A grief response to disruption: 5 reactions to AI's impact on teaching

And what's missing from the conversation

Note: This topic has started a big discussion on LinkedIn, with almost 50 comments so far. View it and participate here.

"I hate AI. It makes my life hell. That is all."

This was the entire post from one teacher on a private teaching forum. I won’t share the name of the person, forum, or platform for obvious reasons.

I feel for this person, who is experiencing pain, and probably other feelings like confusion, stress and anxiety.

But as I looked through the comments, it was incredible to see the breakdown of how teachers were responding to this post. The comments fell into several categories, which had a surprising similarity to the five stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance). With a few adjustments.

The comments broke down into these five categories: control, conflict, reframes, downplaying, and acceptance. Below, I share paraphrased versions of each reaction, with commentary on what these reactions mean, and what is missing from the conversation.

---

Control

Example comment: I get around AI by forcing kids to submit handwritten drafts, which need my signature on them.

This response is logical, but to a fault. Kids want to use this tool? I consider it cheating for kids to use this tool based on our current paradigm. So I’ll make it impossible for students to use it.

A control-based response can work in the short term if the teacher is organized and has strong classroom management skills. But it ignores the fact that leveraging AI tools is in itself a skill. And that students will be finding ways to skirt any control mechanisms teachers or schools attempt to impose.

Conflict

Example comment: The students are denying the use of AI in their work. Teachers are using detection tools to identify it. It's a fight.

This is related to the control response, but comes from a different perspective. It’s a fight fire with fire kind of thinking, which is happening across K12 and higher-ed.

The sad part about this response is that it also misses the opportunity to rethink assessment and teach students how to leverage these new tools. It also exacerbates an us vs. them mindset, which can’t be positive for an individual classroom or school.

However, this is a popular response at the individual teacher, as well as school and district level. And it reminds me of the way schools treat cell phones.

Reframes

Example comment: Yes, AI is helping kids cheat, but it is also saving us tons of time on planning.

This perspective begins to move towards productive. Part of what makes AI so disruptive and dissonant is the speed of development. New tools are getting better every day. More people are using them every day. The power of the tools is increasing every day. The upward curve for all of these is steep.

It is imperative for teachers to learn how to use AI tools, and they will undoubtedly save teachers’ time.

But this perspective still leaves out the fact that if kids are using the tools to cheat, then this means the current assessment process needs to be reconsidered.

Downplaying

Example comment: You shouldn't worry about this because AI doesn't produce good work.

This perspective appears to make sense if you are playing with basic prompts in ChatGPT, and seeing screenshots from image generation tools shared on social media.

You see AI makes “hallucinations,” where it invents sources or spits out incorrect information. You see funny pictures with weird hands. These are real and current limitations. But the mistake is to drawn the conclusion that this technology is simply not very good.

When improvement is exponential, the reaction should be just how easily, cheaply and conveniently AI tools produce this mediocre work for anyone with an internet connection. It also overlooks the fact that countless students have surely already submitted work created by AI that teachers didn’t even stop to consider was produced by AI.

Why do I make that claim?

In my decade of classroom teaching, I know higher-performing kids got away with more cheating. Just as they had more skills and knowledge to help them succeed at English class, they also had more skills and knowledge on how to secretly collaborate, share answers, plagiarize, etc. The same is happening with AI tools.

Acceptance

Example comment: This is the future. Learn to use it. Teach students to use it. Make it work for all of you.

This is the most useful and realistic perspective.

Of course I’m biased as a long time EdTech user, a person in the industry, and a tech fanboy. But all attempts at control or downplaying are Sisyphean, short-term, and relationship-eroding.

Trying to remove AI from classrooms overlooks the simple fact that schools need to give students skills required to succeed in the present and future. AI is already part of the work world. It will only become more integrated. So it has to become part of how classrooms operate.

The seismic shift

It's only been a few months since ChatGPT has been released on classrooms, and already teachers feel enough of an impact to claim it makes their life “hell.” To me, this kind of rapid, significant shift is the definition of disruption.

It’s important to remember, though, that disruption is not the change. In this case, the release of ChatGPT is not the change to education. It is just the disruption event. The kickoff.

After the disruption event begins the seismic shift.

What will that be?

This is what anyone involved in education needs to focus on in AI discussions. The problem is that this is a painful discussion. Because it lacks clarity.

But, in my view, it’s the only way forward.