Teachers shouldn’t be able to use AI when students can’t

Researching ideas, generating content, getting and giving feedback. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used in education now more than ever before; however, the spotlight has been on student use rather than teacher use, when in reality many teachers use AI just as much as students do. Students are required to not utilize AI to do the work for them and are urged to put in their own effort. Shouldn’t teachers be held to the same standard?

While some students use AI responsibly, a large number of students use AI for help completing work or doing it entirely due to confusion, exhaustion, anxiety or simply laziness. The Teen and Young Adult Perspectives on Generative AI study, written in partnership with Common Sense Media and Hopelab in 2023, observed the high usage of AI. Fifty-one percent of 14–22 year olds reported using generative AI at some point. The most common uses were finding information (53%) and brainstorming (51%). 

Many students attempt to use AI as an easy way out of work; however, school administrations implement AI policies to prevent this. According to AI For Education, an organization dedicated to informing about AI, 22 states have released K12 AI guidance as of 2024. Algonquin is included in having AI policies, as demonstrated at the beginning of the school year when teachers were able to choose between three different AI policies to state on their course expectations. The options were: students may use AI in their class, students may use AI in their class when explicitly stated or students may never use AI in their class. These policies give teachers the opportunity to prevent their students from using AI and state the consequences if defied. 

Teachers also use AI in various ways to help them complete their jobs more efficiently, such as to brainstorm class activities or to create handouts, which leads to questions revolving around the fairness and ethicality of this practice. Ironically, teachers have been using AI to check for students’ AI generated work. The downside is that students can often be falsely accused of plagiarizing and cheating because AI is not always correct. Depending on the data sources that AI draws from, it can formulate different and wrong information.

Additionally, teachers at Algonquin sometimes use AI to check students’ work rather than looking it over and correcting it themselves. According to University of Southern California’s School of Engineering’s Information Sciences Institute study on two AI databases, there was bias in up to 38.6% of “facts” used by AI. Ultimately, letting AI correct student work, although more efficient, is often not correct or put in the right context.

Students are discouraged by teachers to use AI to do their “thinking,” backed up by the reasoning that students should use their own time, effort and problem-solving skills to promote better learning. This reasoning can easily be put into the same context for teachers. Teachers should put in the same amount of effort in their work, thinking and correcting as students.

The work of artificial intelligence can never replicate human work. Just because one way is easier and quicker doesn’t mean it’s the best way. AI is false up to a quarter of the time, making it an inadequate tool for grading.

Furthermore, AI has limitations in comparison to humans. Teachers may want to use AI to assist students so they have more time on their hands; however, this is not a good option for many students. An article published by Walden University states that learners who interact with a machine rather than their own teacher can feel isolated, which can decrease motivation. Simply put, when teachers use AI to provide feedback, the important human element and potential for human connection is gone.

Artificial intelligence should not and cannot be used by students to generate their own work, and teachers should not be able to use it in that way either. Algonquin needs an AI policy that includes teachers and encourages the best learning possible. When teachers use AI, it needs to be carefully considered how the negative consequences will affect the students’ learning process and growth.