Don’t get seduced by the next shiny thing, because you’ll get caught up chasing shiny things and that will keep you from addressing what you really need to accomplish.
Joe Tripodi
My previous post on the Tyranny of the Urgent has received a lot of attention, with most agreeing with the premise that in our modern world of ‘overwhelm’ we’re all too susceptible to focusing on the things that demand our urgent attention and neglect the things that will, in the longer term, be of greater significance in our lives.
This week I was asked to speak to a group of education leaders about the potential use and impact of AI in education. I’d have to confess to feeling rather nervous about this as I wouldn’t consider myself an AI expert (many in the room had a much greater experience and knowledge of the technical side of AI than I!) – so I chose to focus very specifically on the pedagogical considerations that should underpin our decisions, as educators, about how we embrace and adopt any form of technology – including AI.
My presentation was well received – lots of engaged nods and several questions followed. I provided a simple framework for thinking about how we might align whatever platform or digital service we choose, in particular those enabled by AI, with our understandings of the science of learning – good pedagogy and instructional design. All of which begins with a thorough knowledge and understanding of the individual students we are working with.
I finished my presentation feeling satisfied that, in the brief time I had, I’d managed to draw out some key ideas and offer ways of thinking about how we evaluate AI environments and their use in education. Judging from the initial feedback that was so.
Immediately after that was another presentation, this time from an AI platform vendor. It was extremely slick, and impressive. The presenters illustrated many of the really useful attributes of an AI-enabled learning environment they’d incorporated into their platform. The presentation and the product was extremely polished in terms of the graphical design and multi-media performance – all serving to capture the attention and imagination of the audience, revealing what’s possible in these sorts of environments.
In many ways the product presentation served as a useful illustration of what I’d been talking about – something to ‘run the ruler’ over, using the design principles I’d introduce, and to evaluate its value with some level of critical thought. But that didn’t happen. Instead, much of the immediate conversation focused on the ‘wow’ factor of what had been witnessed – the visual appeal, the multimedia elements, the innovative development of content related to curriculum etc. There was little of what I’d call ‘critical engagement’, looking beyond what was presented to ask the deeper questions such as, ‘does it support a range of pedagogical approaches?’, ‘to what extent are learners actively involved in the design of the learning experience rather that participating in something set by the teacher?’ or ‘does the environment cater for both individual and group work, and if so, how are groups formed and sustained?’ etc.
Now I’m not dissing the product in question – all of the features demonstrated certainly made this product stand apart as an excellent example of an AI-enabled platform But I was expecting to hear a more critical engagement from the participants. For example, while the user interface was exciting and engaging, and the use of AI provided results that may have been unfamiliar to some, from a technological point of view it simply illustrated what AI in a range of contexts and platforms is able to achieve. From a pedagogical perspective, the product incorporated a range of very clever features including AI-enabled personal tutors that you could engage with using text or voice, and the ability to search and reference very large quantities of data in the process. These features create the potential to save time at the planning and design end of the process and concentrate on supporting individual learners at specific points in the process. But it didn’t (to my mind at least) illustrate how any of this was being driven by the learner or by a deep understanding of the learner. A large section of the platform consisted of pre-prepared context that the learner could then engage with, supported by an AI-enabled tutor to chat with.
I’m not wanting to make too big an issue of this, as, overall, there was a lot of value in the presentation given, and the people in the room were all highly capable people who I am sure will work through these sorts of ideas as they process everything they learned on the day – rather than simply go out and purchase the product based on what they saw.
Observing this momentary change in response in the room caused me to reflect on previous conversations I’ve participated in and stories I’ve heard from schools that have invested in all sorts of products and solutions based purely on the flash presentation from a super-good salesperson, including enthusiastic colleagues from another school. How often do we, as educators, find ourselves seduced by the slick sales routine – a flashy advertisement, a ‘tugging at the heartstrings’ image, an excited parent or colleague – only to find there are a number of other factors that should have been considered before the decision is made? To what extent are our choices driven by a sense of FOMO (fear of missing out), or the desire to be a ‘first mover’ and embrace the ‘new, new thing’ before anyone else.
It seems we live in a world where this sort of transaction is increasingly common. While I recall my own parents deliberating for days over the purchase of something new, weighing up the pros and cons of different options based on how each would meet their needs, it seems these days so many decisions are driven purely by impulse – particularly with the affordances of online retail. The fact that a high percentage of US households now have a ‘returns bin’ in their cupboard to collect all of the items purchased on Amazon, and that Amazon’s own returns policy appears to support this seems to support my suspicion here.
The tyranny of desire
The issue here is desire. The dictionary defines this a states of mind that are expressed by terms like “wanting”, “wishing”, “longing” or “craving”. Desire plays a crucial role in motivation. It is the driving force that compels people to take action to achieve their goals. Without desire, people would lack the motivation to pursue anything, and they would simply drift through life without any sense of purpose or direction. So desire isn’t necessarily a bad thing – but we need to understand what is triggering it, and how to harness it’s power as a positive motivator in our lives.
Desire is the thing that advertisers and marketers have turned into a science as they seek to tap into what drives our desire in order to convince us to purchase their product. Modern consumer capitalism creates the desire to accumulate material goods that, we think, will give us status and identity. But this leads us into the trap of seeking immediate gratification rather than focusing on long-term benefits. Thinking back to the idea of presentations made to schools about some new technology platform or reading resource, the allure of flashy presentations and immediate satisfaction often leads us to overlook the long-term implications and benefits of our decisions.
For me it’s essential that we prioritise pedagogical integrity over trends. – no matter how compelling they are. Those who know me will know that I’ve always been a techno- optimist, keen to try out the latest gadgets and platforms etc. But I am always driven primarily by the desire to understand the affordances they provide from a pedagogical sense – to support student learning or ease the administrative burden on teachers for example. Educators should be guided by research-backed best practices and evidence-based approaches to teaching and learning, rather than being swayed by the latest fads or political agendas.
At a deeper level, we should begin by considering how the implementation of a new technology will align with educational values. Educators must learn to evaluate new tools and approaches based on how well they align with the core values and principles of education, rather than how. impressed they might be with the sales pitch being made. This involves considering whether a flashy new technology or methodology truly supports the educational goals of fostering critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and lifelong learning for example.
Most importantly, we should be considering the impact on student learning. We should critically examine how these innovations contribute to meaningful learning experiences and promote increased learner motivation and engagement, support for personalisation and improvement of student learning outcomes.
To provide a practical illustration, I’ve seen the power of desire at work on some of the occasions where I’ve arranged visits to schools to observe features such as the furnishings in an innovative learning environment, or a successful cross-curricular programme operating in a multi-age environment. Very often those visiting will be so captivated by what they observe that they become filled with the desire of seeing this happen back in their context – a very natural, human response. The challenge they face then is to use that desire as a motivation to delve deeper and to think through the ramifications of transferring the ideas in to a different context – and not simply acting on impulse to simply copy what they see, or, in some cases, to instantly lay out an investment in new resources, support or licenses for example.
This is what I consider the tyrrany of desire. It runs in parallel with the tyrrany of the urgent, but instead of causing us to become pre-occupied with the immediate and most pressing problems to solve and issues to consider, the tyrrany of desire is what happens when we become pre-occupied by the desire to always be a part of the early adopter movement, to have the best technology, resources or learning environments, or to achieve a better reputation than the school up the road, for example. This sort of approach might work to bring short-term benefits in terms of status and identity (personally or school), but often leads to disappointment lack of sustainability in the longer term.
Some personal questions that may be helpful to reflect on as you ponder the potential impact of the tyrrany of desire in your own approach are:
- Can you recall a time when you were swayed by the allure of a flashy new tool or approach in education? How did it impact your students and your teaching practice in the long run?
- How do you navigate the balance between embracing innovative educational technologies and staying true to your pedagogical principles?
- What strategies do you employ to resist the pressure to adopt trendy educational solutions and instead prioritize what truly matters for your students’ learning?
- Reflecting on your own values and motivations as an educator, how do you ensure that your decisions align with your professional integrity and commitment to student success?
- How do you foster a culture of critical inquiry and reflective practice within your professional learning community, encouraging meaningful discussions about the tools and approaches that best serve students’ needs?
