What readers say

“Paul, this is excellent; really!

I was drawn in by this research. What struck me first is how honest it is. It is honest, it feels honest, and it reads honest. Labelling every claim, from established trend to speculation, is something I wish more writing about AI in education did. It lets the reader trust the parts that deserve trust and think critically about the rest.

For me, the most immediately useful message for school leaders is that how AI is designed matters more than whether it is used. The study you cite says it all: an unrestricted chatbot raised practice scores but lowered exam results, while a tutor-style version that made students think did not. Many schools are still asking “Should we allow AI?” Your article moves the question to “What kind of AI, used how, and checked by whom?” That is a question a principal can act on tomorrow, in the next procurement decision or the next assessment policy.

I also found the “moves that hold in every future” very practical, especially teaching verification and assessing what learners can do without the tool. Those connect closely with my own work on teaching students how to learn, not just what to learn.”

Richard L. Wilson, M.Ed.
Educator | Writer | Editor | Academic Director