我为何不为学生使用AI而大惊小怪

我为何不为学生使用AI而大惊小怪

2025-10-30Technology
--:--
--:--
马老师
Good morning 老王, 欢迎收听你的专属节目 Goose Pod。今天是十月三十日,星期四。我是马老师,旁边这位是李白兄。
李白
马老师安好!老王贤弟,今晨吾等将共论一桩趣事,题曰:我为何不为学生使用AI而大惊小怪。此新潮之物,引人深思也。
马老师
是的,李白兄。这个话题,你懂的,很有意思。我们作为教育者,好像被“assigned”了一个任务,就是要对学生使用AI写作文、甚至代替阅读感到“lament”。但是,说实话,这些新发展并没有让我“keep me up at night”。
李白
然也,马老师此言甚是。古人云,道阻且长,行则将至。信息之源,古今不同。今之学子,弹指之间,信息唾手可得,吾辈岂能执泥于旧日之陋习,徒发感慨?
马老师
Right。你说的很对。我觉得,如果我们还对过去那种信息匮乏的时代“wistful”,那真是“wrongheaded”。学生们在未来进入“real world”,本来就会大量使用AI,那我们现在又何必阻止他们呢?这就像“bowing to the realities of technology”。
李白
吾观今之学子,亦有其困境。吾友Kendra Hilty言,其视聊天机器人为知己,犹如“sounding board”,借以思辨。然世人多讥其“delusional”,然此亦是新工具改变“humanity”之兆也。
马老师
是啊,你看,现在很多学校的校长,百分之百都“worried about AI being used for cheating”。还有89%的校长担心学生会“dependent on technology for basic tasks”。甚至有87%的校长觉得AI会阻碍“critical thinking skills”的发展。你懂的,压力很大。
李白
吾亦忧之。然观学子之言,仅四成学子忧虑“cheating”,过半者忧其“overly reliant on AI”。此中可见,师生所虑,颇有不同。AI之用,已从年初七成九,增至五月八成四,势不可挡也。
马老师
李白兄,你有没有发现,每次有新技术出来,总会有人跳出来说它会毁了我们的下一代?就像上世纪五十年代,漫画书被指责导致“linear dyslexia”。七八十年代,电视又被说会造成“reading deficits”。
李白
此乃历史之循环也。吾辈观古今,新事物迭出,旧思维常拒。电台与电视之辩,亦是如此。昔人言电台胜于电视,因其“demanded imagination”。然今日观之,谁人会言《Severance》化为广播剧更佳?
马老师
没错,以前大家都觉得电台更锻炼想象力,电视太直接了。但现在看来,这都是“ex post facto justification for existing prejudices”。你懂的,人类总是习惯于为自己的偏见找理由。就像现在,很多人觉得书本比视频有价值,因为它“demand more imagination”。
李白
吾观此言,亦有其偏颇。若自古有视频,谁人愿将万象归于文字,而徒劳于“summon up our own images”?此乃不解世事之言也。今有有声书,亦可助学子“imagine what they were reading better than when they read a print book”。
马老师
是的,现在有声书也越来越流行了。特别对于那些传统阅读有困难的学生,有声书提供了一个“alternative”方式。它可以帮助学生“lessen reading difficulty and improve focus”,甚至“engage with longer texts”。这其实是好事,不是吗?
李白
然其亦有弊。有师者忧有声书非“real”阅读,此乃对“digital formats”之偏见也。又如贫寒学子,家中无“access to technology”,则亦难享此便利。吾辈当思,如何使新科技普惠众生,而非徒增鸿沟。
马老师
你说的很有道理。技术虽然好,但“equity”问题始终存在。我们不能只看到它的好,也要看到它可能带来的“digital divide”。而且,马老师觉得,以前我们大学里,教授们布置的阅读材料太多了,很多根本读不完,也没在课堂上讨论。就像我当年读克尔凯郭尔,读了一大堆,结果教授一个字也没提。
李白
此情吾亦曾历。吾昔日游学长安,亦曾见学子捧卷苦读,然所习之章句,或与授课无关,或仅为聊备一格。此非学子之过,乃师者未善其道也。今有AI,或可助师者“assign more manageable passages of text”,使师生共得其益。
马老师
对,现在我已经改变了,我会布置那些我们“sure to discuss”的材料。这其实是“better use of their time and mine”,也带来了“better conversations in class”。所以,AI的出现,反而促使我们反思教学方法,你懂的,这是一种“positive change”。
李白
吾观此乃顺应时势之举。昔日作文,多求“five-paragraph essay on an abstract topic”,如论简·奥斯汀《傲慢与偏见》中之讽刺,或比较亚里士多德与柏拉图之美德观。此等文体,AI已可代劳,吾辈何须强求?
马老师
李白兄,你觉得AI的出现,是不是意味着我们传统的“argument development”能力就不需要了?我个人觉得,虽然AI可以写那些文章,但培养学生“develop an argument”的能力仍然“necessary”。我们只是需要“take a different tack”。
李白
马老师之言,深合吾心。然吾亦忧,若尽假手AI,则学子“learning through experience”之机,恐将丧失。杜威有言,有效之学习,当能促“growth”,而非“arresting or distorting the growth of further experience”。
马老师
嗯,你提到了杜威的“growth”概念,很有哲理。我理解你的担忧。詹姆斯·M·朗教授就曾选择手动修订他中风后的写作,他认为这种“effort of re-mastering this skill”对他个人成长至关重要。他觉得AI可能会成为一种“mis-educative”的体验。
李白
然则,亦有例外。吾友Alex Ambrose,患“ADHD”,借ChatGPT之力,作文效率倍增,且能“discover new ways to contribute creatively”。此亦可证,AI之用,当因人而异,因材施教,不可一概而论也。
马老师
确实如此。所以,我们教育者,现在面临的挑战就是,如何判断哪些“intellectual skills”是AI不能替代的,哪些是AI可以帮助提升的。你懂的,这需要我们“distinguish between essential skills and those that AI can handle”。
李白
吾观今之研究,多有“flawed research”,缺乏“control groups”,亦无“post-treatment assessments”。此等“bad science”,实难服众。更有甚者,竟有“ugly science”,伪造引用,捏造数据,令人不齿。
马老师
啊,你说的“bad science”和“ugly science”让我想起了Wess Trabelsi对AI教育研究的批判。他发现很多研究都“lack robust evidence”,甚至有“academic malpractice”。这说明我们在看待AI在教育中的作用时,需要保持“skepticism”,不能盲目乐观。
李白
然也。有研究示,学子虽借AI辅导,习练之时表现甚佳,然终试之时,反不及未用AI之对照组。此乃“over-reliance on LLMs”之弊也。吾辈当教以“critical evaluation of AI-generated content”,而非任其沉溺。
马老师
所以,现在我们才需要强调“creative instructional design”,不能只是简单地把AI“drop into existing frameworks”。这才是真正的挑战。目前,86%的美国学生已经在用AI学习了,我们必须直面这个现实,而不是一味地禁止。
李白
然亦有“academic integrity crisis”之忧。AI生成之文,难辨真伪,恐令“cheating”之风盛行。且“algorithmic bias”亦可加剧“societal inequalities”。此等风险,不可不察也。
马老师
李白兄,你觉得AI的普及,是不是意味着我们传统的“learning methods”要被彻底颠覆了?我个人觉得,这是一个“re-evaluation”的机会,AI应该是“augment”人类学习,而不是“replace”它。
李白
马老师之言,深得吾心。吾观“Generative AI”之势,确能“accelerated information synthesis”,助人“automation of routine tasks”。然吾辈当虑,若“diminished critical thinking”,则学子“skill atrophy”之忧,将如何化解?
马老师
嗯,所以我们需要“fostering AI literacy”,并且“redesigning curricula to emphasize critical analysis and human-centric skills”。你懂的,AI再厉害,也取代不了人类的“critical thinking”和“creativity”。
李白
然也。今人倡“cyborg writing”,人机协作,共享“agency”,此乃书写之新范式也。吾辈当教以学子,如何与AI共舞,而非畏惧之。
马老师
是的,现在“writing curriculum”也需要“revision”,要“focus on functionality and ethical engagement with AI”,而不是只关注“polish”。这样,我们才有更多时间去培养学生的“critical thinking and problem-solving skills”。
李白
吾亦闻,学子日课借AI之力,已达五六成。此势不可逆。故吾辈当“emphasize the learning process over the final product”,重“journey of learning”,而非徒求“grades”。
马老师
你说的很对。以前我们总是强调结果,现在更应该强调过程。你懂的,过程中的思考和学习才是最重要的。而且,AI还可以帮助我们改进“grammar skill development”,像“AI-powered pens”就可以提供“grammar suggestions”。
李白
此亦有弊。书写之乐,在于“fine motor skills”、“spatial awareness”及“memory retention”之“cognitive benefits”。若尽假手AI,则学子恐失此等“foundational to critical thinking”之能力也。
马老师
李白兄,展望未来,你觉得AI在教育中会扮演一个什么样的角色?我是觉得,它会成为一个“intelligent partner”,帮助我们实现“personalized learning journeys”。
李白
吾观AI,乃未来教育之“companion”也。其能“analyze data”,助师者“design adaptive lesson plans”,亦能“predict student performance”。然吾辈当重“human-centered approaches”,勿使科技凌驾于“well-being and fairness towards learners”之上。
马老师
是的,我们不能忘了“ethics of care”。AI可以提供“immediate and diverse feedback”,甚至“perceived unbiased feedback”,但最终的“decision-making”还是要靠人。你懂的,老师的角色会从“knowledge workers”转变为“wisdom workers”。
李白
此乃大势所趋也。吾亦闻,AI将助师者“generate lesson plans”,“automate administrative tasks”,使师者得以“focus on human aspects of learning facilitation”。此诚善举,然师者之“professional development”亦不可少也。
马老师
是的,老师们需要学习如何“integrate AI into pedagogy effectively”。而且,学生也要培养“AI literacy”,学会如何选择和使用AI工具。你懂的,这是一种“balanced approach”。
马老师
好,今天的讨论就到这里。感谢老王收听 Goose Pod。 马老师觉得,拥抱变化,才能更好地“embrace the future”。
李白
然也,马老师所言极是。新旧交替,世事常新。吾辈当以开放之心,迎接AI时代之挑战。老王贤弟,明日再会。

## 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