Category: Weekly Reflections

The Educational Benefits, Potential Detriments, and Environmental Impacts of AI in Secondary Education (as generated by AI)

”The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in secondary education is rapidly transforming the way students learn, teachers instruct, and schools manage resources. AI technologies are increasingly being used in classrooms to personalize learning, enhance student engagement, and provide valuable insights for teachers. However, as AI becomes more prevalent, it also introduces significant challenges, including concerns about equity, the potential for dependency on technology, and the environmental impacts associated with its widespread use. This reflection explores both the benefits and detriments of AI in secondary education, alongside the environmental implications of its adoption.

Educational Benefits of AI in Secondary Education
One of the primary advantages of AI in secondary education is its ability to provide personalized learning experiences. AI-powered tools can assess students’ individual learning styles, strengths, and areas for improvement. This customization enables teachers to offer tailored content that better meets the needs of each student. For example, platforms like DreamBox or Smart Sparrow use algorithms to adjust lesson difficulty based on student performance, allowing students to progress at their own pace. This is particularly beneficial in diverse classrooms, where students may have varying levels of prior knowledge or learning needs. AI also enables secondary school students to engage with interactive and adaptive content that enhances their understanding of complex concepts, providing immediate feedback and support.

In addition to personalized learning, AI can improve accessibility for students with special educational needs. AI technologies can assist in overcoming barriers faced by students with disabilities, including speech-to-text applications for students with hearing impairments or visual impairments, and predictive text software to help students with dyslexia. These technologies enable all students to participate more fully in the learning process, ensuring that educational opportunities are not limited by physical or cognitive challenges. Moreover, AI tools can help teachers identify early signs of academic difficulties or learning gaps, allowing for targeted interventions before students fall too far behind.
AI can also support teachers by automating administrative tasks and providing real-time insights into student performance. By using AI-based analytics, teachers can more effectively monitor student progress and identify patterns that inform instructional decisions. For example, AI can predict which students are at risk of falling behind or who may need additional challenges, helping educators make data-driven decisions about how to tailor lessons or allocate resources. For secondary educators, this reduces the burden of manual grading and administrative tasks, enabling more time for direct instruction and student engagement.

Potential Detriments of AI in Secondary Education
Despite its potential, the use of AI in secondary education is not without risks. A primary concern is the over-reliance on technology. As AI systems become more integrated into classrooms, there is a risk that students and teachers may depend too heavily on these tools, diminishing the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. For example, if students increasingly rely on AI tutors to complete assignments or study for exams, they may not fully engage with the content themselves, missing opportunities for deep learning. Furthermore, the automation of administrative tasks may reduce the need for teachers to develop certain organizational and assessment skills, potentially leading to a decrease in pedagogical expertise over time.
Another challenge is the potential for AI to exacerbate educational inequalities. While AI holds promise for personalized learning, its benefits are often contingent upon access to quality hardware, high-speed internet, and skilled teachers who can effectively implement AI tools. In underfunded schools, students may not have access to the latest AI technologies, perpetuating disparities in educational outcomes. Additionally, AI algorithms are only as effective as the data they are trained on. If these algorithms are based on biased data or fail to account for the diverse needs of all students, they may inadvertently reinforce existing biases or perpetuate inequalities in education, such as unequal attention to students from different racial, socioeconomic, or cultural backgrounds.

Environmental Impacts of AI in Secondary Education
The environmental impact of AI in education is an often-overlooked consideration. The computational power required to run AI systems, particularly those that rely on deep learning or large-scale data processing, is energy-intensive. Data centers that store and process AI models consume significant amounts of electricity, contributing to increased carbon emissions unless renewable energy sources are used. As secondary schools adopt AI technologies for administrative purposes, virtual classrooms, and personalized learning platforms, the energy demand from these systems will likely grow, placing further strain on environmental resources.
Moreover, the rapid pace of technological advancement in AI can result in substantial e-waste. As schools upgrade their devices to accommodate new AI technologies, old hardware such as servers, laptops, and tablets may be discarded. Improper disposal of this e-waste can lead to environmental contamination, as many electronic devices contain harmful chemicals that can leach into the environment. Secondary schools must carefully manage the lifecycle of technology to minimize e-waste and consider recycling programs to reduce the ecological footprint of AI adoption.
Conclusion

AI holds significant promise for enhancing secondary education by offering personalized learning experiences, improving accessibility, and supporting teachers with data-driven insights. However, the potential for over-reliance on technology, the risk of exacerbating educational inequalities, and the environmental impact of AI deployment must be carefully considered. As secondary schools increasingly adopt AI, they must balance the educational benefits with the potential drawbacks, ensuring that AI is implemented in a way that promotes equity, critical thinking, and environmental sustainability. By doing so, AI can become a powerful tool for improving education without compromising long-term social and environmental goals.”

The above body of text speaks for itself, both figuratively and literally. The fact that I was able to, with the following prompt, generate a 500 word “reflective” body of text lends itself to AI’s ability to “do the leg work”; “Please generate a 500 word body of text detailing the educational benefits of AI in classrooms, as well as the potential detriments and environmental impacts.” There is of course a degree of irony to generative AI writing a “reflection” on a student’s behalf – I was not required to reflect at all to generate the body of text. My motivation for conducting my “reflection” in this format was to evidence the emptiness of generative AI in the metacognitive and reflective hidden curriculum of generative assignments. While I feel this was more than evident, I was pleasantly surprised that through this exercise I was introduced to teaching tools I may otherwise not have become familiar with. To that effect, AI in classrooms is not devoid of value; however the ease of use deprograms students from reflective exercises and from working hard.

This week’s presentation regarding accessible technology and digital inclusion offered systems, technologies, and strategies for creating accessible learning for students with diverse learning needs. Elements like zoom for distance participation and generative captioning were familiar to much of the class, as it was through these technologies that we were able to engage with our classes through the early Covid19 pandemic. Since our session, I have been reflecting on how accessible learning can be facilitated in a music classes.

Inclusivity in music has been on the rise, from digital technologies and resources to physical tools and systems for students with physical disabilities. The rise of digital music production has provided a new avenue for students with physical disabilities and learning disabilities to engage with music in ways that were previously inaccessible. Digital Audio Workspaces (DAWs) and digital soundboards have been gaining popularity for their approachability for individuals who may not have access or the physical facility to use traditional means of making music. Persons with learning difficulties like dyslexia or dysgraphia don’t have to lean on the formalized written musical language typical of music classroom environments in the western art music tradition, and individuals who may not have the physical capacity to use traditional instruments can create music piecemeal without temporal constraints. Digital soundboards have gained popularity for persons without physical mobility, and can be programmed with sound-bytes to be played in sequence to create music in real-time.

Physical tools and accommodations in music are on the rise as well; from instrument stands to bear the weight of instruments or even hold them in playing position for persons who have suffered a stroke, have cerebral palsy, or other physical ailments that prevent typical function of an instrument. There is even an instrument technician in Seattle who will completely rebuild a brass instrument backwards such that persons who have suffered strokes can play their instrument with the side of their body that has mobility.

Music as a class that is often seen as a safe space for students has a great deal of potential for students who may not see themselves respected or accommodated in other classroom environments, so it is greatly heartening that there is an ever-increasing body of accommodation systems for students with disabilities.

There is no denying the potential distraction posed by cell phones and social media in classrooms. Current students that I have observed through the Link2Practice program, and in various other educational settings have all had to (or try to) resist the temptation that cell phones and social media possess. A disproportionate amount of cellphone distraction that I have observed has been scrolling through social media; a practice that I myself am guilty of. The consequence of the high volume of inappropriate cell phone use in BC schools is the new cell phone policy, effectively banning student cell phone use on school property. While it is ultimately up to individual districts how the policy is to be realized (and up to teachers to implement and enforce it), the consensus in the BC ministry of education is that students should not use or have access to their cell phones during the school day.

Photo by Pixabay

While a cell phone ban is a simple solution, at least on paper, I feel it precludes the tangible learning benefits that cell phones can offer students. Students are more likely to own a cell phone than they are to own a laptop, and barring the use of school-issued laptop computers many students won’t have access to the internet and the wealth of information that it holds.

Even without social media, cell phones are a powerful tool for socialization and connection. When I was in the fifth or sixth grade, I owned a Motorola flip phone so that I could communicate with my parents when I had to bus to and from sports and home. School can feel incredibly isolating, and even having access to friends, family, and a community over the phone is enough to help students feel more comfortable. Cell phones are not only a potential boon for education, they are a lifeline and a safety net for students. There is greater value to be found in devising clear guidelines for healthy and productive cell phone use than there is in pretending that they aren’t the greatest tool in students’ tool-kits.

Photo by Cottonbro Studio

The education system most of us grew up with represents what has been agreed upon as valuable for students and the public. The prescriptive nature of content-driven education supports this belief system of educating about what is valuable and representative of the system that created it. As such, content-driven education serves to create informed citizens with a common knowledge base and set of values. Jeff Hopkins and the Pacific School for Innovation and Inquiry on the other hand represent education that serves students’ interest and provides students with the skills and processes that are necessary for self-direction and greater independence and self-efficacy.

Photo by Leeloo The First

Both systems have merit; one seeks to create community and a public identity around what is deemed important, and the other aims to create a degree of independence, individual identity, and self-efficacy. Not every student will see themselves represented in either system; as is often the case, the answer likely lies somewhere in the middle. The most common concerns levied against inquiry in schools are a lack of curricular breadth, and student motivation. Students will struggle to learn about as broad a range of topics in an inquiry-driven school as they would in a more traditional educational setting, but the conceptual breadth is supplanted by educational depth; the only way more traditional schools are able to cover such a wide range of topics is to remain fairly superficial in their examination. Inquiry enables and encourages students to engage with their chosen topic with in as much depth and with as much vigor as they can muster. The motivational concern is assuaged by students’ investment in their chosen area of inquiry – since they hold the reins to their education they are more likely to investigate areas they are passionate about, and their motivation follows.

It is easier for students to have their education prescribed to them; I am more likely to read a news article that is presented to me by whichever algorithm governs it, than I am to seek out an article I have not seen represented elsewhere. That is not to say that it is easy to get student on board with learning anything you put in front of them; that relies on the presentation method and other means of fostering student buy-in. Presenting students with the material they are to learn for their entire education opens the door to a manner of learned helplessness; if a population never learns to take their learning into their own hands, they are significantly less likely to investigate things for themselves or challenge material that they are presented with.

Photo by WillSantt

As educators we need to be mindful of what our education systems and methods privilege. As our position in the school hierarchy afford us relational power, we mustn’t forget that many kids don’t know what to think and will look to us for guidance. I am partial to a system that nurtures childlike wonder and allows kids to investigate their ideas, and to learn for themselves.

While I was not present for this class due to illness, I was in attendance online via zoom. That said, my illness and the means through which I was engaging with the material inhibited my ability to glean as much as I would have liked from the presentation. The concept of honouring student agency and autonomy however stuck with me.

I have never done well with doing what I’m been told simply because I’m told to. I have no manner of demand avoidance or anything of that ilk, rather; “because I said so” doesn’t really speak to the value of the exercise. In every situation where “doing what you are told” has been done with enthusiasm, the value of the exercise has been made clear independent of the action. In employment or other hierarchical structures, to “do as you are told” is lent credence by the nature of the hierarchy and the steps that led to the respective positions of those in the hierarchy. A master has authority over an apprentice not because they are above the apprentice in the master-apprentice hierarchy, but because the role of master is earned through experience and because the master has knowledge and skills to pass along – it is this uneven distribution of knowledge and skill that establishes a master as an authority; not the title.

Photo by Monstera Productions

Trust in the teaching and wisdom of those above us in a hierarchy is key for enthusiastic acceptance of instruction – in buy-in. Trust is built in relationship, and so instruction is best received in collaboration with the educator. Students are far more likely to buy in to their lessons if they believe in them; and what better way is there to get students invested in their learning than involving them in its construction?

The “new curriculum” that centers students’ acquisition of competencies rather than concepts demands a higher degree of involvement; teaching them to fish rather than giving them a fish. If the student learning outcomes are to reflect competency over content, then the medium through which they learn should also support competency. High involvement of students in the creation and construction of their curriculum teaches students not only the content and desired competencies outlined in the desired learning outcomes, but how to learn and create a positive learning environment for themselves.

Photo by Payam Masouri

Jesse Miller’s presentation on social media and mobile technology articulated a good many points and positions regarding the role that technology is playing in our lives and the lives of students. It is easy to view technology both with rose tinted glasses for all of the convenience it affords us, as well as with great apprehension for the waves that it makes in day-to-day life. The collective cries in opposition of AI echo those against the early internet, and the proliferation of newspapers before it. Jesse maintains a sense of stalwart optimism for technology and its integration into ever more aspects of our lives; which is a productive outlook for how to “go with the tide” rather than attempting to “stop the tide with a broom”. 

Photo by Creathrive

Kids will use social media. Its allure is carefully and meticulously cultivated, through algorithms and targeted advertisement, to grab and maintain attention. Educating students on how best to navigate social media and the internet more broadly (with its own artful and evil algorithms) is a pragmatic outlook that recognizes the challenges with trying to deny kids access to anything that is so easily within reach. The problem arises however, in trying to determine and articulate “appropriateness” by degree. If kids are permitted (and in Jesse’s perspective) encouraged to engage with the internet and social media, how are we as educators and as parents going to be able to determine for our kids in advance what is appropriate, and how can we articulate that to our kids without exposing them to material that breaches that boundary? 

While there are measures in place in many parts of the internet to prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate content, it is most often a pop-up window that asks “are you eighteen?”. I need not articulate the frailty of methods like these in keeping the internet child-friendly. Whether its age-restricted video games on a platform like Steam requiring you to input your birthdate before browsing, or Adult Films, all that stands between kids and material that has been deemed inappropriate for them is a few keystrokes and mouse clicks. And social media is no better.

Following Jesse’s challenge to the class of “if instagram cost $1/day to use, who would use it?”, I deleted the platform. At the time of writing this entry, I have been “off the sauce” for three weeks. My previous efforts to make social media a more productive space were hindered by SM’s “recommended accounts”, or suggested reels. While my culling of accounts I was following was productive in thinning the herd of crap content in favor of the feeds of my friends and those I wanted to keep up with, the “crap content” was replaced with similarly banal and vapid content – a good deal of which was promotional accounts for OnlyFans accounts. I had gone from being unable to see the posts of my social media friends through all of the “meme” accounts, to being inundated with “thirst traps”. My cultivated social media presence was no healthier than my uncultivated presence.

While Jesse’s cautioning of what is appropriate and sensible to post online is cogent, I myself have fallen prey to vicious cyberbullying my social media. While the content that I allowed to be immortalized online was unfavourable and inadvisable, it would have been prevented entirely if I hadn’t had a presence on social media. The main argument in defense of children having a social media presence is for them to participate “in the real world”, a world that has social media, and for them to be able to socialize with their peers and with folks they otherwise would not be able to engage with. My experience that I articulated above illustrates the problem with this position; that even a carefully cultivated social media presence is subject to the whims of its platform – and the people that become accessible are not always themselves. There is a degree of unkindness and disingenuousness that can come with the degree of  separation offered by a keyboard and screen. If the value of social media and an online presence is the socialization that it can offer, then I would argue that the same socialization can be found in other sources of community, like music or sports; or even in individually created text chains, group-chats, and invite-only forums.

Photo by MYKOLA OSMACHKO

The internet is not evil, in the same way that a knife is not evil; both are tools that seek to improve the quality of life of the user. The problem with social media however, is that you are so seldom the one holding the hilt.