Matt Bury

Visvanath,

That was the Guardian story I linked to above: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/nov/20/university-of-staffordshire-course-taught-in-large-part-by-ai-artificial-intelligence

In once of the sources I cited in my article, they commented that the kind of step-by-step instructional moves that a skilled teacher typically makes were unavailable to be copied. 

"The translation gap: A central challenge is the “translation gap” between the rich body of theory in learning sciences & the practical, dialogue-level guidance needed for an LLM. Academic research focuses on high-level constructs, whereas LLMs require instructions for “turn-by-turn, dialogue-level decisions.”"

This is what we actually mean when we say "teach" but is what is almost entirely missing from GPT LLM training data sets. If LLMs haven't been trained on actual teaching, how will they recreate it?

We're clearly nowhere near being able to make teaching machines. The few studies that have shown reasonable learning gains have been painstakingly designed, step-by-step, instructional sequences by experts for very specific, narrow circumstances. This isn't something that "scales" or can be easily generalised for application more broadly in classrooms.

Hi Visvanath,

Do you mean this recent article in The Guardian?

‘We could have asked ChatGPT’: students fight back over course taught by AI

Staffordshire students say signs material was AI-generated included suspicious file names and rogue voiceover accent

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/nov/20/university-of-staffordshire-course-taught-in-large-part-by-ai-artificial-intelligence

Yes, I think any institution that tries to pass off junk courses, however they're written, should be held to account. It's clear from the students' complaints that the programme authors just wrote prompts, hit the submit button on the AI GUIs, collated the results onto an LMS, & little else.

There's also the argument that the students enrolled on the course with certain reasonable expectations that clearly weren't met, i.e. that they were going to study an academic programme designed, written, & presented by experts in the field. Isn't that what we all expect of academia?

Where did they go wrong? Well, they didn't follow good advice, e.g. (not mine, I'm just reporting on what people far better informed than me are saying): 

"Strategic considerations & recommendations

The expression “technological solutionism” refers to the belief that technology, such as AI, provides comprehensive & automatic solutions for complex educational challenges, often driven by techno-optimism & hype rather than focusing on deliberate decisions grounded in learning & pedagogy. The following are strategic principles for navigating the integration of AI in education, emphasising human cognition & deliberate implementation over technological solutionism, avoiding the tendency toward oversimplifications that imply AI supplants the need for educators to teach foundational knowledge.

The primacy of human knowledge

A central theme across the source papers & report is that knowledge cannot be outsourced to AI. Cognitive science shows that humans need to build a broad base of knowledge to learn new ideas & think critically.

• Knowledge as a prerequisite: As Riley & Bruno (2024) state, “effective use of LLMs requires the user to possess existing background knowledge & expertise.” Students who lack this knowledge will have their ability to use the technology “severely limited.”
• Avoiding skill obsolescence fallacies: Education leaders are warned against oversimplifications like, “If AI can do this, we don’t need to teach it any more.” The purpose of many assignments, such as writing, is the cognitive process itself, not the final product.

The necessity of human oversight & scepticism

Given the inherent unreliability of LLMs, human oversight is non-negotiable.

• Human-in-the-loop: Williams & Huckle (2024) stress the need for a “human-in-the-loop for enterprise applications,” a principle that applies directly to education. Educators must fact-check any AI-generated materials & monitor student interactions.
• Educator responsibility: Administrators should emphasise that “educators are responsible for the validity & usefulness of the materials they choose to use,” & administrators who mandate AI tools should be held similarly responsible (Riley & Bruno, 2024).
• Scepticism of future claims: Educators should be sceptical of speculative claims about AI’s future capabilities, such as the achievement of “artificial general intelligence.” Decisions should be based on how the technology currently functions, not on predictions of what it might become."

Link: https://matbury.com/wordpress/index.php/2025/11/23/report-the-cognitive-pedagogical-implications-of-generative-ai-in-education/

Bump.

Just teach them, "Their our know rules!"