As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly accessible, educators face a pivotal choice: restrict its use or embrace it as a tool for learning. Some learners, like my former student, a creative genius skilled in video and music production, make this choice particularly complex. Tech-savvy and charismatic, this student faced challenges with traditional schoolwork, especially when they hadn't bought into its purpose. Unsurprisingly, they were uniquely able to find workarounds for most tasks. Most educators know a few students who fit this profile. In an era where technology and AI are increasingly intertwined with education, our goal as educators should be to empower all students to navigate these tools responsibly. Instead, we often struggle to help students find the value in grappling with academic work and end up in a tug of war with our learners over the use of technology.
As an example, in one class I assigned a somewhat traditional essay exam to prepare my students for the high stakes written exams which lay on the horizon. To individualize the task while encouraging student agency, I made the exam's goal clear: use our flexibility around assessment to prepare for the Diploma Program timed, hand-written essay test. I offered a range of options for completing the work successfully. Students could decide to take the exam at home without time constraints, begin it at school and take it home if they weren’t finished, take it at school within the hour-long block on a computer, or write it by hand in one hour. Access to notes was also optional. I asked students to discuss their selection with me to explain why it best fit their learning goals and to turn in an academic honesty statement along with the exam stating the time they used and listing any notes or resources they accessed. If they opted to take the test at home, they could use AI to help with a tricky sentence or overcome a complete brain block, but they had to document their use. I also provided the opportunity to retake the exam if they weren’t satisfied with the results of their first attempt. This extra reassurance encouraged students to select an approach slightly outside their comfort zone. As Headden and McKay (2015) explain, "When students know that their abilities can be developed, they seek out tougher challenges, make greater effort, and persist longer at tasks and achieve at higher levels."
In preparation for this exam, my individual selection discussions with students revealed that they were all motivated to improve their writing and conscious of their areas in need of improvement rather than seeking the easiest path. In fact, most attempted the one-hour in-class exam but appreciated that they could continue if they weren’t able to complete it. Those who didn’t meet their own expectations opted to integrate my feedback and take the test a second time, which just led to more learning. Across the class, the resulting essays reflected significant growth. Wormeli and Nickelsen (n.d.) validated this teaching strategy by explaining, "When we partner with our students in their learning, both our instruction and their personal investment in learning improve."
Despite the general success, in the pile of positive results, this aforementioned student stood out as turning in something distinctly not their work. They had also “forgotten” to complete the honesty statement. Ignoring my guidance to use digital tools only for specific writing feedback and to select a path that met their learning goals, this student breached my trust.
It is tempting to use this example of cheating as evidence that access to AI and other digital tools requires educators to forgo choice and assert more control over the assessment environment. Across my former school and many others, I’ve noticed a significant shift away from student choice and towards timed, hand-written exams. With the explosion of new tools, the primary focus becomes the teacher’s assurance that the assignment reflects the student’s “own work.” While this approach might prevent some students in the group from making a mistake, it simultaneously reinforces the hierarchy between teacher and student, removes opportunities to individualize learning, and does little to prepare students for the realities of a world in which they will need to thoughtfully integrate technology. Yeager, Dahl, and Dweck (2018) caution against highly authoritarian approaches to managing adolescents' behavior. In their article, they contend that interventions to impact adolescent behavior should “directly harness the desire for status and respect, provide adolescents with more respectful treatment from adults, or lessen the negative influence of threats to status and respect.” When we assert top-down control over tech use in a classroom of adolescents, we don’t show them respect and we threaten their sense of autonomy, ironically limiting our positive influence on their development.
Aware of this risk, I first managed my personal frustration with this student’s poor choice. Then I met with them and candidly shared my goal as their teacher as well as my disappointment. I asked them why they had taken this approach and offered more support so they could feel confident showing their own work. After a moment of shock and embarrassment, they felt safe enough to own their mistake. They expressed that they were nervous that they wouldn’t do as well as they wanted and that they hadn’t taken enough time to prepare. Together, we developed a plan for them to show their understanding of the material. They retook the exam under my supervision and asked for my guidance when they ran into a few small roadblocks. Their work on this exam was the best writing they had yet produced, and they were proud of the efforts that earned it.
While teaching students to write and to rely on their knowledge and understanding is important, the wider availability of AI reinforces the idea that our most important role as educators is to help our students develop strategies to set ambitious goals and access the support they need to transfer their skills and abilities to solving real-world problems. When we severely limit the tools they can use, we are sending a message that only certain kinds of knowledge have value, or that seeking to access a range of resources is shameful. This kind of message alienates teachers from students and artificially isolates school learning from other, more logical problem-solving strategies we all use in our everyday lives. By seeking to control our classrooms, we justify the school skepticism expressed by many talented students and make all of our jobs harder.
While there is no easy solution for teaching students basic skills in the age of AI, we must rely on our appreciation for the power of relationships and transparent communication. By fostering open communication and supporting students in setting and achieving their goals, we can turn AI from a potential barrier into a powerful tool for authentic learning. Just as importantly, we create opportunities to value the input of our most innovative students, and just might learn some new tricks from them along the way.
References
Headden, S., & McKay, S. (2015). Motivation Matters: How New Research Can Help Teachers Boost Student Engagement. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/resources/publications/motivation-matters-how-new-research-can-help-teachers-boost-student-engagement/
Wormeli, R., & Nickelsen, L. (n.d.). Key to Motivation: Student Agency. Association for Middle Level Education. https://www.amle.org/key-to-motivation-student-agency/
Yeager, D. S., Dahl, R. E., & Dweck, C. S. (2018). Why interventions to influence adolescent behavior often fail but could succeed. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617722620
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Thrash is the CEO and co-founder of Belong Hub, student leadership kits and services that guide adults and students to collaboratively create a belonging-centered school culture. Rachael is a school leader and teacher with over 20 years experience in the field of education. With a master’s degree from Brown University, she has taught and led initiatives in independent schools in the United States of America, public community colleges, and International Baccalaureate schools, most recently the International School of Helsinki in Finland.
