In a recent thread started by SC, the question was pondered as to what effects AI could have on education. There is an editorial in The Guardian that has a lot to say on this matter:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/14/ai-artificial-intelligence-disrupt-education-creativity-critical-thinking

While I'm interested in all responses, I would especially like to hear those from Summer and other current and former teachers on this topic. Will, and should, the development of AI force the U.S. as a nation to rethink its educational system to stress critical thinking skills over rote learning? While the author of this editorial thinks this should be the case, I have to say I have my doubts--especially in low-income and other vulnerable neighborhoods where just getting by is still the name of the game.

AI, especially the use of Chat GPT, is a very big topic of conversation among teachers right now. Basically, the consensus is, we don't know, but we do see problems that need to be addressed.

First, I have only taught young children. My specialty area is grades 1-3, but I have served as a classroom teacher for all grades 1-6, with a short stint in 7th. I've also worked with Pre-K and Kindergarten students. I do have close contact with high school teachers in my district, and through networks, also contacts nationwide.

IMO it's not a case of rote memorization vs. critical thinking. Students need both. Students need a large content base upon which to build higher knowledge. You simply can't think critically if you don't have the facts at hand, along with the knowledge of how to research additional information. Critical thinking skills were being more strongly promoted maybe 15-25 years ago, and I think should be brought into higher focus once again.

Reading and writing are closely intertwined skills (also listening and speaking, but for the present purposes I'll focus on reading and writing.) Let's say that I'm teaching the long /a/ sound spelled "ai" and "ay." After I teach the skill, and have students practice manipulating letter cards on the whiteboard, then I will send students back to their desks for dictation of the same words. This process is known as "encoding," and is a critical part of word recognition.

The writing of sentences, paragraphs, and essays is also critical to reading comprehension. A well constructed paragraph or essay in which a main idea is presented with support, or a cause-and-effect relationship is established, furthers critical thinking in students. This is what teachers are worried about -- that AI will short out this process. That's why many teachers are reverting to paper and pencil writing in the classroom only. We still need to teach students how to write, and more broadly how to think.

As for AI being useful for streamlining teachers' workloads, I am skeptical. The mentality of administrators is such that they would simply pile on additional tasks, because overwork has become baked into the job.

Summer, thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm going to comment specifically on your last paragraph because I think your point goes way beyond teaching.

Summer wrote in part:

"As for AI being useful for streamlining teachers' workloads, I am skeptical. The mentality of administrators is such that they would simply pile on additional tasks, because overwork has become baked into the job."

The comment in your last sentence would not only apply to school administrators but businesses of all sizes. I remember listening to an interview with a wealthy stockholder (I can't remember his name right now) during the 2008 recession. During that interview, this gentleman (and he was quite gentlemanly) commented that the only reason he hired people to work for him was because he couldn't perform all of the functions of the job himself. Put another way, if the use of AI allows employers to use less labor in their businesses to get the same results, then the employers will remove the people and keep the AI.

Yes, I'm aware that it can affect others as well. A young friend of mine is a CPA, and a private firm wanted all kind of ridiculous hours from her. She had to go through a couple of job changes to find a good fit.

Teaching is weird in that respect. Upper administrators expect value for money spent, but it goes well beyond contracted hours. When I was an elementary classroom teacher, I normally worked 50+ to 60+ hours per week. A lot of what is done outside of school hours is what I would call "office" or administrative tasks. I do more office-type work as a teacher than I did as an office worker. The difference is that I also teach for the majority of my work day.

My brother, who earned maybe four times my annual salary while working in private industry, was shocked at my hours (which are typical.) He told me he worked about 43 hours per week.

I have no doubt that AI will change the workplace and will eliminate some jobs. How exactly it does that remains to be seen.

Summer says it so well. The better your math and English skills are, the better chance you will have critical thinking skills. Math, English, Science etc are the trees. Critical thinking is the Forest.

The teacher in our small high school who taught the speech and debate classes gave two full weeks on critical thinking and that changed my life. My English teacher made us deconstruct stories in a such as way as to force us to think.

Now I have employees who have graduated from high school and I have to teach them how a ruler works. And yet I read of a school that had a class now on how to be happy. I think they would be happier if they new what an 1/8th inch is. And how to read a book that isn't written by thumbs with emojis, and acronymns.


There are a lot of people nowadays who don't want to start at ground level and learn the basics. The metaphor of a house built on sand comes to mind. Also Hal from 2001 comes to mind.

All this worry about people wanting to go back to the fifties. I don't. Except I think education perhaps should.

Would Dave have been better off is he ad learned to drive the bus himself instead of Hal?

From the linked article:

"We are being duped into believing these AI tools are far more intelligent than they really are. A tool like ChatGPT has no understanding or knowledge. It merely collates bits of words together based on statistical probabilities to produce useful texts. It is an incredibly helpful assistant."

COMMENT: It depends upon what you mean by "intelligent." AI systems in general are composed of sophisticated algorithms that are designed to address and solve problems, and generate results, that go well beyond the scope of any human capacity. The fact that they have "no understanding" -- as philosopher John Searle repeatedly emphasized -- does not mean that they are not intelligent, it just means that (presumably) they are not conscious agents, as are humans. Chat GPT is much, much more than a hodge podge of "statistical probabilities." It incorporates subtle rules of grammar and the complex semantics of natural language, as well as logical operators and algorithms, within an immense data set. There is no question that this encompass what can legitimately be called non-conscious 'critical thinking.' It is the same principle as a common calculator, only covering a much wider domain.
__________________________________

"But it is not knowledgable, or wise. It has no concept of how any of the words it produces relate to the real world. The fact that it can pass so many forms of assessment merely reflects that those assessments were not designed to test knowledge and understanding but rather to test whether people had collected and memorised information."

COMMENT: When considering and comparing the cognitive capacities of a human being with machine intelligence, what should be emphasized (as the linked articles suggests) is that notwithstanding the computational superiority of computers in a context of highly complex calculations, human beings are NOT machines, and their brains are NOT computers. (Otherwise in principle AI will eventually be able to mimic (and go well beyond) all human capacities, including creativity, and 'wisdom.') The capacity of human beings that sets them apart from machines, and arguably makes them 'superior' to a computer, is the capacity to engage the physical world as a cognitive agent in "real time" and solve unique, unexpected, and unprogrammed, real world problems through the exercise of conscious will. They do this by abstracting (consciously or unconsciously) highly complex data structures relevant to a wide variety of diverse problems and contexts, with the ability to retain such experiences in memory. This is accomplished through the unique cognitive capacities of the human mind, which have no analog with a digital computer, or computational neural network. (This is essentially the so-called 'frame problem' in AI.) The fact that humans can also consciously 'think' about such problems and choose an alternative action not computationally prescribed is also something computer intelligence can't do.

Regarding teaching, I believe that students should be taught the above cognitive distinctions at an early educational level in specific, scientific, terms, in order to displace the popular AI and cognitive neuroscience notion that humans are just cognitive machines, operating as software on brain hardware. As long as students think they are just a machine, it will be natural to look to a better machine to solve their problems. Computers, google, Wikipedia, and now Chat GTP will overpower their place as a tool, and become a substitute for genuine, human critical thinking, that encompasses personal and social values.

I worry about teachers at all levels who themselves do not know or appreciate the difference between (1) personal human critical thinking; that is, applying basic facts, logic and argument to social problems and issues, and (2) adopting the latest politically correct 'critical thinking' paradigm. Their students do not learn how to really think, but only how to extrapolate and apply to their worldview what others have determined is the result of critical thinking. This is precisely what computer programs like Chat GTP now encourage.

Moreover, one can be sure that it is impossible for a computer program like CHAT GPT to be effective without incorporating personal and social values at some level. One can imagine what will happen when CHAT GPT programmers subtly program their preferred social values into the 'logical' results of their algorithms. So, for example, when it is asked, "Describe the latest decision of the US Supreme Court on LGBTQ rights," it comes up with a long narrative describing the opinion and ends with "Such decision was clearly inconsistent and discriminatory." "Thanks," the user responds, "That's all I need to know."

First, I liked your response (I liked Summers' to, but I'll talk about that elsewhere). It raises ideas that ought to be considered when applying AI in both educational and non-educational settings.

That said, you wrote in part:

"I worry about teachers at all levels who themselves do not know or appreciate the difference between (1) personal human critical thinking; that is, applying basic facts, logic and argument to social problems and issues, and (2) adopting the latest politically correct 'critical thinking' paradigm. Their students do not learn how to really think, but only how to extrapolate and apply to their worldview what others have determined is the result of critical thinking. This is precisely what computer programs like Chat GTP now encourage."

Noncritical thinking was around long before the development of AI. Salesmen have encouraged customers to not think about the possible pitfalls for many centuries before the creation of AI. Also, we humans are social animals; that is, there is some great need built in to all of us (or nearly all of us) that demands that we seek approval from other human beings before we begin a task and after that task has concluded. This need for approval from others, especially in the groups we identify with, serves as a major potential to keep us from the skills necessary for critical thinking.

"Noncritical thinking was around long before the development of AI. Salesmen have encouraged customers to not think about the possible pitfalls for many centuries before the creation of AI."

Of course. However, the difference is that salespersons (and others peddling their wares or ideas), operate within a specific context, be it a consumer product or specific social agenda. Non-critical thinkers might be taken in, buying the product or the idea long before AI existed. Yet, AI and CHATGPT specifically is a universal, systematic tool designed to encompass a wide range (universal?) of contexts, problems, and questions. After all, it is on our desktop, we can ask it anything we like anytime we like, no salesperson necessary. Moreover, it somehow suggests an authority that no individual salesperson can muster, carrying the weight of a host of experts, with no *apparent* self-interest.
_____________________________________________

Also, we humans are social animals; that is, there is some great need built in to all of us (or nearly all of us) that demands that we seek approval from other human beings before we begin a task and after that task has concluded. This need for approval from others, especially in the groups we identify with, serves as a major potential to keep us from the skills necessary for critical thinking.

COMMENT: I agree in general but would hasten to add that ideally rational critical thinking can (and should) trump one's natural disposition for approval, particularly when serious issues are presented for discussion. Here on RfM, a 'group think' approval motivation often seems to underlie much of the anti-Mormon or anti-religion rhetoric one finds here. (IMO) That might be just the nature of the beast, but it also, in my view, spills over into other contexts.

Henry, teachers do not teach critical thinking skills in a vacuum. It is always taught in relation to something that has been studied in class. For instance, when I taught the Titanic to 3rd graders in ELA (this was a district-mandated story, but I loved it, so I gave it more time,) I thought it was a great example of human hubris. As the culminating activity, I asked students to respond with a paragraph or essay explaining if they thought Captain Smith made good or bad decisions that evening. I didn't care what their opinion was as long as they could support it adequately with facts that they had learned. I would say this is true for most teachers, Henry. You bring politics into an area where it is normally not present. Most teachers that I know of will teach in such a way as to further students' ability to reason.

I also used to like to read novels aloud at the end of the school day. At the end of each novel, I would ask my second graders about the theme of the novel -- what is the novel all about? What is the author trying to say? This is a lot of thinking for a 2nd grader. I would lead them, though questioning, to find the theme.

Teachers enjoy teaching critical thinking skills. It's literally why we teach. It is fun to develop young minds.

I certainly do not place myself over you as to how to teach 2nd and 3rd graders. I would only add the following general point:

As I use this term, 'critical thinking' is not the same as mere directed 'thinking' or reflection. In your Titanic example, it is one thing to present the facts and inquire about your students' opinions as to fault and blame, etc. of the captain. In short, one can think and be "critical" about the actions of players in the drama, including the rationality of their decision-making. This kind of thinking is more or less *informal.*

'Critical thinking,' however, again as I view this term, arises on the next level of analysis, where one is 'critical' of the conclusions and interpretations of others, and in particular, the validity of their factual assessments and logical inferences. I am not sure how this fits into your classroom of 2nd and 3rd graders, but the main point of critical thinking is criticism in the context of an argument; that is, where one side is attempting to persuade (directly or indirectly) others to accept some conclusion.

Note that this is not just about politics and social policy, but about any argument for any conclusion, however trivial. It also means recognizing when someone's personal values have been inserted as a premise to an argument, thus potentially undermining the argument's objectivity.

The art of teaching critical thinking is on a continuum. Obviously one will go into more sophisticated topics as students get older. I did often teach the art of persuasion to my young learners as time allowed.

>> I worry about teachers at all levels who themselves do not know or appreciate the difference between (1) personal human critical thinking; that is, applying basic facts, logic and argument to social problems and issues, and (2) adopting the latest politically correct 'critical thinking' paradigm. Their students do not learn how to really think, but only how to extrapolate and apply to their worldview what others have determined is the result of critical thinking.

This is what I was talking about when I referred to you inserting politics ("politically correct") into an area where it is not normally present. Teachers enjoy a spirited debate in class.

And please stop your condescension to teachers. You are treating us like we are stupid. Honestly! So tell us, Henry, why didn't you go into teaching if the development of young minds such a noble and important endeavor? You could have shown the rest of us how it's done correctly.

This is what I was talking about when I referred to you inserting politics ("politically correct") into an area where it is not normally present. Teachers enjoy a spirited debate in class.

COMMENT: Look, social and political issues are front and center here on RfM, so that is the context I and others have chosen to discuss 'critical thinking.' If you want to talk about these issues in a scientific or other context, fine. But the idea of 'critical thinking' is generally the same, as I described it.
___________________________________________

And please stop your condescension to teachers. You are treating us like we are stupid. Honestly! So tell us, Henry, why didn't you go into teaching if the development of young minds such a noble and important endeavor? You could have shown the rest of us how it's done correctly.

COMMENT: I am not condescending of teachers. Like lawyers, there are good ones and bad ones. I worry about the bad ones, because I have come across them over the years during my own education and that of my own children. Moreover, I can see where at the university level, the distinction between one's personal values and logical argument is merged in dogmatic ways--in many different contexts. So, yes, I worry about that, but it does not diminish my respect for good teachers at all levels.

Finally, I see questionable critical thinking skills regularly on this Board, for example when I have been repeatedly accused of being "tone deaf" by a poster because I challenged the *logic* of an 'argument' that was clearly based upon the poster's personal experiences and dogmatic personal values. I worry that such persons might use the same rhetorical tactics with their students, while confusing such tactics as genuine critical thinking.

Yes, I'm going to use the word, "tone deaf" when you express little or no empathy for people who are affected by SCOTUS decisions that do not affect you in any way.

And I stand by what I said about your attitude towards teachers.

"I see questionable critical thinking skills regularly on this Board,"

As you have not demonstrated to me your own skill on this matter I take little stock of your assessment.

Education is a tango. A teacher may offer a smorgasboard but it's up to the students to fill their plates and really, really taste.

I had so many great teachers and am having trouble remembering any bad ones--though doubtless there are some. Number one they offered information and then relished the discussion of it like what summer refers to.

You make me wonder, Henry, how large your sampling of classrooms and teachers is--witnessed personally by you that your assessment of teachers was based on. If it is more than a thousand your opinion would garner more weight with me. Like one of my teachers taught me this:

Of Judy likes spinach that does not mean that all people named Judy likes spinach, That was just the beginning of learning not to make assumptions.

Now if Henry says,"Critical thinking,' however, again as I view this term, arises on the next level of analysis, where one is 'critical' of the conclusions and interpretations of others, and in particular, the validity of their factual assessments and logical inferences." That does not mean that all people named Henry would say the same many would see that is a personal definition and I prefer what my speech teacher and many others taught me which was much more specific than your cloudy definition.

If it's to ever be useful for anything, first, we have to get AI to stop lying and making stuff up. Every day I hear about cases and circumstances where people in all sorts of professional and judicial positions tried to use AI and the AI shot them in the foot once they realized it had just pulled facts, cases, and diagnoses out of its own rear end. XD

We gotta decide what we want AI to do. Because right now, I think the goal to make AI be creative is going to hinder its ability to properly retrieve facts, research, write factual articles, etc.

If you need to upgrade your lies to be something better than, "the dog ate my homework, I won't be into work today because of food poisoning, I won't be into work today because of diarrhea, etc." then perhaps AI could be useful in offering more inventive alternatives.

I have actually told an employee that next time on a Monday morning for the 3rd time 5 months telling me you have food poisoning just say you woke up to a Bengal Tiger in your living room and you are waiting for animal control.

Most people using AI are only fooling themselves and their equally stupid demographic.

I just tell my boss that I'm "taking a sick day today." I never go into specifics. Sometimes I'm sick, sometimes I'm catching up on paperwork, and sometimes I just need a day off. As long as the number of sick days is reasonable per year, no one cares. The office secretary just needs to know how to charge it, i.e. sick, personal leave, administrative leave, jury duty, etc.

I apologize. I don't know what you're talking about "needing to upgrade lies." I think I'm trying to relate it to what I said in my post and I can't see the connection.

I fear I may be missing a joke?

I loved what you wrote. I was riffing on this:

"If it's to ever be useful for anything, first, we have to get AI to stop lying and making stuff up."

I just thought it was funny that the AI strong suit could be lying and making stuff up. AI could be very useful to liars as well as the clueless. And I know some liars who could use some help with their lives. That was the joke even if it was lame.

Came across an article about an AI-camera that followed a referee's bald head because it confused his head for the ball.

I'd post it, but that site is "BANNED" for your protection.