Paul CHENG
School of Computing (SOC) 

Paul, a first-year undergraduate at SOC, reflects on the impact artificial intelligence (AI) has had on his educational journey.

Cheng, P. H. W. (2024, June 26). The irreplaceable role of teachers over AI: A student’s perspective. Teaching Connections. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/teachingconnections/2024/06/26/the-irreplaceable-role-of-teachers-over-ai-a-students-perspective/

 

Introduction

Malala Yousafzai’s renowned declaration at the United Nations Youth Assembly in 2013, “One child, one teacher, one book, and one pen can change the world,” resonates deeply (United Nations, 2013). Yet, in today’s evolving educational landscape, marked by the rising integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in many aspects of life, this sentiment prompts reconsideration.

 

Advocates for AI like Chace (2020) believe that AI’s ability to offer personalised learning experiences, coupled with its extensive knowledge of curriculum content, will gradually eclipse the role of human teachers, ultimately providing a more effective and enjoyable education to students.

 

However, as someone who has experienced firsthand the introduction of generative AI (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT by OpenAI and witnessed its impact on students in higher education, I would like to offer three observations, from a student’s perspective, on how university instructors can better support student learning.

 

AI is just not human

Firstly, proponents such as Chace (2020) argue that AI, unlike most human teachers, has the capacity to tailor teaching methods and increase flexibility of learning, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and enjoyment of education. While this prospect holds promise for fostering a personalised educational environment, it raises concerns about eroding human agency in education. In my opinion, while AI bots are readily available to students, they lack the capacity to provide the emotional support and mentorship inherent in human educators.

 

Meanwhile, human teachers possess the ability to convey care through nuanced gestures like tone modulation, eye contact, and physical presence. There are studies that have found that elements of human interaction, such as communication, support, and presence, significantly enhance students’ satisfaction and learning outcomes (Kang & Im, 2013). Given that education has always been a social process (Liu et al., 2023), students may tire of solitary screen-based learning, yearning for human interaction.

 

Similarly, for me, speaking from a student’s perspective, physical lessons are preferred over online lessons as this increases interaction between students and teachers. Furthermore, as a computer science student frequently studying complex technical courses, I find my learning enhanced when my instructors explain concepts in person and in real time, for instance, utilising the whiteboard to illustrate diagrams.

 

AI lacks critical thinking

Secondly, amidst the growing Internet, AI bots are gaining greater access to countless websites. This trend has led proponents of AI-based education to argue that AI’s extensive knowledge makes it more effective at teaching curriculum-related information than human educators (Carruci, 2024). However, I believe this view to be an over-generalisation. While it is accurate that AI tools are better able to generate and provide information to students, they struggle with critical thinking and formation of their own opinions, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Further research has shown that Gemini, Google’s Large Language Model (LLM) AI tool exhibits text analysis shortcomings compared to humans (Smith & Funk, 2024). Such LLM/AI tools proficiently string together sequences of words based on statistical patterns, yet fall short when it comes to grasping the inherent meaning of the words they generate or understanding their contextual relevance. As such, AI software lacks the capability to guide students in connecting information and engaging in critical examination of issues. Over time, mindlessly absorbing vast informational content from AI may diminish students’ enjoyment in learning.

 

In contrast, humans possess critical thinking skills, comprehension abilities, and the capacity to assess credibility and draw informed conclusions (Ennis, 2015). Hence, for subjects demanding insightful opinions and thoughtful analysis of content, human teachers are preferred due to their unique ability to draw out or surface critical issues. This confines AI software to providing effective instruction only for subjects that primarily involve rote memorisation of facts, leaving it lacking compared to human educators when it comes to engaging students in learning.

 

Furthermore, my education journey has always been one that goes beyond mere rote memorisation and content absorption; it has entailed critical analysis of issues and the formation of informed, up-to-date opinions. I would venture to contend that students often grasp content more effectively when we engage in critical analysis rather than simply memorising information devoid of context.

 

In short, while students like me appreciate the utility of generative AI tools in providing factual information, what we value more are university instructors who can guide us in critically analysing information, offering their own opinions, and providing a comprehensive understanding of the concepts taught.

 

Ethical concerns over AI

Thirdly, Chace (2020) claims that software bots will increasingly replace human educators as they take on diverse education-related responsibilities, outperforming human educators in effectiveness. While this argument holds validity to some degree, it overlooks the limitations of AI. As AI software continues to advance, ethical regulations often lag behind these developments. This raises concerns regarding potential privacy breaches, surveillance risks, challenges to autonomy, and possible discrimination stemming from AI assistance (Stahl, 2021).

Furthermore, AI lacks judgement in identifying its own ethical flaws and is fraught with limitations (Carruci, 2024). To make matters worse, there seems to be a lack of transparency among AI companies in addressing algorithmic biases, exacerbating the issue (Lumenova AI, 2023). Without addressing these ethical concerns, how can AI be more effective than teachers?

 

Acknowledging AI’s strengths and limitations

In conclusion, while AI holds promise for enhancing pedagogy, its efficacy is constrained by its lack of human-like qualities, deficiencies in terms of its capacity for critical thinking and addressing ethical dilemmas. Until AI systems can adequately overcome these limitations, AI tools should take a back seat and mainly handle routine administrative tasks in education, supporting teachers as they continue to deliver content and engage students effectively.

As exemplified by Yousafzai’s renowned quote that “one teacher can change the world” (United Nations, 2013), the role of human educators will persist, unyielding to AI’s advancement and irreplaceable in its essence.

 

Acknowledgements

This blog post has been adapted from my original assignment for the course ES2660 “Communicating in the Information Age”.

 

References

Carucci, R. (2024, February 6). In the age of AI, critical thinking is more needed than ever. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roncarucci/2024/02/06/in-the-age-of-ai-critical-thinking-is-more-needed-than-ever/?sh=4dd577db1f79

Chace, C. (2020, October 29). The impact of artificial intelligence on education. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/calumchace/2020/10/29/the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-education/?sh=4e3c10c350df

Ennis, R.H. (2015). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_2

Graffham Consulting Ltd. (2023, December 9). AI and Education: A Dynamic Duo (Glimpse of the future). https://www.graffhamglobal.com/blog/AI-education-future

Kang, M. & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), 29(3), 292-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12005

Liu, J., Demszky, D., & Hill, H.C. (2023, August 14). AI can make education more personal (Yes, really). Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-ai-can-make-education-more-personal-yes-really/2023/08

Lumenova AI. (2023, November 17). New Stanford study reveals the lack of transparency from major AI companies. https://www.lumenova.ai/blog/how-transparent-are-ai-companies/

Nayar, N.D. (2023, October 11). AI and education. Candor International School. https://candorschool.edu.in/ai-and-education/

Smith, G., & Funk, J. (2024, March 12). When it comes to critical thinking, Ai flunks the test. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-it-comes-to-critical-thinking-ai-flunks-the-test

Stahl, B.C. (2021). Ethical issues of AI. In B.C. Stahl (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence for a Better Future (pp. 35-53). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69978-9_4

United Nations. (2013, July 13). Malala Yousafzai addresses United Nations Youth Assembly [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rNhZu3ttIU

 

Paul CHENG is a first-year undergraduate currently studying Computer Science at the NUS School of Computing. Driven by a strong interest in Computer Science, particularly in the Cybersecurity field, he eagerly seeks ways to enhance his learning experience. As a student, he believes that integrating Generative AI tools with conventional teaching methods into the curriculum could revolutionise the educational landscape, providing students like him with immersive learning opportunities. Paul can be reached at e1121941@u.nus.edu.