10
Loading video...
By Dr. Ian Stout
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Sweden spent years putting screens in classrooms. Now, they are being taken out. According to news reports, the country is banning mobile phones in schools, and a new grant for purchasing textbooks is underway. The reason is falling reading scores and a growing belief that constant screen access has damaged concentration and comprehension.
That reversal should worry anyone who thinks AI is the answer to education's problems. The technology is different. The pattern is the same. We adopt a tool because it is new and efficient, and we assume it will improve learning. Then we discover that students who use it to skip the work of thinking do not learn to think.
The evidence is already there. A study of about 27,000 students aged 12 to 18 in China, led by researchers from Stockholm University and the University of Hong Kong, tracked the students for 30 months. After adopting generative AI, their homework scores rose by 18 percent.
Read More on Leadership Insights
The time spent on each assignment fell by about 30 percent, from 64 minutes to 45 minutes on average. But when the same students sat for monthly exams without AI, their scores fell by 20 percent within six months, according to Al Jazeera.
Their performance in high-stakes entrance exams also declined, with the full effect emerging over a longer period. The students had not learned the material. They had learned how to produce the appearance of learning. The researchers called it a "learning penalty."
This is the risk I see in education right now. The danger is not that AI will become smarter than students. The danger is that students will stop practicing the skills that make them smart. When a machine can generate an answer in seconds, the temptation to skip the struggle of understanding is enormous. And the struggle is where learning happens.
Students Need To Learn How To Be Smart
I lead a classical school. Our model is built on the trivium, a method that has been used for thousands of years. It has three stages. Grammar is the acquisition of facts. Logic is the practice of drawing connections and testing reasoning. Rhetoric is the ability to communicate an argument clearly and persuasively.
The first stage, grammar, is where AI can genuinely help: searching for information, checking a date, and finding a source. These are useful assistive tasks. But grammar is only the foundation. The value of education sits in the next two stages.
Logic requires practice. Students need to sit with a problem and not know the answer. They need to form a hypothesis, test it, fail, and try again. AI can hand them the conclusion. It cannot hand them the experience of reaching it.
Rhetoric requires production. Students need to write drafts by hand, stand in front of a class, defend an argument, and hear a counterargument. These are not soft skills. They are the muscles of independent thought. If students outsource them, the muscles weaken.
Some schools are already adjusting. At our school, we use Socratic seminars. Students read primary sources, not textbooks. They discuss difficult texts directly and explain their thinking out loud. By the time a final paper is due, the teacher knows the student's voice. A generated essay would stand out immediately.
Dependent On The Machine, Not Empowered By It
This is not an argument against technology. It is an argument for appropriate use. In younger grades, there is no role for AI. Children need to read books, hold pencils, and practice attention. In high school, AI can be a thought partner. It can help a student test an idea or find a counterargument. But the student must do the thinking and show the work.
The alternative is a future where a small group controls the systems that generate knowledge, and everyone else consumes what those systems produce. Citizens who cannot reason independently cannot evaluate what they are told. They cannot distinguish truth from a convincing fabrication. They become dependent on the machine, not empowered by it.
That is the choice in front of us. We can treat AI as a shortcut and watch a generation lose the habit of thought. Or we can treat it as a tool that supports the harder, slower work of developing a mind. We must teach our students how to think, not just what to think. The technology will keep improving. The question is whether the people using it will.
Dr. Ian Stout is the executive director of Loveland Classical Schools in Loveland, Colorado, and writes about classical education, AI in education, and the future of independent thought. The views expressed are the author's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines