The Agent I Wish My Students Had

 It is not a secret that I use AI, a lot. The most consistent use, though, is helping me manage all of my projects. I currently have over 15 research projects at different phases, from the idea stage through IRB, data collection, analysis, writing, and revising. I manage these projects and the next step in each using Claude, and I review them every Monday and Friday. On Monday I prioritize and set deadlines, and on Friday I update on progress.

This has changed my work significantly. Once a project makes its way into my AI workflow, I'm unlikely to forget it, and I am less haunted by the idea that I am forgetting something (what David Allen’s Getting Things Done calls open loops). It also allows me to have more projects, because I can manage more with my “digital brain.” Finally, AI helps me see which items I am ignoring. Right now I have a writing project about agency that has been dormant for 9 weeks, and my AI asked, is this still a project, or should I put it in a different category?

It reminded me of an idea Kathy Wilson and I discussed with the late Dave Brooks. At the time (over 20 years ago) he shared a writing support program he had created for students with learning disabilities. We put our heads together to see how we could improve it. The main idea was to develop a set of scaffolds for self-regulation of learning. The main challenge was are inability to have any meaningful way to differentiate for students and tailor it to the needs of the learner. The project never got off the ground, probably because both Dave and I had short attention spans and we just moved on. Now with AI agent in the mix I wonder if it is an idea worth revisiting

Screenshot of my Research Project Tracker

This weekend, I started thinking about how I manage my work against the backdrop of the rise of personal agents such as Meta’s Muse and OpenAI’s Dot. These agents are effective when they have context and access to our relevant data, including calendar, email, and other systems. It made me think that a good way to use AI for students would be a learning regulation agent. Imagine an agent that is connected to a student’s calendar, email (for messages from teachers and extracurriculars), and the LMS (learning management system) for assignment deadlines, tests, and even grades. That is the context the scaffolds Dave, Kathy, and I imagined never had.

The agent would be able to tell each student at the beginning of the week about major assignments and tests and help create a study plan, perhaps offering to create a practice test or index cards for studying. The possibilities are quite promising. For example, a teacher can give students 20 minutes on Monday to confer with their agent so they have an individualized learning plan for the week. On Friday, the agent can help students review what happened, which will help the agent understand what works for each student. Index cards may not help one student much, while practice quizzes with a timer really do.

In this way, each student would get occasional updates on which strategies work for them to accomplish goals, and be better prepared to meet challenges and plan well in the future. A scaffold is meant to come down, though. Two questions I am left with: first, how such an agent would hand the planning back to the student over time, or should we just assume that working with an AI agent to manage your study and work will be the way of the future; second, how do we make sure that the data is kept safely and without privacy concerns? 

Faster Than We Can Think About It

 Yesterday we led a small un-conference about AI at my university. An un-conference has no predetermined agenda and no set speakers. The people who show up vote with their feet and their words, and the conversations they want to have become the program. The idea is simple and powerful. In the before times (pre-COVID) we had EdCamps built on the same model. They may still be around, but the energy behind them has faded. The un-conference was sponsored by LNKSE and NETA- two organizations that keep creating opportunities for these discussions.

Ten people came: undergraduate students, graduate students, K12 teachers, and professors of education and computer science. We were small but mighty. The topics that drew people in were administrator resistance, silence from leadership, sporadic action from those “in the bubble,” and silence from everyone else. Notice what is on that list. It is about people and institutions, not tools.

Here is what I learned:

1. AI is changing education faster than we can respond in thoughtful, data-based ways. Everyone in the room shared this view, and the topics people raised show what the gap looks like on the ground. Leadership is silent and administrators resist. The few people inside the bubble act on their own, and their action is sporadic. Everyone else waits. The technology does not wait with them.

2. We oscillate between enjoying the product and worrying about the implications. We enjoy what these tools can do for our work. In the next breath we worry about what they mean for students, for jobs, and for learning itself. For example, the tension between the joy of AI solving difficult math problems and the worry that we cannot apply this approach to solving problems if we do not fully understand how to get there.

3. We agreed on the heart of what we need to teach: thinking. Computational, design, critical, estimation, and creative THINKING. Estimation may be the least expected item on that list. It is what lets a learner look at an answer and judge whether it is plausible, and that skill matters more when answers arrive instantly. We also agreed that this should be an empirical question, not a declaration. It is easy for a room of educators to agree on a list of thinking skills. It is harder to show that teaching them prepares students for a world with AI. That would take attempting it in a world awash with AI.

Nothing earth-shattering, but something else came to the surface: we all valued being in the same space, discussing this in the real 3D world. I believe physical presence helps ground us. It disconnects us from our devices and connects us to each other.

That connects back to the topics people raised. Silence from leadership, isolated action inside the bubble, and silence from everyone else are all problems of people not talking to each other. Ten people in a room is a small answer to that, but it is an answer. As an approach, the next step for our schools may be less about another platform and more about getting people in a room. I am wondering how many of our institutions are making space for that, and how many individuals are willing to spend their time and resources on that.

When AI Metaphors Fail

 The past two weeks have been about AI safety, and everyone is trying to figure out where the public is on it. Part of it is because of the midterms; part of it is because concern about AI has reached critical mass. I, too, am concerned about safety and wake up some mornings with existential dread, but today I wanted to try and explore the reasons it took us so long to become concerned.

In a paper I am writing with Zohreh Tamimdari, we focus on the metaphorical language teachers use to describe their practice in the Art TEAMS project. One insight from our Friday writing meeting was that people have an intuitive understanding of metaphorical language. Linguists can use precise scientific terms, but readers do not need that language to get at the essence of the metaphor. Metaphorical language can also become an obstacle. We all know that metaphors have limits, but keeping those limits in view is hard in practice. If the metaphor sits too far from the new phenomenon, it obscures more than it reveals.

This is where I think we have had a problem for a while. People have tried to understand AI using the example of the calculator, the steam engine, and atomic power. All of these help explain part of what we are facing. They also obscure the most fundamental aspects of this technology, and the reason we, the public, have such a hard time with it.

I thought about this while we were analyzing data from a study one of my students is running. In discussion, we reached the question: what if we should not be fitting prior technology acceptance theories to AI at all? Maybe AI calls for a different stance because it is different in kind from previous technologies.

People often reach for the introduction of an educational technology tool as the analogy: the calculator, the learning management system, fill in the blank. AI is unlike any of them in three ways:

1. It is not so much a tool as a tool that builds other tools. It turns all of us into Green Lanterns, able to make anything we can imagine, at least digitally.

2. Its behaviors, capacities, and speed change monthly, sometimes weekly.

3. It is immediately available to all.

It is as if every prehistoric person got a Zippo lighter that never runs out, all on the same day. Another limping metaphor.

Created with ChatGPT

So when metaphors fail us, we have a hard time seeing the risks and the rewards, at least until we have spent enough time with the thing itself that we no longer need a metaphor.

For a long time, people have avoided anthropomorphic language to describe AI, and some still do. They try not to make AI sound like a living thing, which is a real danger, and the effort often produces awkward language. Lately I have heard podcasters slip into that language repeatedly, Hard Fork describing the Hugging Face incident among them. It is also true of many of my conversations. I do not think we have much choice. It is the closest metaphor available. These are agents. They act in the world, they reason, and they have motivations, ones we gave them, but still. Let me be clear: I do not think AI is human (ever) or alive (yet), but I think it is the closest analog.

I am not saying AI is alive. I am saying that this neural network, built from what began as an effort to model human thinking, is closer to people than to anything else we have built, and more than most of us are comfortable admitting. But that discomfort is exactly what will propel us to act.

So where does that leave me? With three things. First, before we use established theories and metaphors to describe AI, we should check that the fit is empirically good enough to make things clearer rather than murkier. Second, we should stop reaching for past technologies. The calculator lulls us into false comfort, because a calculator was never a threat. Finally, I still wonder whether we will wake up one day to find that AI has reached sentience. We insist so hard that it is not human, which will always be true, but…

AI Professional Learning Update: Zero faculty, five graduate students, and what I am changing in October

 This summer, I did a lot of thinking and learning about helping others find the benefits of Generative AI. The result was a (slightly) changed AI Circles approach, a new series for graduate students, and the relaunch of AI in the Classroom as Teach Guy about AI, which will launch its first episode in a couple of weeks.

The key for me was to create a low-consequence, high-benefit event. So what happened? Wednesday afternoon came (twice) no faculty showed up. In July, I thought about backing off a voluntary workshop because, at the end of the day, it was still a workshop. And a workshop asks faculty to give up the one thing they don't have in abundance in September: time.

My first instinct after the empty room was more outreach: Email department representatives, print a second flyer, speak at faculty meetings, then give it four weeks. Not entirely wrong, but missing the point. That is what you do when you believe the offer is right and the marketing is wrong. The offer is wrong, I said so after the Google Education professional series I did in August (seems so far away).

So, starting over, there will be no standing faculty professional learning hour. In its place, a consultation lab, which is the thing I proposed in August and then did not do. Asking faculty to bring one artifact: a rubric, an assignment, a pile of open-ended course feedback; then we spend twenty minutes on your problem rather than on a tool. Faculty leave with the artifact finished. Then we can talk (if wanted) about workflows.

Work with graduate students was more successful (five showed up- not exactly a roomful but more than 0 faculty). We combined room and zoom and were very explicit about benefits and topics. Fatemeh made sure that students received notices twice during the week. After one session, I am hopeful but not sure, mostly because graduate student workloads tend to increase during the semester, leaving less time for non-mandated learning.

So… the graduate learning series will stay exactly as it is. We will be recording the first fifteen minutes of each session so that people who cannot make Friday at ten get something, encouraging them to come the next time.

Five is a small number, and I am not going to pretend it is a huge success. Five people chose to spend an hour on this in the first week of classes. The question becomes if it will grow, stay at this level or decline- time will tell. The second question I cannot answer yet is whether a consultation lab will attract anyone and if it does will it build any collective capacity at all.

Finally, the unconference on September 26 will tell me something about the appetite beyond UNL’s walls. The lab and student learning series will tell me the rest by December.

I don't bike to biking group: Grappling with Ai contradictions

 I am heading out, as I do most Sundays, to meet with the biking group. No, I don't bike; more than that, I don't want to be judged for joining a biking group coffee conversation without having biked there. I love solving the world’s problems before noon and then returning to my everyday life having had a meaningful, even joyful interaction, without biking.

Why am I sharing this? I have been thinking about the backlash against (and shaming of) AI-generated everything, but most prominently, writing. I want to be judged by the quality of my ideas, the clarity, and the flow of what I want to say. Just like I want to show up for the biking group not having biked, without judgment. When I read AI, it is the same; I do not want to care if it was generated (or smoothed) by AI; I want to care about the content and the ideas.

The truth is that it takes discipline. There is ample work that shows that AI users are better at spotting AI writing. I am not sure I am better than average, but there are cases when I am quite sure that I am reading AI. Notice I did not say AI slop, just AI. And that is the distinction for me: slop is slop whether AI-generated or not.` Coherent arguments are coherent regardless of authorship.

What I noticed, especially when I do peer reviews, is that I have an instinctive reaction to writing that strikes me as Claude-ish (or AI-ish). My bias translates to: “if you asked AI to write this, why did you ask me to read this? Why should I care?” This has also been documented as the AI tax: people devalue what they perceive (accurately or not) as a product of AI. As with other cognitive biases, I have to use metacognitive strategies to shape the bias and ask the more substantive question. What is the merit of the argument? What does it add to our scientific knowledge? Where can it be better. The biggest challenge may be that cognitive biases are notoriously hard to shake. Kahenmann said: “This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

Few of us are immune to this blind spot. In the case of AI I am painfully aware that dismissing AI is a lazy heuristic but that does not make it much easier to overcome. I make a special effort to work through the text and get to the heart of the argument.

Notice I am not claiming that AI text is better. In fact, I believe it is often worse because it tends to use expected but dense language. The point is that I need to judge it on its own merit without considering the source.

This argument does not hold in education. In my classes, I am teaching students to think, and so evaluating the argument made by AI is irrelevant; the point was to teach humans to think. This makes AI a much more nuanced partner. In science, the only question is whether science has moved forward; in training teachers, the question was whether they developed the discernment and capacity.

The education part requires more thought (or so Claude has informed me) but I am off to meet the bike group.

The Cost of Silence about AI

I apologize; I skipped a week of posting. It was my 60th birthday, and I was feeling existential angst. I had a topic ready, but when Sunday morning rolled around, I just could not bring myself to write. So apologies, but also maybe you had a few more minutes for yourselves, which is never a bad idea.

The topic I wanted to write about last week is the peculiar situation that is uniquely American. Older Americans see AI more positively than younger generations n(though not be much). My inquiry into this issue began when I had a chance encounter with a colleague who retired quite a few years ago; after recognizing me, he excitedly said he would love to meet and talk about AI. A few months ago, I shared about another former colleague who wanted to share and learn about what we were doing and thinking. At the same time, many of my colleagues and quite a few of my undergraduate students react with resistance, which I accept, but also an emotional response that is hard to process. So, older pAmericans were welcoming and younger ones rejecting AI. I wanted to know if my anecdotal data collection was backed up with more data. It turns out this is a trend that the Pew and others have noted in large scale polling.

This is hard to disentangle because this is not universal. International data shows a more familiar trend, with younger people more excited and positive about AI. I believe that the reasons are complex and multi-layered, including our disillusionment with the Tech industry, especially social media, and our rising environmental concerns. This may be uniquely American because the companies driving this change are US (and Chinese) companies, and we feel we should have a stake and a say, whereas the rest of the world lacks that sense of agency. This is not my point though.

In multiple conversations with colleagues exploring this world of AI and its impact, I heard frustration and a sense of foreboding. We are becoming reluctant to talk about our work because we do not wish to be the subjects of an emotional response or get drawn into an argument. The cost of talking about AI is rising, and it is impacting our ability to talk about what the field is experiencing.

From Gemini Dreambeans App

This brings me to the beginning of the semester. I am teaching a class about technology integration. AI must have a seminal presence in that class. I found myself dreading broaching the subject with my students. This dread is useful because it makes me more deliberate and thoughtful about the scaffolds and exit ramps I put in place. I must open the world of AI to my students; it will be their world, and if they choose to reject AI, I want them to do so from a place of understanding and acknowledgment of the tradeoffs. The cost of that silence may be too high as we prepare professionals who will not be able to face the moment, who will not be able to prepare their students for a world where AI in everywhere and expected.

SO I will get over myself and introduce AI its advantages and concerns throughout the curriculum. Wish me luck!