In a technologically saturated world, questions about “how can we make this more efficient?” take precedence over questions about “what is this for?”
As the French theorist Jacques Ellul spelled out in his massive tome The Technological Society, “Our civilization is first and foremost a civilization of means; in the reality of modern life, the means, it would seem, are more important than the ends.” While written in 1954—well before the advent of most modern technologies—the observation has only grown more true today.
It is against this backdrop that we debate the use of technology (especially AI) in education. Much of this attention is, characteristically enough, focused on the process. Dozens of articles tout how AI can make grading faster, developing lesson plans easier, 1:1 tutoring scalable, and give teachers hours back in their calendar.
These promises tend to get ahead of themselves. Before we decide on the role of technology in education, we must first answer the question of what education itself is for.
If you were to ask a sampling of 10 teachers from across a typical public school district about the purpose of education, you’d likely get 10 related but very different responses. Is the goal of education character formation? Job training? Expanding imaginations? Preparing for the duties of civic life? Building a more just society?
We believe education can serve as a mix of the best of these responses. We believe that if it is to be worthy of the name, education must be formative—forming intellects, hearts, imaginations, political consciousnesses, skills, and abilities.
The emphasis placed on each of these goals can and should vary considerably. While there is basically no role for vocational training in 4th grade, there is likely a great need for it in high school. However, even the high school seniors closest to entering the workforce also need time for forming their imagination and character.
We are suspicious of artificial intelligence in education, as it tends to provide shortcuts to the goal which bypasses the real work otherwise required to reach that goal. The math is simple: To write an essay with 80% assistance from ChatGPT is to be formed 20% as much as would have occurred without the device.
But that’s just our go at discerning the ends of education. Our point is not primarily to defend our answer but rather the importance of asking the question of what education is for. Your own answer to that question informs your intuition about the role of technology in the classroom.
So next time you read an article on the great AI ed-tech debate, consider whether it addresses that question dead-on. If not, what are the ends of education implied by the proposed means?
The early days of generative AI are as good a time as ever to ask these “big questions,” even if it takes a long time to build consensus on them. For instance, at a recent meeting with district leadership from the Granville County public schools, we held an open discussion on exactly this topic to inform our ed-tech policies.
After reviewing results from a survey that our students and teachers completed about the use of technology in the classroom, we asked what current ed-tech policies and practices reveal about how education and learning occur in our district. After participants identified the ways ed tech often gets in the way of formative student-teacher relationships, we ended the discussion with a stronger commitment to our current “tech-free Tuesday/Thursday” policy.
Without such discussions, the passive acceptance of AI ed tech will inevitably be shaped by someone else’s answer to these questions—usually by the technology companies designing those products.
Beyond the district leadership level, we should also encourage this questioning during professional development courses, at conferences, in academic and public journals, and elsewhere.
Principals, parent groups, school boards, superintendents all should feel empowered to make decisions about the role of AI in education.
If this sounds difficult and time-consuming, consider that when we arrive at an answer (or, more likely, many good answers) to the question of what education is for, we are also likely answering many other big education questions that educators have been asking for decades. What is the best student-to-teacher ratio? How should we pace the curriculum and weigh content standards? What professional development do instructors need? How much recess and leisure time is appropriate at each grade level? What kinds of partnerships should schools form with outside companies and colleges?
Legend has it that Abraham Lincoln once said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree, and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” Maybe that’s a good ratio for our current debate. For every six hours we talk about the role of technology in education, perhaps it’s best to spend the first four figuring out what the heck education is even for. With a sharp answer in hand, we will be better equipped to tackle the many practical questions in front of us in the age of AI.
