AI in K-12 Schools: The genie, the bottle, and the future.

 As both (a) an Instructional Designer who cut his teeth on leveraging (early) AI to improve education/training and (b) the spouse of a teacher in our local school district, each day I am confronted with stories from the news outlets and tales from the frontlines about the promises and perils of AI for students and teachers.

The recent announcement by OpenAI that they will provide K-12 teachers access to a free version of their flagship ChatGPT product has reignited my dual excitement and reservations about how this new technology can vs. should be adopted in schools.

I know myself well enough to resist the siren call of quickly aligning with either end of the "utopia/doomsday" spectrum in exchange for a purposeful and thoughtful "pause" while critically entertaining arguments from all sides. I've long been a believer in Amara's Law (new technologies are overestimated in the short-term and underestimated in the long-term) and feel that AI is a strong case example, but I'll admit the pace this technology is advancing is unlike anything I've seen (including the internet/WWW). This breakneck speed of product and version releases may present a (semi) unique challenge to the benefits of slowing down to contemplate/debate/weigh the pros and cons we are confronting. There may be a real risk of slipping into extended philosophical discussions about whether the light in the tunnel is a new vista of opportunity or an oncoming train as we speed towards the tunnel's opening and we are forced to live with the ramifications of our (hasty?) decision.

I also recognize how it may not be fair to frame this as a binary fork in the road - there may be several shades of gray that are available for society between the black/white extremes. Perhaps we can learn from past predictions of the impact of previous technologies (radio, television, calculators, computers, the internet, etc.) on education, and reflect on the hindsight true impact they provided, both positive and negative? Very few advances can honestly be seen as "silver bullets" with no downsides, so it may be a matter of thoughtfully identifying what is gained vs. lost with each new offering and deciding if the benefits outweigh the costs.

Similarly, however, there is value in being realistic and pragmatic about how it's difficult (impossible?) to "put the genie back in the bottle" once it has been released (think: the atomic bomb, for instance). AI, in some form, is here to stay and our grand/children will never know a world without it. We cannot afford to wistfully lament about "the good ol' days"; we must actively engage with the knotty issues AI presents us and not allow others (tech companies, government representatives, academics) to dictate a future we simply must passively accept.

I fully enjoy reading the various perspectives that are shared on LI (see: Gary Stager, Ph.D. and Chris Riesbeck as but two examples) but I also think it's important to include the voices of "the common wo/man" in the debate. PBS recently had a thought-provoking story on this topic that included thoughts from a variety of perspectives, ranging from an MIT professor to everyday parents. I encourage watching the short clip.

Please share YOUR thoughts on where your instincts are leaning, why, and what sorts of practical steps can be taken to inject thoughtful and inclusive debate to balance the rocket ship AI has become in our lives (educational and otherwise)!

Thanks for your willingness to share your wisdom with the crowd...

Innumeracy (or Our Number Numbness)

 After watching some of the latest news reports and articles regarding our government's budget, the national debt, and recent attempts to trim fraud, waste, and abuse, I felt like it would be a good time to dust off and update a presentation I made a few years ago regarding Innumeracy.

Perhaps this may help the public a little bit with their "number sense" when large number are casually thrown about online and on TV. Informed citizens all need to have a solid general mathematical foundation and comfort.

Pythagoras and Storyline - A Tale of Learning

During my most recent "transition period" between employment relationships, I discovered that I'd started to fall a bit into the dreaded gray area between one who "does" and one who manages those who "do".  While the situation is relatively common across industries as one moves up the ladder, I felt like the Instructional Design domain had a heavier-than-usual emphasis on knowing how to directly use (at a detailed level) the latest version of the leading eLearning authoring tools. It seemed that knowing "of" one or more tools and their capabilities wasn't enough (even if you were seeking a management role).

Since I was a bit of a minor code/authoring jockey back in the day, I was confident that I could pick up the thread relatively quickly - most authoring tools are simply variations on a theme and once you knew the basics in one, learning how to do things in another is just a minor shift in mechanics.  With this in mind, I dusted off a copy of Articulate Storyline and started mocking up a project (since I've long advocated Doing as the best way to learn something new, I wanted to 'eat my own dog food'!).

Over the course of several days, I threw together a storyboard and basic structural framework for a module on the basics of the Pythagorean Theorem.  It was based on a boy who was trying to build his dog a new doghouse, but he needed help figuring out how long to cut the diagonal pieces that make up the roof line.  As part of the support (read: instructional) materials that are available to the learner, I created a series of five Proof illustrations using PowerPoint with a voiceover (in many ways, that process ended up being a bigger learning experience for me than working with Storyline!).

As luck would have it, however, shortly after creating the last video version of the PowerPoint Proofs, my leisure time suddenly became much more limited - I secured a terrific position with a great organization in start-up mode, so the usual slow ramp-up and orientation period was skipped in exchange for immediately jumping into a project that had some very aggressive deadlines.  It was a problem I was VERY happy to have, so the full Storyline project got mothballed...

The Video Proofs, however, turned out pretty well, so I posted them to my YouTube channel in case they might help some young (or not so young) learner get their head around the Why behind A^2 + B^2 = C^2.

Take a look (and post a comment!)....

Proof #1: Visual Comparison


Proof #2: Deconstruction (A)


Proof #3: Deconstruction (B)


Proof #4: President Garfield's Trapezoid


Proof #5: Dissection

Carl Sagan on the Magic of Books (TftD #22)

Thought for the Day:

"What an astonishing thing a book is. It's a flat object made from a tree with flexible parts on which are imprinted lots of funny dark squiggles. But one glance at it and you're inside the mind of another person, maybe somebody dead for thousands of years. Across the millennia, an author is speaking clearly and silently inside your head, directly to you. Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people who never knew each other, citizens of distant epochs. Books break the shackles of time. A book is proof that humans are capable of working magic."

-- Carl Sagan, Cosmos Episode 11: The Persistance of Memory

Sir Ken Robinson - The Swinging Pendulum of Ed Reform

Recently, in the TAG Workplace Learning Society group on LinkedIn, there was a posting of the famous TED Talk that Sir Ken Robinson gave in mid-2006.  A question was posed about how much in the educational world had (not) changed in the 7 years that have passed, and how people generally felt about the talk, in hindsight ("...do you think Sir Kenneth Robinson is having an impact other than making smart people laugh?").



I recall viewing Sir Ken's TED Talk shortly after it was originally posted in mid-2006 and hurriedly passing the link on to just about everyone on my contact list.  It was a breath of fresh air and it caught my attention and imagination.  Given that it's been viewed 20.3 million times (on TED's site alone - likely several multiples higher when considering other hosts, like YouTube), I wasn't alone with the excitement I felt and hopes that it might be a tipping point of change.

As with most things, there is always a ying to one's yang, and since Robinson has become an Ed Reform poster child (man?) there have been a few critics that have emerged.  I always like to listen and consider alternative viewpoints so I don't fall into the modern trap of a confirmational echo chamber, so you may find something of interest in one/both of the following randomly selected blog entries:

http://edtechnow.net/2012/01/20/sir-ken-robinson/
http://edtechnow.net/guest-posts/ken-robinson-rebuttal/

I share these alternative views to promote healthy conversation and appreciation of the complexity and nuances of the issue at hand.  Educational reform is a politically, logistically, and emotionally charged topic that cannot be 'fixed' with a few tweaks and adjustments.  I still like Robinson's talk very much, but time has mellowed my thinking a bit...

Do I think the overall message Robinson has called attention to is on the mark?  Yes.  I don't think there are many defenders of the status quo in terms of today's educational practices.  Do I think the critics have some interestingly valid points? Again, yes.  But I'm not sure that's a bad thing....

I think that Robinson may be taking the same approach that the Head of my grad school program (The Institute for the Learning Sciences), Dr. Roger Schank, adopted.  That is - say some things that are a bit extreme but have enough truth in them to get people to pause and think.  It's only after you get people's attention with the exaggerated claims ("all schools should be burned down") that critical thought and consideration is evoked, which leads to what (I believe) his real goal is - serious thought about how we can do better in education.  He isn't actually seeking people to line up and agree with him lock/stock/barrel (he openly says even he doesn't agree with some of the things he's said!) - he is a catalyst who makes claims towards the extreme end of the spectrum in order to get people to engage in discussions that are more mainstream.

(You can get a feel for Schank's positions and personality via:
(1) a video intro (http://youtu.be/7cG4EwmvUHc) to Engines for Education (http://www.engines4ed.org/hyperbook/), a free "hyperbook" that I help get on the Internet back in the dark ages of the Web, or
(2) his blog, Education Outrage (http://educationoutrage.blogspot.com/).)

I agree that change can feel frustratingly slow in these times of instant everything, but considering how long the current system has been in place and how many supporting structures have been created to prevent change, reform efforts may actually be moving at a faster rate than one might expect.  It's pretty amazing that there are currently several working examples of MOOCs (warts and all) available to the curious masses for free, when MIT's OpenCourseWare initiative was launched barely a decade ago.  Systems of higher education that were centuries in the making are now teetering on the edge of pretty dramatic change, largely because of advances in technology and the ability of the market to accelerate the pace of change with their wallets and feet.

The K-12 world is less 'market-driven' (for better or worse, depending on your viewpoint), so the pace of change lags a bit, but the options available to parents and children for alternative programs that 'foster creativity and independent thought' (as Leigh Anne Lankford said), focus on less common subjects, or allow for a competency-driven instead of age-driven path through curricula is astoundingly greater than just a few years ago.

Educational change is inevitable, but we should not/cannot rest on that undeniable truth.  Work remains.

As Sci-Fi author William Gibson said, "The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed."

TftD #21

The nature of an innovation is that it will arise at a fringe where it can afford to become prevalent enough to establish its usefulness without being overwhelmed by the inertia of the orthodox system.

-- Kevin Kelly, Co-Founder of  WIRED magazine

TftD #20

I am not worried if scientists go and explain everything. This is for a very simple reason: an impala sprinting across the Savannah can be reduced to biomechanics, and Bach can be reduced to counterpoint, yet that does not decrease one iota our ability to shiver as we experience impalas leaping or Bach thundering. We can only gain and grow with each discovery that there is structure underlying the most accessible levels of things that fill us with awe.

But there is an even stronger reason why I am not afraid that scientists will inadvertently go and explain everything — it will never happen. While in certain realms, it may prove to be the case that science can explain anything, it will never explain everything. As should be obvious after all these pages, as part of the scientific process, for every question answered, a dozen newer ones are generated. And they are usually far more puzzling, more challenging than the prior problems. This was stated wonderfully in a quote by a geneticist named Haldane earlier in the century: ‘Life is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.’ We will never have our flames extinguished by knowledge.

The purpose of science is not to cure us of our sense of mystery and wonder, but to constantly reinvent and reinvigorate it.

-- Robert Sapolsky, The Trouble with Testosterone: And Other Essays on the Biology of the Human Predicament (1998)