7/1 AI

I hate, hate, hate AI. I have always been frustrated by people who say “nothing you say on this topic will make me change my mind” but, unfortunately, that is how I feel about AI. I understand the value that it may bring, the efficiency of it all, but none of that outweighs the negative. 

When I began college, I was a public policy major and had no idea what concentration to pick. I was interested in so many things but they all brought me such fear. Especially the environment. I was afraid of our future, I was afraid I would never be able to have children as the world deteriorated, I worried that marine life would be wiped out, I stressed about rising sea levels and worsening natural disasters. I thought I should pick this because how could any other topic matter if we are not alive and well in just 50 years? But then I found education and it brought me such hope. I was excited to study it, that no matter its flaws, and there are many, the base of it is beautiful. The idea that we wanted to gather all children up and educate them, with no request for anything in return, is so beautiful I could not imagine studying anything else. It is what led me to education policy, then Teach for America, and then actually teaching 4th grade. But the introduction of AI brought all that fear and worry back. AI is detrimental to the environment. The water that is taken for cooling is minimizing our already rapidly declining water source, the clearing of natural lands for these huge structures, the constant humming that emitted from the data centers that drives away wildlife and humans alike. None of this is worth any value it may bring. This is not innovation, it is a death sentence. 

When reading the compilation of articles in “AI Can Save Teachers Time and Stress”, I was unimpressed with their rationale. The first article, by an educator named Schrum, compares the introduction of AI to the switch from wooden plow to steel. The author states that the argument against it is “fairness”. Forgive me but I do not believe in “fairness”, I believe in “equity”. I will not use a tool that actively harms our environment and the people living in it. It is the rural poor who are most affected by the creation of data centers and it is always children who will suffer the most. That, to me, is neither fair nor equitable. Reading the rest, teachers and educators note that AI saves them time. What are we saving all this time for? Is this not life itself? To work towards a real goal of bettering our students? Of improving our own skills? I know busy work exists, there are many things that I do not want to do all day long (like writing this blog at 10 pm when I would like to be asleep) but we do them anyway. Why? Because everything has a purpose, and a beauty, if you choose to acknowledge it. I am reading these articles and writing this blog to fulfill an assignment, to get me closer to my masters degree, to become a more informed person, to be a better writer, to learn something new. None of this is a waste to me, why would I be swayed otherwise?

I agree with many premises of The Opposite of Cheating: yes, cheating is innate; yes, educational practices do need to evolve. But I disagree that AI should step anywhere near the playing field. However, if we believe that AI is the answer, then we are asking the wrong questions. My district wants to implement AI into his curriculum. The purpose is to differentiate for students with IEPs and to give students more focused feedback because, as the school says, teachers do not have enough time for it. I agree with both of these needs and I agree that I, and all teachers, are stretched thin. However, I think my administration is asking the wrong question. We should be focused on why I am not able to quickly get around to all my students. I think the problem lies in that I have 32 students, some with severe learning disabilities that require constant attention and they do not allocate the appropriate number of paraprofessionals to be in the room when required. I digress. The majority of the book is about how we can evolve education which I do agree with. On page 12, the author describes how students who believe they can do the assignment are more likely to complete it without cheating. This reminds me of Lesley agreeing to give us an A on our project so that we focus on the purpose and the process rather than the output. I shared that I have a desire to foster intrinsic motivation in my students, which again would dissuade not only cheating, but completing assignments without heart. Additionally, on page 14, there is an underlined section on how students are more afraid of the certainty of failure without cheating than the possibility of being caught cheating. This is an important note because if all a student is worrying about is the grade, then something is wrong. As I previously said, it means we are asking the wrong questions. 

There is much that we need to improve on and continue, but we must do that with our morals intact. Today, Lesley said that we must learn what our true values are so that we know what hills to die on. This is a hill I will die on. 

6/30 Prensky and Spiegel

What do you make of the positions of Prensky and Spiegel?  Where do you stand on the “digital native” terminology?

Link to pdf

I was drawn to the section "What's In A Name?" because I worried a lot about the lack of guidance my students have received on how to use technology. Since they have been using computers their entire educational career, no one has stopped to consider what they actually know. As a "native", they were entrusted with computers and the hope that they would just know what to do. However, using a computer, like any other tool, requires developed skill. My students often use their computers as they would their home iPads, without safeguards and for the intent of play, because they were never taught otherwise. I also grew up with a lot of technology, as Prensky defines being a native, I watched TV, listened to music as I studied, and am confident with a computer. But technology was also more scarce when I was beginning my educational career. Due to this, we had to make the most of our time when we did have access to the computer lab a few times a month. We were taught how to utilize a school computer, how to research, and type. Would Prensky consider myself or my students more of digital natives? Are we both? Are there tiers?

Spiegel shares terms other researchers have used such as "digital creators", "digital worker", and "digital gamer". I see the merit of each of these but am still unsure of where I would categorize myself or my students. There is an overlap and intersection of many of these terms while still lacking on how technology is being used versus how we intend to use it.

Prensky was able to create a label for a new phenomena that not many knew how to react to. However, there are many elements, as outlined above, that do not hold true throughout time. Spiegel challenges the ideas created but she is also unsure of what we should be called, if anything. Technology in the classroom, and technology with children in general, is constantly evolving and if we do not yet have the answers, we should at least try to find the words. Our children are growing up in an unprecedented world in many ways. The internet and everything it has brought with it has changed the landscape of childhood and of education. Spiegel and Prensky are asking the right questions and putting up the challenge of naming what none of us yet understand.

Photo Introduction

Some of my very good friends at our college graduation from the University of Delaware

Reconnecting with nature at Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh, Scotland

My cat daughter Suzie

Visiting an outdoor preschool in Finland with my Early Childhood Education and Development class

I teach 4th grade at Promesa Elementary in West End, Providence, RI