Marc Watkins argues faculty should question when to use AI agents and disclose their use to students.
Across stages
AI4Education Education topic
Public readings arranged by original publication date. People and institutions use explicit mappings; article sources remain in their details.
Latest updates
Furze argues chatbot framing hides corporate responsibility and misdirects education's assessment debates.
Mollick argues that expertise, breadth, taste and agency help people use AI capabilities. His experiments invite a question: how do learners acquire the knowledge and judgment needed to direct and evaluate increasingly capable tools?
Sumeracki explains Butler et al.’s (2017) experiments contrasting repeated and varied application during retrieval practice. Her account invites asking whether an AI activity makes students retrieve, explain and apply concepts across contexts.
The second retrospective describes AI-built demonstrations and source navigation, while exposing the limits of keyword retrieval.
Chongqing and participant Mizai revisit how a music course found its themes and used live demonstrations.
A deliberately strong argument locates reasoning and problem-solving in domain knowledge.
Hanyang and Liushou discuss moving from an unfamiliar topic to a syllabus, search terms and original sources.
Chongqing uses Hinton’s account of understanding to question what learners lose when AI explanations become too smooth.
Mollick considers how convenient AI defaults can bypass the effort through which people develop valued abilities.
The five-department action plan connects AI literacy, university curricula, teacher development, applications and safeguards, with goals for 2030. These are policy directions, not completed implementation or demonstrated learning effects.
The hosts find that tacit knowledge about files, versions and structure often explains beginners’ difficulties.
Outlines illustrate a distinction between external memory support and delegating the thinking itself.
This report tests whether assigning expert identities reliably improves answers to difficult factual questions.
This public lesson extends AI literacy to evaluation: metrics, human preferences, model judges and benchmark contamination.
The essay distinguishes productive work from the practice needed to become an expert.
Willingham describes conferencing as a way to retain and inspect writing-related thinking.
Mollick challenges sensational interpretations of AI studies and examines learning, idea generation and writing practices.
Repeated tests illustrate why a successful answer does not establish a reliable prompting technique.
An author’s inspection of generated book companions reveals losses beyond factual accuracy.
Matuschak distinguishes forgetting from never understanding, and discusses questioning, memory and fading scaffolds. The interview offers a lens for AI tools: do they help learners notice confusion and act, or mainly ease consumption?