Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Koger's avatar

This was a fantastic read, and I applaud you for having this conversation with your students. The thing that boils it all down for me was this: "Maybe we need to pause and talk with our students a bit more first. They have a lot to say."

I find that faculty are often dismissive of asking for student input and hearing what they have to say on the matter (for the record, I teach English at a CC). However, when students have buy-in, that's going to lead to better engagement and better learning. This all starts with having conversations such as these.

Expand full comment
Terry underwood's avatar

Marcus, I appreciate your commitment to surfacing student perspectives on AI and your transparency about your own uncertainties as an educator.

As a critical friend, I’d like to gently highlight a few biases that shape your analysis to deepen the conversation and to help all of us reflect on how we interpret student voice.

Teacher-Centric Framing: Throughout your piece, student comments are introduced and contextualized through your own lens as a teacher, not so much as a learner. For example, when you share students’ excitement about AI making work “easier,” you quickly pivot to concerns about authentic learning and academic integrity. This frames their curiosity as something to be managed rather than explored on its own terms. Offloading can be destructive, but it can also be useful, for example. It might be helpful to let some student voices stand on their own, even (or especially) when they challenge our professional instincts.

Selective Amplification:

You highlight student worries about AI undermining “real understanding” and “making school too easy,” which dovetails with your skepticism about technological shortcuts. Have you spoken about this with them before? Do they know your strong feelings? If any students expressed unreserved enthusiasm for AI’s creative or accessibility potential, those voices seem less foregrounded. This selective amplification can unintentionally reinforce your own cautious stance, rather than presenting a full spectrum of student thought.

Interpretation Through Adult Values:

When you summarize student responses, you often interpret them in light of educational values like “struggle,” “authenticity,” and “process.” These are core values, don’t get me wrong, but they’re also adult-centric constructs. For instance, a student’s desire to use AI to save time might reflect real-world efficiency skills valued outside school. It might even make sense for certain school assignments. I interviewed a high school junior this week for a piece of research I’m doing who uses ChatGPT every day—e.g. to help her with the verb system in a foreign language class. This is something we might miss if we only see it as a threat to rigor. We can’t know the reality without a free zone to speak.

Your analysis, while thoughtful and heartfelt, is shaped by a bias toward traditional educational priorities and a protective stance toward your own professional identity. This isn’t a flaw. Every educator brings their values to the table but it does mean that student voices are filtered, not raw. I encourage you to consider what it would look like to center student perspectives even more, perhaps by inviting them to co-author or respond directly to your reflections, especially those who disagree.

Thanks for opening up this important conversation!

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts