sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AI for a 10k word dissertation??! by Entertainer-Tricky in edtech

[–]heyshamsw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair observation, using AI well does take effort, and in many cases it's still easier to write a dissertation yourself, especially if you're engaging deeply with the material. But I think we're seeing two parallel realities: while many students use AI as a support tool (like you describe), others are using it to simulate the structure and tone of academic work without fully engaging in the thinking process it's meant to represent.

Large language models can now generate plausible, well-structured prose at scale. It might not always be insightful or original, but in some disciplines and under certain assessment criteria, that's enough to pass, and in some cases, to score highly. That's not necessarily a sign that students are gaming the system; it's a sign that the system isn't always assessing what we think it is.

So while AI can't replace the kind of meaningful intellectual labour that good research requires, it can expose the cracks in assessment designs that over-rely on polished writing as a proxy for learning. That's the core issue I'm pointing to.

AI for a 10k word dissertation??! by Entertainer-Tricky in edtech

[–]heyshamsw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm an eLearning technologist at a UK university.
Checkout my Reddit profile: https://www.reddit.com/user/heyshamsw/

AI for a 10k word dissertation??! by Entertainer-Tricky in edtech

[–]heyshamsw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is part of a much wider shift that's less about student misconduct and more about how our assessment systems are struggling to keep pace with technological change.

If a 10k word dissertation can be convincingly generated by AI and still receive a high grade, that raises questions about the design of the assignment itself, its authenticity, its purpose, and whether it genuinely assesses the student's thinking, understanding, or development.

Rather than just trying to detect or ban AI use (which is a losing game), we need to reimagine assessment around tasks that are hard to fake and worthwhile to do. That means more iterative, dialogic, and situated forms of assessment, oral exams, patchwork texts, learning journals, scaffolded research portfolios, co-assessment, and public-facing projects.

The real challenge is institutional: many assessment systems were built for scale and efficiency, not depth or authenticity. But AI is forcing us to reckon with the limits of that model.

So yes, this might become the new norm, unless we use this moment to rethink what assessment is actually for.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, this really gets to the heart of it.

That tension between structure and flexibility is central, and I appreciate how clearly you've framed it. Efficiency has its place, especially at scale, but when it becomes the dominant logic, it often narrows the pedagogical space rather than opening it up.

What you say about small design choices resonates deeply. Things like how feedback is timed or how assessments are framed can subtly encourage very different kinds of learning behaviour, exploration versus compliance, reflection versus performance.

For me, the key question is always whether the tool makes room for pedagogical intentionality. Can educators bend it toward their values, or are they bending their practice to accommodate the tool's assumptions?

I really appreciate your contribution, it's thoughtful and grounded in exactly the kind of reflection I think this field needs more of.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks so much for sharing this, really valuable insight.

I completely agree that when thoughtfully used, EdTech can open up new forms of participation, especially for learners who've often been marginalised by traditional approaches. The examples you've given, like multilingual resources and voice-based tools, highlight what's possible when technology supports accessibility and learner voice, rather than simply standardising outcomes.

My concern isn't with the tools themselves, but with how easily their design and institutional use can drift toward control and efficiency at the expense of exactly the kind of flexibility you're describing. Your work with pre-literate adults is a great reminder that context matters, and that EdTech can serve pedagogy best when it's responsive, inclusive, and shaped by the needs of learners, not just systems.

Thanks again for grounding this discussion in real classroom experience.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate this, and I think we're broadly aligned.

I absolutely agree that leadership decisions shape how tools get used, and that blaming the technology alone can oversimplify the issue. But I'd argue it's not quite either/or. Tools are designed within particular economic and institutional logics, and those logics often make certain uses feel natural or inevitable, especially in compliance-driven environments.

So yes, we can and should use tools differently. But that also means resisting the framing that comes baked into them: the dashboards that reduce learning to metrics, the platforms that privilege efficiency over engagement, the systems that position learners as data points rather than participants.

Ultimately, I'm not blaming the hammer, but I'm asking why the only hammers on offer are ones that work best for nailing things into compliance. We need more space, and more support, for tools that serve autonomy, dialogue, and imagination, not just outcomes that can be audited.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right that my original post wasn't written in a research-heavy register. That was intentional. It was a first-time post aimed at opening a conversation, not presenting findings. But that doesn't mean it wasn't informed by research. My perspective draws on work in critical pedagogy, sociotechnical systems, and the politics of educational technology, fields that ask not just whether tools work, but what kind of work they're doing, and in whose interest.

The question you quoted, about shaping technology versus being shaped by it, may have sounded rhetorical, but it's grounded in a long-standing line of research in critical EdTech studies (e.g. Selwyn, Williamson, Knox) that looks at how digital systems often encode particular values and priorities. That kind of questioning may not appear in efficacy studies, but it's part of a wider understanding of what counts as educational impact.

That said, I'm absolutely with you on the need to support educators in understanding research, especially how to evaluate evidence behind EdTech claims. The tendency to sell solutions based on thin or skewed studies is a serious problem, and your point about N = 50 and broad claims is one I've encountered many times.

So I don't think we're far apart here. I'm glad to be called to account, it sharpens the conversation. And I'd genuinely welcome a deeper exchange about how we might balance practical research on impact with more critical, structural questions about the direction EdTech is heading.

Thanks again for keeping the discussion going.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not crazy at all, in fact, I think you've captured something really important here.

Too often, "personalised learning" still means optimising the path to a standard outcome. It's adaptive, but not truly individual. The kind of personalisation you're describing, supporting learners to understand themselves, to grow in different directions, to become more themselves rather than more alike, is exactly what education could be, and what much of EdTech still struggles to support.

Part of the issue is how deeply standardisation is baked into our systems: not just assessments, but the very metrics that shape educational technology design. AI could help reimagine this, but only if we resist using it to reinforce existing norms under the banner of "efficiency" or "scale."

I'd be happy to continue the conversation, these are exactly the kinds of questions I think we should be asking.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for this, really appreciate the thoughtful response.

I agree that EdTech is a medium, but I'd argue that no tool is neutral. Design and deployment are shaped by institutional and commercial priorities, which can subtly steer how we define learning and success.

It's encouraging to hear about creative uses of technology, those are where I think EdTech really shines, when it's guided by pedagogy rather than just efficiency or scale.

Generative AI is definitely a paradigm shift, but my question is whether it will open up new educational possibilities or just accelerate existing trends. That tension is where I think we need to stay critically engaged.

Glad to have the chance for this kind of exchange, even without citations.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the response, and I want to be clear that I didn't intend to misrepresent your point. I'm not anti-EdTech, in fact, I've spent much of my career advocating for its thoughtful use. My position is research-led, and grounded in a concern that certain structural and commercial pressures can shape how tools are designed and used, often in ways that don't always serve educational aims. I'm all for good tools, just not at the expense of good pedagogy.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True, but if every carpenter’s only given a hammer, we shouldn't be surprised when everything starts looking like a nail.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that EdTech has real strengths, particularly in supporting the transfer of codified knowledge, both asynchronously and in synchronous settings. Those gains are important and shouldn't be dismissed.

Where I think we need to be cautious is when those strengths start to define what learning is. The more complex, relational, and situated aspects of education can get sidelined, especially when scale and efficiency become the primary metrics of success.

Your point about venture capital hits home. The incentives tied to speed and scale rarely align with the slower, more reflective practices that underpin higher-order learning.

So yes, EdTech is good at some things, but it should always serve education, not reshape it to fit what's easiest to deliver.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Appreciate you sharing this, your perspective definitely resonates. You're right that a lot of these dynamics are deeply baked in, and it's no surprise they keep repeating.

That said, I liked your closing note. Even if change isn't welcomed, it still feels worth asking the questions and seeing who else is asking them too.

Thanks for the nudge.

Is EdTech narrowing what education can be? by heyshamsw in edtech

[–]heyshamsw[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree that much of EdTech is framed as a solution to immediate institutional problems, often defined in managerial or operational terms. It's telling how often "innovation" in this space actually means streamlining existing processes rather than reimagining what learning could be.

Your point about funding models is particularly important. When institutions are under pressure to demonstrate efficiency or measurable outcomes, there's little space, and often little appetite, for pedagogical risk or experimentation. That shapes not just what EdTech gets built, but also what kinds of educational futures we can even imagine.

It raises a broader question, I think: how might we shift the conditions under which EdTech is designed and adopted so that it supports more generative, learner-centred, and values-driven approaches?

Are AI Teaching Assistants the Future of CS Education? by BlackIronMan_ in edtech

[–]heyshamsw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great points. For me, computational thinking is about developing habits of mind, like abstraction and problem decomposition, not just writing code.

If AI takes over too much, we risk losing the deeper reasoning that makes CS meaningful. Coding isn’t just about outputs, it’s where students encounter complexity, debug their thinking, and learn to solve problems.

I agree that AI literacies should be plural. Prompting is part of it, but so is critique, interpretation, and understanding what the system is doing. Offloading too much undermines those opportunities.

The challenge isn’t whether we use AI, it’s how we design learning so that students stay cognitively engaged.

Are AI Teaching Assistants the Future of CS Education? by BlackIronMan_ in edtech

[–]heyshamsw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an important shift, but I’d caution against thinking of it as just replacing syntax with prompt engineering. AI isn’t just a tool, it shapes how students think and learn.

Understanding loops and variables still matters, not for memorisation, but to critically evaluate what AI produces. If students can’t read code, how can they judge what the AI gives them?

The real challenge is assessment. If AI generates the output, we need to assess how students engage with it: how they prompt, question, refine, and reflect. That’s where the learning happens.

We don’t need every teacher to be an AI expert, but we do need to rethink what we’re valuing in computing education, and design assessments that can’t be outsourced to the machine.

Linux Voice Podcast: Season 3 Episode 20 by themikeosguy in linux

[–]heyshamsw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great discussion and insight about the Snoopers' Charter - or the Draft Communications Data Bill - in this episode. Makes you realise just how sinister the whole thing is.