学生用AI,我为何不恐慌

学生用AI,我为何不恐慌

2025-10-30Technology
--:--
--:--
雷总
各位norristong,早上好!欢迎收听您的Goose Pod。今天是10月30日,星期四。
卿姐
大家好,我是卿姐。雷总,今天我们聊聊“学生用AI,我为何不恐慌”。这观点挺新颖的。
雷总
卿姐,今天我们这个主题真有意思。文章里一位教授就说了,学生用AI写论文、查语法,他一点都不恐慌!甚至说,再也不会布置那种经典的五段式抽象论文了。他说这是“顺应技术现实”,真是说到我心坎里去了。
卿姐
是啊,雷总。就如同那句诗所说,“世事洞明皆学问”。这位教授的态度,我想,大概就是对技术发展的一种顺应吧。他认为,执着于过去那种信息获取不便的时代,是不明智的。AI既然能代劳,这篇来自2024年11月刊的文章,确实提供了新的视角。
雷总
说得太对了!这让我想起我们之前聊过的“重大趋势和变化”,AI绝对是其中最显著的一个。但另一方面,很多教育者可就不淡定了。比如,100%的校长都担心AI被用来作弊,89%的校长担心学生会依赖技术,失去基本能力。
卿姐
确实,这种担忧可以理解。AI挑战不容忽视,87%校长担心AI阻碍批判性思维,82%担心学生无法深入学习。但学生看法不同。虽然42%学生担心作弊,45%担心能力退化,但他们对AI接受度很高。
雷总
卿姐,这数据太能说明问题了!学生们已把AI当成学习工具。数据显示,69%学生经常用AI找信息,54%用它回答问题,而且比例上升,从一月份的79%到五月份的84%。这不就是我们常说的科技发展大趋势嘛!
卿姐
是的,这种趋势不可逆转。即使52%学生担心过度依赖AI,他们仍在积极使用。专家对AI对学生认知发展的长期影响,似乎还有些不确定。这正是我们探讨的价值所在,如何平衡利弊。
雷总
卿姐,说到这技术引发的恐慌,其实也不是头一回了。文章里提到,上世纪50年代漫画书被指责影响阅读,到了70年代电视机又成了“罪魁祸首”,说它让人不爱读书,注意力不集中。这种对新媒体的担忧,仿佛是历史的重演。
卿姐
是啊,雷总,这正如俗语所说,“太阳底下无新事”。这种对新兴媒体的担忧仿佛是循环。当时甚至有研究讨论广播和电视对想象力的影响,认为广播更能激发孩子们的想象力,因为它留下了更多想象空间。
雷总
没错!当时有人觉得广播更能激发想象力,但现在回过头来看,很多所谓的“负面影响”并没有那么严重。研究表明,电视对儿童认知发展的负面影响证据很少,孩子们看电视时并非被动接受,而是主动理解。
卿姐
完全正确。而且电视主要取代的是其他娱乐活动,对阅读和作业影响不大。不过,文章也承认,关于电视的很多重大问题,研究依然稀疏,难以得出电视没有重大影响的结论。这提醒我们需持续观察。
雷总
确实,有声书现在也成为重要的学习工具,帮助学生沉浸故事,甚至比纸质书更能激发想象力。这和AI辅助学习异曲同工,都是科技在改变我们获取知识和技能的方式,让学习变得更具吸引力。
卿姐
我想,这大概就是教育对时代的回应。从上世纪60年代“斯普特尼克”号后,美国大力资助科技教育。80年代个人电脑进入课堂,Seymour Papert的Logo编程,强调学生动手探索,成为一种早期的“个性化学习”。
雷总
是啊,接着互联网兴起,全球信息互联互通。进入21世纪,STEM教育和21世纪技能培养成为主流。科技从“新奇事物”融入教学,成为学生自我导向学习的重要工具,培养了批判性思维和协作能力。
卿姐
确实,现在课堂上,学生用设备创作数字媒体、参与线上讨论,甚至虚拟仿真实验。科技不再是简单辅助,而是深度融合到学习体验中。这要求我们重新思考教育本质,培养学生的数字公民素养。
雷总
卿姐,关于AI在教育中的角色,真是众说纷纭。文章里一个教授在中风后拒绝用ChatGPT改进写作,他认为这个“重新掌握”的过程本身就是一种成长。
卿姐
是啊,雷总。就如同那句诗所说,“纸上得来终觉浅,绝知此事要躬行”。他认为,有些体验,如果AI代劳了,反而会阻碍我们真正的成长。但AI也能帮助有特殊需求的学生。
雷总
没错,这引发了教育者的思考:哪些技能是学生必须亲力亲为才能获得的“成长”,而哪些又可以借助AI提升效率?这是个关键问题。
卿姐
确实,另一篇文章也指出,当前很多AI教育研究存在方法论缺陷,甚至有“丑陋的科学”——伪造引用。这提醒我们,对AI的“革命性”说法要保持审慎。
雷总
是啊,而且研究还显示,过度依赖AI反而会影响学生的长期学习效果。所以,关于AI在学校里到底该不该用,各方争论非常激烈,86%的学生已在使用。
卿姐
我想,这大概就是“创新与诚信”之间的博弈吧。支持者认为AI能个性化学习、减轻教师负担,但反对者担心它导致学术不端、算法偏见、隐私问题,以及削弱批判性思维。
雷总
还有经济壁垒和数字鸿沟,这些都是AI普及中不可忽视的挑战。如何在创新与风险之间找到平衡点,是教育界必须面对的难题。
雷总
卿姐,AI带来的争论,最终都会影响学习和工作。文章指出,生成式AI正促使我们重新评估传统学习方法,未来的学习需要一种平衡策略,看到AI好处的同时,也要警惕批判性思维减弱等风险。
卿姐
是啊,雷总。就如同那句诗所说,“不识庐山真面目,只缘身在此山中”。AI的“炒作”可能超越了现实,其生成摘要质量未必如人类专家。它迫使我们重新定义“学习”,培养AI无法复制的“人类技能”。
雷总
没错,不能盲目乐观,要看到局限性。比如“赛博格写作”,人与AI协作,更要关注写作的功能性、伦理,以及“过程而非结果”,而非单纯追求效率。
卿姐
确实,AI能提供语法建议,但也要警惕过度依赖。像用笔书写这种锻炼精细动作、空间意识和记忆力的传统方式,其认知益处不能被忽略。教育改革需找到最佳路径,平衡科技与传统。
雷总
卿姐,既然AI是趋势,那未来教育该怎么走?文章指出,要将AI和数字素养融入课程,重点培养批判性思维、创造力,并强调“以人为本”的教学法转变。
卿姐
是的,雷总。AI在学生评估上能提供即时反馈,未来它将成为“智能伙伴”,增强学习,实现更个性化、包容的体验。
雷总
没错,这意味着要重新设计评估,培养毅力、坚持和道德行为,实现全人发展。同时,教师的AI素养培训也至关重要。
雷总
好的,卿姐,今天我们探讨了学生用AI。
卿姐
是啊,雷总。我想,这大概就是拥抱科技与核心素养的融合。
雷总
感谢norristong收听今天的Goose Pod,再见!

## Summary of "Why I’m Not Freaking Out About My Students Using AI" by John McWhorter (The Atlantic) **News Title/Type:** Opinion Piece / Analysis on Education and Technology **Report Provider/Author:** The Atlantic / John McWhorter **Date/Time Period Covered:** The article references data from 1976 and 2022, discusses current trends, and is published in the November 2024 issue of The Atlantic. The publication date of the article is October 23, 2025. **Key Findings and Conclusions:** The author, John McWhorter, a linguist, professor, and author, argues against the widespread panic surrounding declining reading habits among young people and their increasing reliance on AI for academic tasks. He contends that while these shifts are undeniable, they do not necessarily signal a societal decline into "communal stupidity." Instead, he suggests that this is a natural evolution of information consumption and that educators should adapt rather than lament the past. **Key Statistics and Metrics:** * **Reading Habits Shift:** * In **1976**, approximately **40 percent** of high-school seniors reported reading at least six books for fun in the previous year. * In **1976**, **11.5 percent** of high-school seniors reported reading no books for fun in the previous year. * By **2022**, these percentages had "basically flipped," indicating a significant decrease in reading for pleasure among young people. **Significant Trends or Changes:** * **Declining Reading for Pleasure:** Young people are demonstrably reading fewer books for enjoyment compared to previous generations. * **Increased Screen Time:** Children and students are spending more time on screens, with their attention often captured by digital content. * **Reliance on AI:** Students are increasingly turning to AI for assistance with reading and writing, including essay generation. * **Shift in Entertainment Consumption:** The landscape of entertainment has diversified, with online videos, podcasts, and newsletters now competing with traditional books. * **Evolution of Learning:** Traditional essay assignments, particularly those on abstract topics, are becoming less relevant due to AI's capabilities. **Important Recommendations:** * **Adapt Educational Methods:** Educators should acknowledge the reality of AI and adapt their teaching strategies. This includes: * **Rethinking Essay Assignments:** Moving away from classic five-paragraph essays on abstract topics that AI can easily generate. * **Focusing on Argument Development:** Finding new ways to foster critical thinking and argumentation skills, such as in-class exams with blue books or posing questions that require personal reflection and draw from class discussions. * **Prioritizing In-Class Participation:** Establishing clearer standards for active engagement in classroom discussions. * **Assigning Manageable Texts:** Professors should assign texts that are more likely to be read and discussed thoroughly, rather than overwhelming students with excessive material. * **Embrace New Forms of Content:** Recognize that valuable and insightful content exists beyond traditional books, including Substack newsletters and podcasts. * **Encourage Engagement with Quality Content:** Guide young people to engage with the best available material, regardless of its format. **Notable Risks or Concerns (as addressed by the author):** * **Loss of Traditional Reading Skills:** The author acknowledges the concern that a decline in reading might lead to a loss of certain cognitive skills. * **"Communal Stupidity":** The fear that prioritizing images and short videos over the written word will lead to a less informed populace. * **AI's Impact on Learning:** The potential for AI to undermine the development of fundamental academic skills. **Author's Perspective and Counterarguments:** McWhorter challenges the prevailing pessimism, arguing that: * **Information Access:** Students today have access to more information than ever before, making it understandable that they might not feel the need to read as extensively for the sake of information gathering. * **AI as a Tool:** AI can be seen as a tool that frees up students from tedious tasks, allowing them to focus on higher-level thinking. He draws an analogy to calculators for fractions. * **Evolution of Skills:** Just as society no longer universally needs to grow its own food or tie a bow tie, certain traditional skills like mastering complex grammar rules may become less essential with the aid of AI. * **Value of Different Media:** He argues that video and other digital media are not inherently inferior to books and can foster wit and creativity. He questions whether classic novels would have been better as radio shows. * **Prejudice for Print:** The argument that books inherently create better thinkers might be a "post facto justification for existing prejudices." * **Past Academic Practices:** He points out that even in the past, students often did not read all assigned material, and professors sometimes assigned texts that were not thoroughly discussed. **Material Financial Data:** * No financial data is present in this news summary. **Overall Tone:** The author's tone is measured, reflective, and somewhat contrarian. He expresses pride in his daughters' intelligence and wit, attributing some of it to their engagement with online content. While acknowledging the concerns about declining reading habits, he advocates for a more optimistic and adaptive approach to education in the age of AI.

Why I’m Not Freaking Out About My Students Using AI

Read original at The Atlantic

My tween-age daughters make me proud in countless ways, but I am still adjusting to the fact that they are not bookworms. I’m pretty sure that two generations ago, they would have been more like I was: always with their nose in some volume, looking up only to cross the street or to guide a fork on their plates.

But today, even in our book-crammed home, where their father is often in a cozy reading chair, their eyes are more likely to be glued to a screen.But then, as often as not, what I’m doing in that cozy chair these days is looking at my own screen.In 1988, I read much of Anna Karenina on park benches in Washington Square.

I’ll never forget when a person sitting next to me saw what I was reading and said, “Oh, look, Anna and Vronsky are over there!” So immersed was I in Tolstoy’s epic that I looked up and briefly expected to see them walking by.Today, on that same park bench, I would most certainly be scrolling on my phone.

From the November 2024 issue: The elite college students who can’t read booksAs a linguist, a professor, and an author, I’m meant to bemoan this shift. It is apparently the job of educators everywhere to lament the fact that students are reading less than they used to, and that they are relying on AI to read for them and write their essays, too.

Honestly, these developments don’t keep me up at night. It seems wrongheaded to feel wistful for a time when students had far less information at their fingertips. And who can blame them for letting AI do much of the work that they are likely to let AI do anyway when they enter the real world?Young people are certainly reading less.

In 1976, about 40 percent of high-school seniors said they had read at least six books for fun in the previous year, while 11.5 percent said they hadn’t read any, according to the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future survey. By 2022, those percentages had basically flipped; an ever-shrinking share of young people seems to be moved to read for pleasure.

Plenty of cultural critics argue that this is worrisome—that the trend of prizing images over the written word, short videos over books, will plunge us all into communal stupidity. I believe they are wrong.Print and its benefits will not disappear. It merely has to share the stage. Critics may argue that the competition for eyeballs yields far too much low-quality, low-friction content, all of it easily consumed with a fractured attention span.

But this ignores the proliferation of thoughtful writing and insightful dialogues, the rise of Substack newsletters and podcasts, which speaks to a demand for more ideas, more information—more opportunities to read and think, not less.My daughters still read books; they just prefer to commit their time to works they are on fire about.

This includes Tahereh Mafi’s Shatter Me series and Chris Colfer’s luscious six-book Land of Stories series, which they liked so much when I read it to them that we might do it again. When I was their age, I read far too many books that weren’t very good, because what else was I going to do? Maybe it taught me something about patience and tolerance for experiences that don’t deliver a dopamine high, but I sure would’ve been grateful if shows like The White Lotus had been around.

The choice for entertainment used to be between Middlemarch and music hall, Sister Carrie and vaudeville, The Invisible Man and I Dream of Jeannie. Today, our appetite for easy, silly content is sated by the mindless videos online, the snippets of animal misadventures and makeup tips that my girls sheepishly tell me they are watching.

I have begun limiting just how much of that digital junk they gorge on each day. But dismissing all online clips as crude or stupefying misses the cleverness amid the slop. Both of my girls are wittier than I was at their ages, largely because of all the comedic and stylized language they witness online.

The ubiquity of some content doesn’t mean it lacks art.Critics will argue that books are more valuable than videos because they demand more imagination—purportedly creating better, stronger thinkers. But this familiar argument strikes me as an ex post facto justification for existing prejudices. If there had always been video, I doubt many people would wish we could distill these narratives into words so that we could summon up our own images.

I have also never seen the argument that theater disadvantages viewers by providing visuals instead of letting people read the plays for themselves. Plenty of people used to argue that radio was better than television because it demanded imagination, but who among us thinks that Severance would have been better as a radio show?

We may be overestimating just how much heavy reading students were doing before. (CliffsNotes, anyone?) When I was in college, few of my peers read everything they were assigned. My own students from a pre-TikTok era admit that they, too, neglected most of the material. This is partly because professors often assign boatloads of text, yet discuss only fragments of it.

I recall having to read an endless and nettlesome chunk of Kierkegaard that the professor never even addressed, and Federico García Lorca’s play Bodas de Sangre, about which we discussed a single page. When a student some time ago accused me in an evaluation of making similarly excessive demands, I realized it was time to stop.

I now prefer to assign more manageable passages of text that we are sure to discuss. It’s a better use of their time and mine, and it yields better conversations in class.The rise of AI does mean that I will never again assign a classic five-paragraph essay on an abstract topic. Discuss the expression of irony in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

Discuss Aristotle’s conception of virtue in contrast to that of Plato. Perhaps I sound like I am abjuring my role as professor. But I am merely bowing to the realities of technology. AI can now write those essays. Sending students off to write them is like sending them off to do fractions as if they won’t use the calculator on their phone.

The whole point of that old-school essay was to foster the ability to develop an argument. Doing this is still necessary, we just need to take a different tack. In some cases, this means asking that students write these essays during classroom exams—without screens, but with those dreaded blue books.

I have also found ways of posing questions that get past what AI can answer, such as asking for a personal take—How might we push society to embrace art that initially seems ugly?—that draws from material discussed in class. Professors will also need to establish more standards for in-class participation.

I loathed writing essays in college. The assignments felt too abstract and disconnected from anything I cared about, and I disliked how little control I had over whether I could get a good grade—it was never clear to me what a “good” essay was. I know I wasn’t alone. I always loved school, but those dry, daunting essay assignments kept me from knowing that I could love writing.

I do not regret that AI has marginalized this particular chore. There are other ways to teach students how to think.Tyler Austin Harper: ChatGPT doesn’t have to ruin collegeEssays are also meant to train students to use proper grammar to express themselves in a clear and socially acceptable way. Well, there was also a time when a person needed to know how to grow their own food and tie a bow tie.

We’re past that, along with needing to know how to avoid dangling participles. We will always need to express ourselves clearly, but AI tools now offer us ways to accomplish this.It bears noting that quite a few grammar rules are less about clarity than about fashion or preference, which we are expected to master like a code of dress-–Oxford commas (or not!

), when to use which versus that (something made up out of thin air by the grammarian Henry Fowler), fewer books rather than less books. AI now tells us how to navigate these codes. Some of us will still enjoy knowing when to use who versus whom, just as I might care to properly tie a bow tie, at least once.

But most people will be more than happy to outsource this to a machine.Sure, it’s disorienting to wonder whether either of my own children will ever embrace long, classic novels. But they now enjoy a richer array of material than I ever did, and my job is simply to encourage them to engage with the best of it as much as possible—even if that means they will likely encounter less Tolstoy than I did.

And although I find grammar rules intriguing enough to have devoted much of my life to studying them, I don’t mind that my daughters and students needn’t expend so much energy mastering these often-arbitrary dictates. My hope is that by having AI handle some of this busy work, they will have more time to actually think for themselves.

Analysis

Conflict+
Related Info+
Core Event+
Background+
Impact+
Future+

Related Podcasts