Artificial Intelligence in Schools

Alberta Testa attended the panel discussion ‘AI and schools: what issues are on the table’, organised by Fondazione Mondo Digitale as part of GEA – Environment Education Days at Foqus in Naples [see the news item AI enters the debate on schools]. Here is her account of the day on Saturday 3 October, accompanied by some concluding reflections.

From the guidelines for introducing new technologies into the classroom to the irreplaceable role of the educational relationship: the dialogue between schools, universities and research highlights the need to accompany innovation with shared decisions and a clear pedagogical vision. 
Artificial intelligence has already become part of learning processes. Pupils and teachers use it, explore its possibilities and test its limits. The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether to bring it into schools, but how to integrate it into educational programmes without losing sight of what schools are called upon to do: to educate people capable of thinking, understanding, making choices and acting in an informed manner. It was this tension between technological innovation and educational responsibility that formed the basis for the discussion between Diomede Mazzone (teacher of Computer Science at the Gian Battista Vico Scientific High School in Naples and vice-president of Cidi in Naples), Michele Martini (researcher and lecturer in the Sociology of Digital Education at the University of Naples Federico II and the University of Bristol) and Delfina Malandrino (associate professor of Computer Science at the University of Salerno), who brought diverse perspectives to the table, ranging from schools to international policies, university experience and collaboration with the Fondazione Mondo Digitale.

Schools cannot be a revolving door for technologies
Diomede Mazzone drew attention to a contradiction that has long accompanied innovation in schools: technologies introduced with high expectations risk being abandoned or remaining unused when the practical conditions for integrating them into teaching are lacking.
Schools cannot become a revolving door, through which tools come and go without sustainable objectives, rules and methods of use having been defined. Indeed, it is sometimes precisely organisational and bureaucratic constraints that render technological solutions impractical. 
Virtual reality headsets provide a telling example. To use them safely, pupils need adequate open space, which can require up to two metres in all directions. Which classrooms have spaces with these characteristics? And what happens when the layout of school premises does not allow the purchased equipment to be used?
This line of thinking has extended to assessment. With generative artificial intelligence, the final product is no longer necessarily a reliable measure of a pupil’s skills: a text, a research project or a solution can be produced with external assistance, making it harder to understand what has actually been learnt. It therefore becomes important to also observe the process, the reasoning, the choices made and the skills demonstrated. 
But a change of this magnitude cannot be left solely to the initiative of individual teachers.

Shared criteria and clear guidelines are needed to support teachers’ work and ensure common points of reference.

Big tech, international policies and the central role of the teacher
Michele Martini broadened the discussion to include the role of major technology companies and international policies (from UNESCO to the OECD and the European Commission) that are shaping the development and introduction of artificial intelligence in education. In some scenarios, the teacher seems destined to lose their central role, whilst technology takes on an increasingly significant role in learning processes. 
This is a dangerous prospect, but also one that is unlikely to materialise. The educational relationship is not merely a transmission of content: it is a relationship between people, built on listening, interpretation, trust and the ability to recognise the needs of the learner. 
A machine can provide answers, suggest learning paths and adapt materials. Yet this does not mean it can replace the role of the teacher, who guides students towards understanding, helps them navigate diverse information and contributes to their personal and social development.
The challenge, therefore, is not to pit teachers against technology, but to clarify what role should be assigned to digital tools and which responsibilities must remain firmly in human hands.

From university to school: Delfina Malandrino’s experience
Delfina Malandrino shared insights from her university experience (the UNISA EdgeLab) and from the ‘Third Mission’ work carried out in partnership with the Fondazione Mondo Digitale, demonstrating how engagement with technological innovation affects all levels of education. 
Schools and universities are called upon to engage with rapidly evolving tools, but also to reflect on the skills they wish to develop and the conditions necessary for innovation to yield tangible educational value. 
Dialogue between research, universities, teachers and local organisations can help to interpret these changes, experiment with solutions and situate technologies within a broader vision of learning. This is a task that requires continuity, discussion and attention to the real-life experiences of both teachers and learners.

Educating with artificial intelligence or educating in spite of artificial intelligence?
The question we should be asking ourselves is not merely how to learn to teach with artificial intelligence, but also how to continue educating in spite of artificial intelligence, when its use risks anticipating answers, reducing the effort required to understand and obscuring the process through which knowledge is constructed. The fundamental skills remain the same: critical, analytical, logical and computational thinking, interpersonal skills, creativity and independent judgement. These are the resources that enable us to interpret reality, tackle new problems and make informed decisions. Today, however, we must teach them in a context where a tool can produce plausible answers in a matter of seconds, without those receiving them necessarily having the tools to evaluate them.
If used without awareness, artificial intelligence risks crowding out the very cognitive activities that schools should be fostering: formulating hypotheses, making mistakes, verifying, arguing, comparing points of view and constructing a solution. The risk lies not merely in delegating a task to a machine, but in gradually ceasing to develop the skills needed to carry it out independently. This is why digital education cannot be limited to teaching how to use new tools. It must help students understand how these tools work, recognise their limitations, verify their results, and decide when it is appropriate to use them and when, instead, they need to rely on their own abilities. This is a responsibility that concerns the entire educational community: teachers, families, institutions, universities and businesses. And it requires that teachers be supported, not left to cope alone with changes that simultaneously affect teaching, assessment and their relationships with pupils.

Technology can broaden learning opportunities, but it does not, on its own, determine the quality of education. This depends on the goals we set ourselves, the choices we make and our ability to enable people to understand and manage change.

This is where the educational challenge of artificial intelligence lies: not merely training people to use increasingly sophisticated tools, but training people to think independently even when those tools seem capable of thinking for them.