| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
eduTopia Articles of Interest
Struggling Productively and Growing Students' Confidence
Regulating Generative AI in Education
Generative AI, as a tool linked to plagiarism, cognitive offloading, reinforcing racist biases, lowered test scores, environmental destruction, sweatshop labour, and violence against girls and women, is a contentious topic. This is especially so in educational spaces, where there would ideally be more safeguards from these issues. However, as a still newly-popularized and advancing technology there is still a lot that is up in the air when it comes to AI, including how useful it actually is, how ubiquitous it will become, and how/whether it should be utilized in education.
One popular argument and justification for the use of generative AI in education is its “inevitability”: get on board or be left behind. This argument brushes over the fact that while the technology itself will not magically disappear, we are (or should be) in charge of how, when, where, and to what extent it is used. This point was particularly articulated well by Nima Shirazi and Adam Johnson of Citations Needed:
“There’s this idea of not making the distinction between inevitable and unavoidable [...] Is AI avoidable right now in many areas of our society, from education to healthcare, etc.? No. [...] But that does not mean that the future that is currently laid out is inevitable. It means that we have to actually take back a certain kind of control over the application and the governance of these systems [...] The kind of dulling of that question of how we actually have any control over something. Because if something is inevitable, by definition, we no longer are able to control it.”
Rather than using the idea of inevitability to dismiss concerns over AI, it is important for us to have these conversations about regulating and setting appropriate parameters around AI usage, especially for children.
Generally speaking, there are two camps when it comes to the argument over whether to incorporate AI into education or not. In the first camp, it is believed that because AI is unavoidable, students should learn to use it in a regulated environment. This would ensure that students develop the skills they will need in their personal and professional lives such as digital literacy, vetting sources, creating better prompts, and so on. In the second, it is argued that for children, AI is ultimately a detriment to developing independent critical thinking skills and cognitive development, proliferates misinformation, promotes plagiarism, and is attached to a whole slew of problems as mentioned above.
With this in mind, I was curious to look into how different education systems around the world approach regulating and incorporating AI. Generative AI is still too new for us to have any substantial data about the pros and cons of different modes of implementation or attempts to ban it completely from schools. Instead, I think it will be important for us as educators to keep tabs on how different education systems approach the regulation of AI. Below is a list and brief breakdown of some countries/regions that implemented intentional AI regulations in education which may be worth paying attention to:
New Brunswick: The New Brunswick Department of Education has officially incorporated learning about AI into its K-12 curriculum. This is an extension on the already-existing digital literacy component of the province’s curriculum and will start with “digital awareness” for younger grades before moving to practicing digital skills and hands-on practice with the technology in later grades. While this new policy has mixed reception, it will be important to see how AI is incorporated and what successes/failures come with it.
Los Angeles: After concerns were voiced about AI and general screen-time for students at school, L.A. schools have decided to stop the usage of AI in schools for the time being. This was announced just as New York City similarly announced a ban on AI in schools. In L.A. schools, students are not given any screen-time until grade 2, at which point screen-time is gradually increased as they age.
Norway: Norway has also opted to completely ban AI-usage for younger students, students in grade 8 and up to use it under teacher supervision. Norway will also be banning children under 16 from accessing social media, following Australia’s similar ban.
Sweden: Sweden does not have any specific policy around AI in schools. However, Sweden’s education system is currently shifting towards analogue learning, banning screens in the classroom to encourage better attention, conversation, and critical thinking. This is something that was pushed in response to lowering test results seen in conjunction with Sweden’s effort to provide each student with a laptop.
Singapore: Singapore incorporates technology and AI into education from grade 1. Singapore’s approach looks to introduce AI and other technologies to students according to the students’ age and stage of development. This policy was not enacted without concern from parents and the government has outlined the guardrails it has in place for student safety but claimed that it is more important for students to learn how to effectively use AI. Since 2023, the Singapore schooling system has increasingly ramped up its use of AI both for students and teachers.
There is obviously (and unfortunately) no clear or easily implemented policy that would solve the issues that arise with using generative AI in schools. Hence, the importance of looking at other educational systems and of being intentional about how we ourselves implement technology in the classroom. Additionally, while regulating generative AI may be helpful, students will always find shortcuts when lacking access to appropriate support and motivation. If our school system is filled with teachers overburdened by large class sizes, students who do not have access to social support systems either at home or in school, and a lack of supplies for conducting hands-on, innovative lessons, then AI will continue to be overused. In this case, any generative AI regulation or ban would ultimately be ineffective – a rule that teachers will not have the time, resources, or support to enforce against students who also lack the necessary time and attention.
References
Blume, H. (2026, September 3). LAUSD enacts student AI moratorium: What parents need to know - Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-02/lausd-student-ai-ban-policy.
CBC News: The National. (2026, September 19). N.B. becomes 1st province to build AI into K-12 curriculum [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU3pVTsqTYc.
Environmental cost of artificial intelligence: carbon, water, and land footprints. (2026, September 24). United Nations University. https://unu.edu/inweh/collection/environmental-cost-of-AIs-Enrgy-Use-Carbon-water-and-land-footprints.
How AI is exacerbating technology-facilitated violence against women and girls. (2026, April 10). UN Women – Headquarters. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2025/12/how-ai-is-exacerbating-technology-facilitated-violence-against-women-and-girls.
Gerlich, Michael. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies. 15. 6. 10.3390/soc15010006.
Goldstein, D. (2026, September 3). Los Angeles District bans most A.I. for students. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/03/us/lausd-schools-ban-ai-artificial-intelligence.html.
Norway imposes near ban on AI in elementary school. (2026, June 19). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/norway-imposes-near-ban-ai-elementary-school-2026-06-19/
Shirazi, N., & Johnson, A. (2026, August 12). Episode 241: The Disempowering Politics of ‘Inevitability’ (Part I): Data Centers and LLM as ‘The Future.’ Medium. https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-241-the-disempowering-politics-of-inevitability-part-1-data-centers-and-llm-as-the-a2cb241aba85.
Strömberg, D., Lei, V., & Wu, Y. (2026). The generative AI learning penalty: Evidence from Chinese secondary education (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 21577). Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6868618
Sweden: the unmet promises of the digital classroom. (2026, April 6). The UNESCO Courier. https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/sweden-unmet-promises-digital-classroom
Tan, R., & Cabato, R. (2023, August 28). Behind the AI boom, an army of overseas workers in ‘digital sweatshops.’ The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/08/28/scale-ai-remotasks-philippines-artificial-intelligence/
Wilks, L. (2020). [Review of the book Algorithms Of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, by Safiya Umoja Noble, and: Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code by Ruha Benjamin]. The Velvet Light Trap 86, 75-77. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/765116.
ClaraM@NUO
The Gift and the Curse of A.I. in Education
Artificial intelligence has officially walked into the classroom, handing us a powerful double edged sword that completely redefines what it means to learn and teach.
When we, as teacher candidates, look at development through the lens of theorists like Jean Piaget, we know that children build knowledge through active exploration and human interaction rather than passive absorption. Cognitive development fundamentally occurs through a combination of this independent maturation, where learners internally update their understanding of the world, and social collaboration with more knowledgeable guides (Guidry, 2026; Masciarelli, 2026). Ultimately, a student's academic growth is heavily shaped by their surrounding cultural environment and the continuous practice required to physically rewire the brain (Masciarelli, 2026).
However, modern A.I. threatens to short circuit that exact process. If teachers rely on automated tools to shortcut their workload, students quickly catch on and do the same, bypassing real intellectual struggle. This mutual shortcut culture breeds classroom laziness, stripping away the determination and genuine curiosity that drives cognitive growth. Instead of wrestling with concepts, students are simply asking a “bot” to hand them the answers. Yet, AI has proven positive for classrooms too because it can break down overly complex concepts and help decode difficult instructions. For instance, if you have a writing assignment and do not know where to start or how to form your sentences, AI can help you get started.
This technology is also quietly reshaping the social fabric of school and everyday interactions. Traditional peer collaboration is being replaced by digital outsourcing, with kids sharing ChatGPT accounts and teaming up with chatbots to do their homework. This robs them of vital social development and communication skills. Furthermore, classroom dynamics are shifting into a strange tech driven sparring match because if a teacher relies too heavily on AI, students can easily use those same tools to call out mistakes, undermining the trust and mentorship that should anchor a classroom. Despite these challenges, it can also assist students in securing useful resources and tracking down valuable research.
Furthermore, AI has its practical perks because it can be helpful for quick administrative tasks such as tracking down a specific policy in a dense practicum handbook. Moreover, an algorithm can never truly understand the human pulse of a classroom, which requires genuine human agency and emotional intelligence. The real danger is that if our educational systems become engulfed in an inputting ideology where human thought is replaced by prompt engineering, we risk trading deep critical thinking for automated convenience.
Ultimately, if we let algorithms do our thinking for us, we are not just modernizing education; we are risking the very heart of human ingenuity. We have a collective responsibility to protect the organic magic of teaching. Classrooms must remain sanctuaries of human connection rather than processing plants for automated data. The future of learning depends entirely on how fiercely we save critical thinking and unique expression in an increasingly bland digital world.
Thomas Abi-Abdallah @OTU
References
Guidry, S. (2026). Chapter 2: The learning process [PowerPoint slides]
Masciarelli, J. (2026). Cognitive and language development [PowerPoint slides]. Ontario Tech University.
Technology in the Classical Classroom: Forming the Whole Person in the 21st Century
As educators, we have to be wary of just throwing new things at our students with the naïve hope that new things will more effectively lead to the desired outcomes. Is it just mastering the curriculum that’s important? What about preparing our students to be resilient and productive lifelong learners in a changing world?
We need to first step back and have a very clear vision of our objective.
Useful from this perspective is the (unfortunately) long-lost tradition of classical education—the way of educating that has its roots in the ancient Greeks and Romans and that significantly influenced the development of the university as we know it today. In my humble opinion, we are doing a huge disservice to the current generation of students by completely abandoning the educational traditions and practices that helped shape the foundations of higher education.
In brief, classical education is an educational tradition centred on the formation of the whole person rather than the acquisition of grades or job-specific skills. It aims to develop students’ knowledge, reasoning, communication, character, and capacity to pursue truth, beauty, and goodness—all competencies absolutely irreplaceable by AI, leading to more resilient, valuable, intellectual and productive 21st century citizens.
Technology can enhance education in line with this vision when it serves the aims of the Trivium rather than replacing them. In the grammar stage, digital flashcards, quizzes, videos, maps, and online archives can help students acquire and practise foundational knowledge. In the logic stage, students can use research databases, simulations, collaborative tools, and AI to compare perspectives, evaluate evidence, identify assumptions, and develop arguments. In the rhetoric stage, podcasts, presentations, documentaries, blogs, and digital publications can provide opportunities to communicate and defend ideas. Technology can also cultivate wonder through virtual museums, scientific visualization, and access to great works of art and literature.
However, technology can also go against these aims when it becomes an end rather than a means. Excessive screen use may fragment attention, discourage sustained reading and reflection, or replace genuine dialogue and human relationships. Similarly, relying on AI to produce answers can undermine the development of knowledge, reasoning, creativity, and intellectual independence that classical education seeks to cultivate.
What is technology doing in your classroom? Creating learners or replacing them?
Some relevant works to learn more include:
Clark, K., & Scott-Jain, R. (2020). The Liberal Arts Tradition (Revised Edition): A Philosophy of Classical Christian Education. Classical Academic Press.
Markos, L. (2025). Passing the Torch: An Apology for Classical Christian Education. IVP Academic.
Piper, J. (2023). Foundations for lifelong learning: Education in serious joy. Crossway.
Whatley, M., Whately, S. (2017). Shaping Hearts and Minds: A Case For Classical Christian Education. Eagle Child.
Wilson, D., & Olasky, M. (2022). Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning: An Approach to Distinctively Christian Education. CanonPress.
Wise Bauer, S., & Wise, J. (2024). The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home. WW Norton.
Sparking Student Interest In Learning
One thing that has been on my mind a lot recently is the difference between getting students to scrape by and begrudgingly complete an assignment and actually getting them interested in what they are learning. As a future teacher, I think this is something that is going to be really important for me to figure out because it is easy to teach a lesson, give students a corresponding assignment and move on to the next topic. The hard part is figuring out how to make students actually care about what they are learning.
From my own experience as a student, I have always noticed a difference between classes where I was simply expected to listen and remember information and classes where I actually felt involved in my own learning. When I am interested in something, I am naturally incentivized to learn more about it and it is much more likely that the information sticks. I think this is something that teachers sometimes have to work harder to facilitate because not every student is going to naturally be interested in every topic that is being taught.
This connects to some of the ideas my group recently discussed about the constructivist approach to learning. Instead of students just being passengers who sit and receive information from their teacher, they are actively involved in building their own understanding. I think there is a lot of value in this because students are more likely to become invested when they have some kind of involvement in the learning process. Whether that is through hands-on activities, discussion, problem solving, or connecting the material to something they already know, I think giving students a reason to be involved can make a big difference.
I also think this is where knowing your students becomes really important. A lesson that works really well for one group of students might not have the same effect on another group. Students have different interests, different strengths, and different ways of approaching learning. Because of this, I do not think teaching can always be a one size fits all approach. Teachers have to be willing to adjust what they are doing based on how their students are responding. Sometimes something that seems like a great idea when planning a lesson does not work the way you expected once you are actually in the classroom, and I think being able to recognize that and make changes is an important part of becoming a better teacher.
At the same time, I do not think this means that every lesson has to be entertaining or that students will always be excited about everything they learn. There are going to be topics that students are not immediately interested in, and there is still content that needs to be taught. I think the responsibility of the teacher is to try to find a way to make that content meaningful and give students a reason to become involved in it. Sometimes that might mean connecting it to something they already care about, while other times it could mean giving them more freedom in how they approach the task.
Ultimately, I think teaching is about more than just getting through the curriculum. Of course, students need to learn the material, but I think it is just as important to create an environment where they actually want to participate in their own learning. As I continue developing my own teaching style, this is something I want to keep in mind. I want my students to feel like they are active participants in the classroom rather than just people who are there to receive information. If I can find ways to make students curious and genuinely interested in what they are learning, I think that will be much more valuable than simply making sure I covered everything I had planned for that day.
KyleC@NU
Tuesday, September 22, 2026
Positive Reinforcement in the Classroom
How Do Motivation and Interest Develop in Learning?
As a student, I remember those times when my classmates and I were so frustrated and overwhelmed with learning Arabic, as it was a mandatory subject in elementary school. After listening to the presentation of Group F, it reminded me of that struggle and how that specific issue was addressed successfully by our Arabic teacher. She knew that all we wanted was a spark and a fun activity that would lead us to success.
One day, after several failures, she taught us to make a cube with cardboard. Then, she asked us to paint it and write the pronouns and verb conjugations on each face of the cube. We needed 11 more; therefore, we were told to make them and bring them the following week. We were so excited to know what was going to happen.
The next week came, and she patiently taught us the game instructions. Every time she announced the present tense, we had to look for the right face of the cube and arrange them in the right order. Whoever made the puzzle faster would be given an award. So, competition made it more challenging and fun. After a few sessions, with her remarkable feedback, even those students who had struggled more had progressed.
I remember how an effective strategy such as motivation and interest affected us as students and finally led to success in a subject that was scary and boring.
Today, as I recall that learning process vividly, I notice that Mrs. Tamimi used the Interest and Motivation strategy, and as discussed in the presentation, she:
_Provided the situation of interest.
_Provided personal enthusiasm and other learning materials.
_Provided real competence and confidence-building feedback.
Also, I can relate the concepts of Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation to this discussion because not only did we do an activity that was fun, enjoyable, and entertaining, but we were also offered a reward for task accomplishment.
As a future educator, I really think I would use these strategies because I grasped the concept so well. In my future classroom, I would try to use games, hands-on activities, and small rewards to create interest and motivation, especially when students are struggling with a subject or find it difficult and boring. These methods led to deep learning for me as a case study and, for sure, will be helpful for teaching the next generation. I absolutely honor memories that become part of your journey as a person who always tries to learn and be better.
SeveenS@OTU
EDUTOPIA: Learner Interest Matters
Differentiated Instruction
Learner Interest Matters: Strategies for Empowering Student Choice
Rethinking AI in the Classroom
As educators, it is easy to assume that students view Generative AI simply as an irresistible shortcut or an easy way out of doing real work. However, reading Amanda Perry’s article in The Walrus, "Canadian Students Say AI Is Hurting Their Critical Thinking" (September 9, 2026), made me pause and reflect on how our students are actually navigating these tools. The piece highlights how many post-secondary students are growing deeply disillusioned with AI, expressing real concern that relying on automation is quietly eroding their critical thinking skills.
One student in the article captured this dilemma perfectly, sharing: "I don’t think you'd get that same kick or that same hit from getting a ninety from ChatGPT versus getting a ninety over an essay where you spent six hours in a basement with your cup of coffee and your eyes went criss-crossed at the end of it." Reading this really made me think about how education used to function before generative AI became so widespread. Students would submit papers that were purely their own, and that final grade represented the direct culmination of their hard work, drive, and determination. Today, when a tool can generate a full draft in less than a minute, students often just stitch together bits and pieces without engaging deeply. It makes me wonder where this will lead and how students can ever feel genuine pride in grades that might not entirely reflect their own effort.
When learning becomes frictionless, it starts to feel meaningless, and some students even describe an identity crisis, feeling "worse than a robot" when software effortlessly generates work they spent hours labouring over. Yet, treating AI strictly as an easy way out masks its potential as a helpful learning aid. When used as a crutch to bypass effort, AI prevents productive struggle, but when used intentionally, it can be a valuable support. For instance, students in the article described using tools like NotebookLM to organize course materials into custom study guides, while multilingual students relied on AI to polish grammar so their original ideas could shine in a second language.
Ultimately, students report delegating tasks to AI mainly when they feel an assignment is mere busywork that adds no value to their lives. As current and future teachers, our goal shouldn't be to ban these tools outright, but to help students stay in control of their learning. As one student wisely put it, "You can't let the tool be the one who's controlling you." By designing meaningful assignments that value authentic human effort and personal voice, we can help our students move past the shortcut trap and use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for their own thinking.
This challenge does not only apply to students. Teachers, too, have started turning to AI to generate entire lesson plans, rubrics, and teaching material. When both teaching and learning are automated, we risk turning the classroom into an echo chamber of machine-generated content. Ultimately, students report delegating tasks to AI mainly when they feel an assignment is mere busywork that adds no value to their lives. As educators, we need to find a healthy balance by using AI as a supportive starting point without outsourcing our own pedagogical creativity. By designing lessons that centre on inquiry, personal voice, and genuine critical thinking, we can bring deep, meaningful learning back into our schools and ensure technology serves us, rather than doing the thinking for us.
Peyton@NUO498
Reference: Perry, A. (2026, September 9). Canadian students say AI is hurting their critical thinking. The Walrus. https://thewalrus.ca/what-if-students-are-sick-of-ai-too/