Hey Human

This week my friend Christina Cantrill, from the National Writing Project, shared a link from the Connected Learning Alliance that absolutely articulated the way we have been feeling in K12 education about the impact of GenerativeAI in our learning environments.

“GPTd on Arrival: A New Paradigm for Understanding Education Technologies” by Justin Reich articulated a distinction that is so incredibly useful to those of us in the field attempting to grapple with the implications of this new technology. Reich stated, “Generative AI was not adopted; it arrived.

In contrast to adopted technologies, “arrival technologies” bypass the planning, assessment, policy-making, and professional learning that have historically (if imperfectly) accompanied previous generations of technology integration. Some prior innovations could be classified, at least partially, as arrival technologies – students brought their personal calculators to math class in the 20th century; mobile phones brought the internet into some classrooms before intentional adoption – but generative AI represents a step change in both the velocity and nature of technology arrival. In less than a year, nearly every internet-connected computing device suddenly had access to dramatic new capacities. Moreover, generative AI is likely to arrive in schools not only on student and teacher devices, but in a wide array of existing software in schools. Student information systems, learning management systems, collaborative writing tools, plagiarism detection software, intelligent tutors, and other software have been integrated into schools through traditional adoption processes, and in the months and years ahead, new AI capacities will arrive in these systems without the same planning, intention, and oversight.

Dr. Reich goes on to describe current research (which can be found here) that highlights the ways in which well-resourced schools can be flexible and responsive to the arrival GenAI technology, while systems under stress will continue to be further stressed.

The researchers also name the tension in educational environments between AI pessimists and AI optimists, noting the polarization that accompanies this type of “arrival” technology.

In the end, the researchers suggest the following:

We recommend that schools pursue considered, limited experimentation without making undue pedagogical or financial commitments, that schools facilitate access to AI with thoughtful guardrails, that educators consider what productive thought students should engage in, and that industry, researchers, and policymakers work together to support educators and students as they adapt to this disruptive technology. (We recommend that schools pursue considered, limited experimentation without making undue pedagogical or financial commitments, that schools facilitate access to AI with thoughtful guardrails, that educators consider what productive thought students should engage in, and that industry, researchers, and policymakers work together to support educators and students as they adapt to this disruptive technology.(https://mit-genai.pubpub.org/pub/4k9msp17#n080i1wcz1y)

In my work with educators working on policy and guidance, I always repeat this idea: GenAI invites truly existential questions. What is meaningful work? What is authentic? Why do students cheat? Why should we learn to write in an age where the computers can do it for us? I will take on some of these questions in upcoming weeks on this blog as I believe they are the foundation for a thoughtful and critical response to the arrival of these technologies. What have you encountered in your K12 context? What discussions are happening in your buildings?

**Note: blog image created with Adobe Firefly