Skilled Labor in the Classroom
Skilled behavior appears across species through tools and bodies. A chimpanzee fishing for termites matches a sea otter cracking shells or an octopus opening lids, each showing intentionality, learning, consistency, and adaptability.
What seems tool-free—a cheetah's hunt or a bird's flight—relies on biological tools: specialized anatomy and neural networks evolved and enacted for these actions. This spectrum from external to internal tools reveals how intelligence emerges from the interaction between evolved capabilities and environmental demands.
"Skilled Labor in the Classroom" extends this biological insight to artificial intelligence. As neural networks, both natural and artificial, develop capabilities through training, we need a framework for understanding how human and machine intelligences interact in education. Rather than casting AI as replacement or supplement, we are developing this framework to guide research into how hybrid sociocognitive literacy skills emerge and overlap through biological and artificial systems.
By examining skill from basic tools to complex cognition, we can better grasp a more satisfying view of AI's role in education than we see now as the dust settles after this unprecedented technological windstorm. We begin by interrogating 'skill' as a keyword in Raymond Williams' sense: not merely an individual attribute, but a culturally mediated practice that contributes to shared meanings and societal organization. Williams argued that such keywords shape how we understand and enact creative processes across generations.
******
Our approach moves beyond treating skills as discrete, measurable commodities and instead considers them as dynamic practices that emerge through and during the labor of learning, whether that learning occurs in biological neural networks or artificial ones. This view of skills as culturally mediated practices raises crucial questions about how different types of intelligence - human, animal, and artificial - demonstrate and develop skilled behaviors, and what this means for teaching and learning.
We begin by examining how tools mediate skills at different levels. A keyboard and a thesis statement illustrate this range: while one transforms thought into text through physical movement, the other organizes thought itself through learned rhetorical patterns. This distinction exposes both the power and limitations of 'tools' as a keyword metaphor in literacy education.
Examining what makes an activity the location for a skill to be deployed using tool or non-tool resources (intentionality, learning, consistency, adaptability) could hold relevant notions for thinking about skill-based pedagogy.
Writing prompts, for example, reveal a core tension in skill development. While meant to scaffold thesis writing, rigid prompts might inhibit the skills they target. Formula-driven responses show compliance, not the intentional skill of crafting arguments. True thesis writing emerges through analyzing audience expectations and needs and adapting arguments, cognitive work that prescriptive prompts might prevent or trivialize.
How we frame AI in writing classrooms shapes how students adopt it. When we speak of "AI assistance" or "skilled AI writing," we mislead students about the nature of both skill and learning. The fundamental concept students must grasp is that AI is not a skilled assistant but a complex tool.
The question of AI skill hinges on intentionality. When a bot generates a response, is it demonstrating skill or executing patterns? AI outputs show consistency and adaptability, but they lack the agency to embrace goals and methods. A student wrestling with thesis writing makes deliberate choices about argument and audience. AI responses, though fluid, emerge from training rather than purpose.
Treating AI as a skilled agent rather than a tool might undermine learning. We need rigorous empirical study to find out. Students outsource labor rather than develop skills when we misframe AI as a skilled writer instead of a writing tool. The plagiarism crisis seems to have grown from this error, conflating AI outputs with the essential labor of learning. Real skill might emerge when students learn to use AI intentionally, turning a powerful tool toward their own development as writers and thinkers.
This progression reveals how the casual use of "skills" in educational contexts might mask deeper questions about what we're actually developing and assessing. The educational discourse often treats skills as unproblematic, countable entities that can be cleanly taught and measured, when our discussion suggests they're far more complex phenomena.
*****
As education confronts the AI revolution, we can no longer afford to treat classroom AI integration as a matter of individual choice or administrative mandate. The theoretical framework proposed here—examining skills through the lens of tool mediation, intentionality, and learning labor—offers a foundation for moving discourse beyond reactive stances toward systematic classroom research. This approach transcends both techno-optimism and reflexive resistance.
We need coordinated action research that investigates how students actually develop skills when working with AI tools. This research should examine the specific conditions under which AI serves as a productive tool for learning rather than a shortcut around it.
Key questions include the following: How do students develop intentionality in AI use? What distinguishes productive from unproductive AI integration? How can we design task environments, classroom cultures, and assignments that leverage AI while preserving essential learning labor?
The stakes are too high for continued reliance on anecdotal evidence or individual loosely structured experimentation. Only through theoretically grounded, collaborative research can we develop pedagogies that help students master AI as a tool while developing their own skilled capabilities. The future of writing instruction depends not on whether we embrace or reject AI, but on how well we understand and shape its role in the complex ecology of learning. The time for systematic investigation is now.