TECHNOLOGY
campusreview.com.au
Good morning, Mr Robot
University experts consider
whether robots can really take
over in the classroom.
By Wade Zaglas
C
oncerns have taken hold that, in as
little as 10 years, qualified teachers
could be replaced by technology
that is already performing many of the tasks
ascribed to teachers, such as personalised
learning activities, marking the roll and
task-setting.
But that’s not to say teachers will
disappear forever, says Neil Selwyn,
professor of education at Monash University
and author of the book, Should Robots
Replace Teachers?
“We’ll always need schools for reasons
of childcare ... The worry is not that
teachers are going to be replaced, but
that they’re going to be displaced or
de‑professionalised,” he says.
“Software never has a day off sick.”
Selwyn told The Sydney Morning Herald
that artificial intelligence was already
providing benefits in the classroom,
especially in terms of providing students
with detailed, real-time feedback on their
assessment. However, he was concerned
that automatic roll-marking would eliminate
the first important social interaction with
students for the day, and that humans
should be marking assessments such as
essays, as they are nuanced, somewhat
subjective pieces of assessment that AI is
still catching up on.
Professor Geoff Masters, who is leading
the curriculum review in NSW, expressed
26
concerns that relying too much on
machine intelligence in the classroom
would fail to inculcate students with
the “deep knowledge” required for the
future workforce. As low-skill jobs are
disappearing, the importance of utilising
technology to promote deep learning has
never been more important.
“It’s fine to talk about collaborating or
solving problems or creating new solutions
or using technology ... but [if] you don’t
have a deep knowledge base, are you
setting people up for futures where they’re
going to have more difficulty getting jobs?”
he asked.
The president of the NSW Teachers
Federation, Maurie Mulheron, weighed
in on the argument, saying technology
is merely a “tool” and that humans are a
“core part of teaching”. He believes the
educational technology industry views
schools as nothing more than a “market”
and students as nothing more than “clients”,
and “that’s not education”.
Professor Simon Buckingham Shum
from the University of Technology
Sydney, an expert in artificial intelligence
and machine intelligence in education,
said robotic technologies often provoke
strong emotions but should be looked
upon as something to assist teachers,
not replace them.
“Each time a computer does something
we never thought possible, it gives us pause
for thought — another thing we thought
was ‘essentially human’ turns out not to be,
and that’s threatening for many people,”
he said.
However, as far as performing other
teaching tasks such as marking essays is
concerned, Buckingham Shum contends
that AI still has a long way to go – or
perhaps will never get there. While he
says it is good at marking short answers
to rather simplistic questions – ones that
are clearly correct or “gold standard” – he
has no knowledge of technology that
can accurately grade open-ended essays
“requiring critical readings and careful
argumentation”.
“Instead of AI automation, we need to
talk about AI augmentation of human
intelligence and resources. Let’s shift
attention from automating grading to giving
timely, actionable feedback. We know how
important that is, but offering 24/7 feedback
on drafts from hundreds of students is
obviously only practical with AI. So, at
UTS, we give instant formative feedback
to students as to whether a draft bears the
well-understood hallmarks of academic
writing, to improve the final submission
that will always be graded by an educator,”
he said.
The UTS expert in machine learning
also agreed with Mulheron that human
relationships are critical to students’
development.
“The lifelong learning skills and
dispositions that our young people need so
badly are deeply social; they need to learn
with others. AI can’t take any of that into
account – at least, not currently,” he said.
At the same time, however, Buckingham
Shum said AI is particularly good at being
“a personal tutor” that can “stretch students
gradually at their own pace in a way that
no teacher can do one on one with every
student”, especially in STEM subjects where
there are clear right and wrong answers.
Buckingham Shum also responded to
Mulheron’s statement that “no parent,
teacher or student is calling for this” type
of robotic teaching in the classroom. The
UTS professor does not dispute this and
asserts that dialogue with all stakeholders
is critical, with tech companies, teachers,
unions, government, parents, students and
universities required in the room. However,
he is pleased the NSW Department of
Education has already held a forum on data
ethics, realising that the digital learning of
the future will be increasingly reliant on AI
technologies.
“Let’s think systemically and design a
trustworthy educational infrastructure. This
may not match what Silicon Valley wants,
but it must deliver what we want for our
teachers and students.” ■