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/
No comments:
Post a Comment