be simply joyful to share and to grow, to want to do it in a way that feels right (in every way: deep, helpful safe) on the part of both teacher and student. Already a long comment so I won't try to bring to more of a conclusion. I very much appreciated the piece and will be thinking about its implications.