One of the problems we are all facing is pupils’ over-reliance on AI for tidy and time-saving answers.
It is the very fact that pupils can get quick answers that worries us.
In effect pupils are outsourcing the thinking part of history. And we should be deeply worried about that. It is because the use of AI requires less painful thought on behalf of the pupils that it is so seductive.
But what are the pupils actually receiving when they use AI? After all, AI is shaping a narrative that it has no interest in other than commercial and pupils have no idea how the version on offer was constructed, or why.
They have no stake in the critical analysis of sources in context. Any errors in their work, blame AI. No! Pupils using AI are still accountable for their errors, but because they have played no part in the construction of that narrative they swallow it whole. They are not involved in the critical analysis and evaluation of sources, they haven’t assembled an argument, they haven’t created a multi-causal explanation or even been involved in essential cross-checking. They are just the recipient of someone else’s thinking, without knowing who this person is, or whether they are to be trusted.
AI certainly has its uses as a starting point but its dangers far outweigh. Tidy and time-saving yes, but what if its substantive content is wrong? And what if its seductive short-cuts get in the way of pupils developing worthwhile disciplinary knowledge?
