The widening disconnect between technological breakthroughs and a humanistic approach to education is a significant concern in the era of generative AI. This gap jeopardises our ability to anticipate the societal impact of AI capabilities and to utilise them responsibly. Generative AI significantly impacts our daily educational experiences in classrooms and decision-making institutions. It is changing the way we learn and create at an incredibly rapid pace.
Regardless of history, aptitude, or temperament, most students in traditional education followed a standard curriculum created for the group rather than the individual. The shortcomings of this strategy are evident in a time when individualism and personalisation have emerged as key components of modernity.
However, many people involved in education—students, educators, and legislators—find it difficult to understand how generative AI may improve individual learning while tackling moral and societal issues. The smooth incorporation of generative AI in education is hampered by this misunderstanding, which causes conflicts.
Individualised education
It’s not that personalised learning is a novel idea. In his 1762 treatise Emile, or On Education, Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocated for individualised education that caters to each student’s needs and interests. More recently, educator Célestin Freinet advocated for a method that honoured the rhythm and curiosity of every child. Due to the requirements of mass education, these approaches have stayed on the periphery of the French educational system.
The goal of the Guizot Law of 1833, which required basic education, and the Haby reform of 1975, which created a single high school system, was to advance equality through standardisation.
Although these innovations made education more accessible, they have frequently come under fire for failing to recognise the variety of students’ skills and abilities. Generative AI now offers a chance to tackle the individualised learning problems that conventional education finds difficult to solve.
Generative AI promises real-time, customised adaptation to individual demands without putting an undue strain on educators thanks to its data analytic skills. It can analyse student performance, learning preferences, and learning styles using complex algorithms. This allows it to create personalised learning routes that change the exercises and degree of difficulty as students advance.
The capacity of generative AI to personalise instruction is demonstrated by Harvard’s customised generative AI instructor. Offering personalised feedback and real-time help, dramatically increased student engagement when incorporated into a physics course.
However, by highlighting the unique yet complementary qualities, Harvard professors showed that generative AI should supplement human education rather than replace it.
Although AI is excellent at providing tailored feedback and encouraging participation through data-driven insights, it lacks the sophisticated contextual knowledge and flexibility human teachers bring to the classroom, particularly when promoting ethical reasoning and critical thinking. Indeed, an over-reliance on AI may compromise the teacher’s role as a mentor for more in-depth intellectual enquiry.
To guarantee that AI is used to support, not undermine, the humanistic goal of education, the professors argued for extensive teacher training programmes that incorporate ethical and pedagogical frameworks.
The impact of generative AI on creativity is another matter of concern. Are students still allowed to experiment, make errors, and follow unorthodox paths—frequently the most intellectually stimulating—if an algorithm controls every element of their education?
According to research from the University of South Carolina, ChatGPT and similar programmes facilitate efficient brainstorming, but also cause students to become too dependent on generative AI, which lowers their self-confidence in their creative talents. Many pupils claimed that the concepts of generative AI limited their ability to think independently.
Training of teachers
Students who are digital natives utilise these devices instinctively, but they frequently don’t grasp the philosophical and ethical ramifications. Teachers now must choose between a lack of adequate training and the need to innovate. A thorough rethinking of education is required to close these inequalities.
To assist instructors in comprehending how generative AI systems learn, process, and produce knowledge, generative AI theory must be incorporated into teacher training.
For instance, the AI4T (Artificial Intelligence for and by Teachers) project in France provides teachers with resources like open textbooks and massively open online courses (MOOCs) to help them incorporate AI into the classroom.
The project promotes awareness of AI’s potential while highlighting ethical issues like equity and transparency. AI4T assists educators in overcoming the difficulties of individualised, inclusive learning environments by offering them both practical and epistemological training. Similarly, the National Science Foundation’s EducateAI programme in the US offers tools to educators at all educational levels to guarantee inclusive and accessible AI instruction.
Additionally, the AI for Education organisation provides “Train-the-Trainer” programmes that allow school personnel to become proficient in generative AI and offer their institutions top-notch professional development.
Teachers should get an understanding of the ethical, social, and philosophical facets of generative AI through this training, but it shouldn’t make them engineers. Teachers with this experience would be able to encourage critical thinking about the applications of generative AI and make these complicated technologies more approachable for pupils.
To democratise knowledge of generative AI and promote an informed discussion about its application in education, this enlarged role for educators is essential.
The integration of generative AI should not impede the growth of ethical reasoning, creativity, empathy, or critical thinking; rather, it should strengthen these qualities. These ideas are essential to a humanistic view of education, and guarantee that education stays centred on people’s overall development rather than just technological effectiveness.
All parties involved in education should work together to determine the objectives and ideals that guide the use of generative AI in the classroom. It is crucial to stop these technologies from developing on their own without consideration for the actual needs of educators and students. Only by doing this can we realise a vision of technology that supports emancipatory education and creates a future in which generative AI enriches our humanity.
While generative AI offers remarkable potential for personalising education, its integration into classrooms must be approached thoughtfully. The risk of overshadowing humanistic qualities like ethical reasoning, creativity, and critical thinking cannot be overlooked.
To harness AI’s full benefits, educators must receive comprehensive training that includes technical and philosophical insights, ensuring they remain central to the learning process.
AI should complement, not replace, human educators, facilitating a balanced approach that supports individual learning needs while promoting holistic development.
By carefully guiding the application of generative AI in education, we can create an inclusive, thoughtful, and human-centred future that enhances, rather than diminishes, the essence of education.