The swift institutional response to ChatGPT's release in late 2022 revealed a familiar pattern in educational reform: the impulse to preserve existing practices through prohibition rather than engaging thoughtfully with disruptive change.
These are extremely strained metaphors. Digital media did not take away that which helps a writer develop their craft (writing), and telemedicine (which is most assuredly inferior to direct) removed a lot of information from the interaction, but also did not remove the act of doctoring that makes one a better doctor.
AI, however is like a modern dashboard of an airplane. It so abstracts the concept of flying that the pilot is demonstrably worse at piloting.
Humans need to actually do a thing to master it, and AI is not a different channel through which one “does,” it is a substitute do-er. A scholar that does not write or read primary sources will be a worse scholar. The very act of their craft is being removed, making them unable to improve.
There is likely no stopping AI, but it is already destroying our capacity to think, and may render us inert as beings with agency.
I agree with much of what you say, Matt. But I’m at a loss to understand what you are proposing the institution of schools should do. Would you mind enlightening me? Thanks.
Handwriting if they care about writing. Fewer papers with personal defense - you read your paper aloud and answer questions, whether directly or from the group.
Interesting. I’ve been reading about documented differences between handwriting and keyboarding. I’ve always been a journal keep, reading logs and quotes. There’s something to it in my experience. To this day I reach for paper and pen if I need to figure something out. For example, I agonized over those analogies with a pen. What convinced me was the trust they inspire working on behalf of another human being. I thought about the clergy. Doctors, lawyers, journalists—they are at the top of the list of servant leaders or aspire to be at least. I put educators in that category.
Look at it this way. How would you feel if the policy dropped no more handwriting? If I were teaching AI I would teach students the metaphysics and biology of handwriting, doing it as you say.
I don’t know how much you’ve used AI, but I have used it daily for two years. I thought it was dumb as a post. And it is. It’s so dumb it pisses me off from time to time. I would NEVER prompt it to write a first draft of anything important. I’d start with paper and pen. Its feedback sucks. Though it might have some utility in screening learners for closer study, I would use it only as an analytical tool on assessment (where it would add insights impossible to get without hours of qualitative coding and sorting of writing work. It can produce empirical rubrics, but they must be verified by experts in the area under assessment
This is why we need to talk, not bark, at one another. I am probably more convinced than you of the importance of human agency and independence at all times, especially during the early stages of framing and experimenting with a text.
I really believe the argument I made is sound. Your criticism of the analogies I used doesn’t hold up, and your analogy to the cockpit and the pilot was fun to read, but I don’t really get unless you are talking about by analogy flying a plane and hand writing.
Good question, Malcolm. Inequality in funding is the root of the problem even if you take LLMs out of the picture. How early do you think might be possible?
Check out the work of Dennie Palmer Wolf of Arts PROPEL. She's studied art portfolios for close to forty years. I think she's at Harvard. She was one of the earliest voices in portfolio assessment in the 1980s and 1990s. I respect her work a great deal.
I know, Malcolm. Me, too, Matt. I love what you are thinking. There is a dire need for caution, for careful thinking about what is valuable and non-replaceable in human learning, what is helpful and expands access to meaning and critical thinking through LLMs.
These are extremely strained metaphors. Digital media did not take away that which helps a writer develop their craft (writing), and telemedicine (which is most assuredly inferior to direct) removed a lot of information from the interaction, but also did not remove the act of doctoring that makes one a better doctor.
AI, however is like a modern dashboard of an airplane. It so abstracts the concept of flying that the pilot is demonstrably worse at piloting.
Humans need to actually do a thing to master it, and AI is not a different channel through which one “does,” it is a substitute do-er. A scholar that does not write or read primary sources will be a worse scholar. The very act of their craft is being removed, making them unable to improve.
There is likely no stopping AI, but it is already destroying our capacity to think, and may render us inert as beings with agency.
I agree with much of what you say, Matt. But I’m at a loss to understand what you are proposing the institution of schools should do. Would you mind enlightening me? Thanks.
Handwriting if they care about writing. Fewer papers with personal defense - you read your paper aloud and answer questions, whether directly or from the group.
Interesting. I’ve been reading about documented differences between handwriting and keyboarding. I’ve always been a journal keep, reading logs and quotes. There’s something to it in my experience. To this day I reach for paper and pen if I need to figure something out. For example, I agonized over those analogies with a pen. What convinced me was the trust they inspire working on behalf of another human being. I thought about the clergy. Doctors, lawyers, journalists—they are at the top of the list of servant leaders or aspire to be at least. I put educators in that category.
Look at it this way. How would you feel if the policy dropped no more handwriting? If I were teaching AI I would teach students the metaphysics and biology of handwriting, doing it as you say.
I don’t know how much you’ve used AI, but I have used it daily for two years. I thought it was dumb as a post. And it is. It’s so dumb it pisses me off from time to time. I would NEVER prompt it to write a first draft of anything important. I’d start with paper and pen. Its feedback sucks. Though it might have some utility in screening learners for closer study, I would use it only as an analytical tool on assessment (where it would add insights impossible to get without hours of qualitative coding and sorting of writing work. It can produce empirical rubrics, but they must be verified by experts in the area under assessment
This is why we need to talk, not bark, at one another. I am probably more convinced than you of the importance of human agency and independence at all times, especially during the early stages of framing and experimenting with a text.
I really believe the argument I made is sound. Your criticism of the analogies I used doesn’t hold up, and your analogy to the cockpit and the pilot was fun to read, but I don’t really get unless you are talking about by analogy flying a plane and hand writing.
Great to talk again, Matt.
Always good to chat!
So AI meets underfunded local schools. How young are children using AI? Classroom defense of a paper is time consuming.
I am agreeing that these issues need serious investigation.
Good question, Malcolm. Inequality in funding is the root of the problem even if you take LLMs out of the picture. How early do you think might be possible?
And what about non- verbal art including music?
Check out the work of Dennie Palmer Wolf of Arts PROPEL. She's studied art portfolios for close to forty years. I think she's at Harvard. She was one of the earliest voices in portfolio assessment in the 1980s and 1990s. I respect her work a great deal.
Our charter school used portfolio reviews with the community
I just downloaded a free e book on LLMs.
I was on the board of a charter school that was not generously funded. We used the entire community to do review of student production.
I would be interested in hearing more.
I know, Malcolm. Me, too, Matt. I love what you are thinking. There is a dire need for caution, for careful thinking about what is valuable and non-replaceable in human learning, what is helpful and expands access to meaning and critical thinking through LLMs.
Envision Schools in Oakland