With the level of technology we have nowadays, a reality where teachers are replaced by robots or an AI seems very close. In the article of Neil Selwyn: Robots in the Classroom? Preparing for the automation of teaching he opens the debate to see if classrooms are ready to incorporate robots.
However, my question is: do teachers need to be replaced? Are teachers actually needed any more? I mean, do we want to use the new technology and automated artificial intelligence to replace the traditional teacher’s role? What is the point of that?
In my opinion, the traditional teacher figure that focuses on delivering content, which is sadly the most common kind of teacher we find, is not actually offering anything interesting in the teaching-learning process. I would say that the teachers that enter into a class and spend their time only explaining a bunch of details, dates, or concepts, are not the “good ones”. We all could agree that this kind of teachers can actually be replaced by books and readings, there is no need for robots or high-level AI. So, what do we want to automate exactly?
In my opinion, the elements that describe a good teacher cannot be replaced by any machine. I think that a good educator is the one that guides the process of learning, not the one who actually delivers anything. I believe that teachers are facilitators. They are responsible for creating an environment where the learning process can be developed, respecting the pace and motivations of each student. Can this be done by a robot?
Also, why would we use AI to teach something in particular? Let’s say, history for example. Why do we want to use the latest technology to explain when an important event happened? This information is already available for the students in seconds, in their hands. Are we actually using the new resources to improve and make a change in the way we learn and what we learn?
Trying to answer these questions, I was happy to read Selwyn’s article (2017) and how he explores the differents Models of how teachers can integrate technology. The first pages of the article helped me to know and organise concepts and ideas.
“ While some teachers are clearly able to effortlessly ‘assimilate’ and incorporate digital technologies into their teaching, others achieve only a pragmatic ‘accommodation’ of technology into their established modes of working”
As Selwyn’s points out there are some teachers who assimilate tech very well, while others are just using the basics. I guess we should avoid creating the idea that using tech “correctly” makes you a better teacher. After last week readings where we focused on understanding the necessity to have a constructivist and critique view, I think this should not be about if the teachers use it or not and if they are “better” teachers if they do it correctly. As usual, this is a much complex debate about the role of teachers. Then, what is the teacher’s role?
When I visualise a good teacher I see a person willing to improve their practise. Taking time to learn, observe and develop their skills. In that sense getting familiar with technology that will enhance their job, it is necessary, as well as learning new estrategies of communciation, engangement, it is part of the pack. A good teacher will understand that the use of technology will not make their class better or more interesting perse, but it will give them the opportunity to subtitute or transform what is needed in order to improve their job, and help the with the learning process of their students.
“In this sense, technology ‘integration’ is perhaps something that teachers achieve through experience and increased mindfulness.”
“As Mishra and Koehler put it, it is not enough to be either a good teacher, or a subject specialist or a skilled user of technology – ‘merely knowing how to use a technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with it’ (p. 1033).”
Considering all of this, as I said in one of my privious posts, if a teacher can be replaced by a robot (or video, AI, book, etc.) it should be.
Really good to read your thoughts here, Lidia. And again, great to see you taking a position on some of the ideas we have encountered over the last week (rather than just reproducing or accepting what is in the readings).
‘In my opinion, the traditional teacher figure that focuses on delivering content, which is sadly the most common kind of teacher we find, is not actually offering anything interesting in the teaching-learning process.’
I’m not sure how we could know this to be the case – that most teachers are focused on delivering content? I think many teachers, whether at school, college or university-level would argue that they also listen, nurture, challenge, provoke, inspire and do many more things than conveying content. Which isn’t to say that this doesn’t also include taking an instructional role at times when it is required.
‘I believe that teachers are facilitators. They are responsible for creating an environment where the learning process can be developed, respecting the pace and motivations of each student.’
I’ve been thinking a bit recently about this term ‘facilitators’, whether as a term to describe the function of the teacher, or the role of learning technologists, educational designers and other colleagues who are less directly involved in classroom activity. I’m not the term completely works for me in other instance. In terms of teaching, it feels a bit passive, as if the teacher is on the margins, creating the conditions and doing some pointing. I would instead see the teacher – and I think this applies equally to digital environments are more traditional campus-based classrooms – as being more active and involved in the meaning-making and other activities that take place. I don’t see that it needs to be massively hierarchical in terms of teacher-student power relations, but I like the idea of the teacher doing more than a supporting role. And in terms of learning technologists and other colleagues, I think ‘facilitator’ underplays how I see them as fellow professionals and team members, as we each bring our own expertise to what takes in the classroom and on-screen. I need to give this more thought, although going back to some of our conversations from Week 3 (especially around the Bayne article) it does show how terminology is loaded with meaning, doesn’t it?!
‘When I visualise a good teacher I see a person willing to improve their practise. Taking time to learn, observe and develop their skills. In that sense getting familiar with technology that will enhance their job, it is necessary, as well as learning new estrategies of communciation, engangement, it is part of the pack. A good teacher will understand that the use of technology will not make their class better or more interesting perse, but it will give them the opportunity to subtitute or transform what is needed in order to improve their job, and help the with the learning process of their students.’
Great point! I’d never thought about this in relation to teacher automation and it has never surfaced in the blogs I’ve read on the subject over the last couple of years. There’s something in here about the ability of the (human) teacher to show empathy, to work reflexively and to evolve, in a way that we probably don’t associate with computers. Thanks – you’ve given me something to go away and ponder here, Lidia!