Technology should serve education, not the other way around
What can AI mean for education? Is the technology a hype or does it offer hope? Both, says Professor Ludo Juurlink in his inaugural lecture. ‘AI could unleash a revolution in education. But we do have to take action.’
Technostress is Ludo Juurlink’s term for it. Originally trained as a chemist, this Professor of Educational Technology in the Natural Sciences laughs. He’s referring to the urgency to ‘do something with AI in education’ because the technology is already ubiquitous in our lives. ‘You need to turn it around. How can AI reduce technostress? That is an interesting question. I think it can. As long as we keep asking what we have learned from technological revolutions in the past.’
Missing the why
It starts with why, says Juurlink. Why do you want to do something with AI and education? What problem are you trying to solve? ‘We often forget to ask these questions because we only focus on what technology can do. That puts technology in the driving seat and education in the passenger seat. It should be the other way around: technology should serve education.’
In his inaugural lecture, Juurlink revisits the great ‘media debate’ from the 1980s and 1990s between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma, two American scholars of education technology and education psychology. Clark believed that in learning, media (technology) is subordinate to method. He likened the method and technology to medication.
‘Clark argued that the medium can affect how effective a medication is, but not the fact that it is the active ingredient that makes you better’, says Juurlink. ‘The active ingredient is the learning method. The packaging is the technology. It doesn’t matter whether the medicine comes as a liquid or a pill.’
‘Everyone learns in different ways, so in educational technology, AI should be tailored to the individual student rather than following a one-size-fits-all approach.’
One-size-fits-all doesn’t work
Kozma argued the opposite. He believed that media, combined with teaching methods, offered unique opportunities to support pupils’ cognitive development. ‘In my own words: technology can work for one student but not for another. If you are blind, plain text is of little use. You can only use it if it’s braille. A podcast is of little use to someone who is deaf. Everyone learns in different ways, so in educational technology, AI should be tailored to the individual student rather than following a one-size-fits-all approach.’
Juurlink is currently working on a research proposal on exactly this: developing chatbots that will genuinely help students over the long term. ‘Chatbots that are know who they are talking to, understand what motivates the student and can support them in the best possible way.’
When it comes to AI, predicting the future is almost impossible, says Juurlink. ‘But one thing I do know is that we do have to do something with AI in our teaching. It’s our moral responsibility to prepare students for a life in which they will regularly encounter AI. Time is of the essence because students are also uncertain about AI, about what is and is not allowed at the university, and about the future. Research has shown that four in ten students worry that AI will reduce their chances of finding a job.’
Allay concerns
It’s up to us to allay those concerns, says Juurlink, and to use AI responsibly to modernise our education system. ‘AI could usher in a revolution, but we do have to make choices. We need to take action. If it were up to me, the social processes would take place inside our buildings and the cognitive processes outside them, supported by AI.’
Ludo Juurlink’s inaugural lecture will be held on 6 November and can be viewed via a livestream.