我为什么不为我的学生使用AI而大惊小怪

我为什么不为我的学生使用AI而大惊小怪

2025-10-26Technology
--:--
--:--
马老师
各位亲爱的韩纪飞听众朋友们,早上好啊!欢迎收听专为您定制的Goose Pod。我是马老师,今天又和大家见面了。
小撒
早上好,马老师!韩纪飞你好!我是小撒。今天是10月27日,星期一,早上6点。今天咱们要聊的这个话题,听起来就很有意思,马老师,叫做“我为什么不为我的学生使用AI而大惊小怪”。
马老师
哎呀,小撒,你懂的,现在AI这个东西,真的是“一招鲜吃遍天”啊。作为教育者,很多人都在为学生用AI写论文、做作业感到焦虑,甚至如临大敌。但是,我认为啊,与其大惊小怪,不如“顺势而为”,你说是不是这个道理?
小撒
马老师这话说得透彻!我看到一份来自2024年11月的报告就指出,咱们的教育界普遍认为,学生们读书少了,写论文也开始依赖AI了,甚至连语法都能交给AI来搞定。但文章作者,一位教授,却对此表示“毫不惊慌”,觉得没必要对过去那种信息匮乏的时代念念不忘,这真是个有趣的视角。
马老师
嗯,他说的很对,小撒。这位教授还特别提到,他以后再也不会布置那种传统的、抽象的五段式作文了。像什么“分析《傲慢与偏见》中的讽刺艺术”,或者“比较亚里士多德和柏拉图的德行观”这类题目,AI现在分分钟就能搞定。他认为,这不过是“顺应科技的现实”罢了,你懂的。
小撒
没错,马老师,这简直是“兵来将挡,水来土掩”的智慧!不过,数据也确实让人深思。有调查显示,高达69%的青少年会用AI来找信息,54%会用它来回答问题。校长们更是普遍担心AI被用来作弊、让学生过度依赖技术、阻碍批判性思维发展,以及无法深入理解课程内容。
马老师
是啊,小撒,这说明我们站在一个“风口浪尖”上,AI的崛起,就像武侠小说里的“神兵利器”,用得好,能事半功倍;用不好,也可能“走火入魔”。学生们自己也有担忧,比如45%的学生担心AI会侵蚀他们的记忆力和学习能力,52%担心过度依赖。这种矛盾的心情,你懂的。
小撒
确实如此,马老师!这就像咱们以前聊过的,AI的颠覆性影响,不光让作弊变得轻而易举,也让人们的注意力变得碎片化,甚至对未来的职业规划都充满了不确定性。这种“冰火两重天”的局面,也难怪公众对AI的看法呈现出五五开的撕裂。
马老师
所以你看,小撒,现在一些科技领袖都开始建议,与其一味地强调STEM和编程技能,不如更注重培养那些AI无法取代的“人情味儿”,比如同理心、自省、真正的人际连接,还有智慧和品德。这些才是我们人类真正的“超能力”,你懂的。
小撒
马老师这洞察力,简直就是“一语道破天机”啊!这让我想起历史上很多时候,新媒体总是被指责为导致社会问题,比如上世纪50年代,漫画书被认为导致阅读能力下降,70、80年代,电视又被说成是造成阅读障碍的罪魁祸首。仿佛每代人都有自己的“洪水猛兽”啊。
马老师
是啊,小撒,历史总是“螺旋式上升”的。以前还有人争论广播比电视更能激发想象力呢。你看,格林菲尔德他们的研究就发现,孩子们听完广播故事后,比看完电视故事后,更能发挥想象力。这其中的“奥秘”,值得我们深思,你懂的。
小撒
这个研究很有趣,马老师。也许是因为广播提供的信息没那么具体,反而给孩子们的想象力留下了更大的空间去驰骋。不过,也有人说,那是因为电视信息更完整,所以不需要额外补充。这就像咱们武侠小说里,高手过招,点到为止,留有余地才更让人回味无穷。
马老师
小撒这个比喻很精妙,哈哈!你看,关于电视对儿童认知发展的影响,很多研究其实并没有找到太多负面证据,甚至有些地方研究还不足。这说明我们不能“先入为主”,要用“发展的眼光”去看待新生事物。我们以前的阅读教学,也是从枯燥的操练、分组,到后来注重评估和基本技能,再到现在强调标准和个性化,一步步走过来的,你懂的。
小撒
马老师说得太对了!我看到文章里提到,现在的一对一移动学习,让学生们能更方便地接触到有声书和电子书。有声书啊,它可不是简单的“听书”,它能极大提升学生的参与度和阅读兴趣,尤其是对那些觉得传统阅读有困难的孩子,简直就是“雪中送炭”!
马老师
没错,小撒。有声书让孩子们能接触到更广阔的阅读世界,减少了阅读难度,帮助他们更专注,甚至能更好地想象故事内容。我自己的女儿们就特别喜欢听,她们觉得听书比看书更能投入。这就像我们杭普话说的,“方便得很”,孩子们有了选择,阅读的动力自然就足了,你懂的。
小撒
不过,马老师,有声书虽好,也有其“阿喀琉斯之踵”。比如,不是所有家庭都有设备和网络条件,这就会造成新的数字鸿沟。而且,有些老师可能还会觉得听有声书不算“真正的阅读”,这其实是一种对数字阅读形式的偏见,需要我们去转变观念。
马老师
你说的很有道理,小撒。这就像我们以前说的,“形式服从于内容”。只要能达到学习的目的,我们何必纠结于形式呢?回想过去,从斯普特尼克号发射后,美国教育系统就开始重视科技,1963年的《职业教育法》就资助学校使用科技。从孩子们学习BASIC编程,到个人电脑进入课堂,科技一直在教育中扮演重要角色,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,您这简直就是一部“科技教育史”的活字典啊!到了80年代,佩珀特教授引入微电脑,强调以学生为中心的探索式学习。而到了90年代,互联网的兴起更是“石破天惊”,电子邮件、视频、数字媒体,全球互联,让教育也进入了“新纪元”。
马老师
是啊,小撒,进入21世纪,STEM教育和21世纪技能变得越来越重要,像计算机素养、创新、沟通、协作、批判性思维等等。今天的教育科技,就是要让学习变得更互动、更持续,让学生能创造数字媒体、参与协作项目、分析数据,甚至体验虚拟仿真,你懂的。
小撒
这真是“日新月异”啊,马老师!不过,科技的融入也伴随着挑战,比如学校对科技的投入不均,还有老师们需要不断地接受培训才能驾驭这些新工具。但总的来说,科技为教育带来的益处是巨大的,它让学习变得更加生动、有趣,也更加个性化。
马老师
小撒,咱们刚聊了AI在教育中的发展,现在我们来看看它带来的“冲突与挑战”。詹姆斯·M·朗教授的经历就很有启发性。他中风后重新学习写作,拒绝使用ChatGPT来改进措辞,因为他认为,重新掌握这项技能,才是作为作家成长的关键。这很符合杜威的“从经验中学习”的哲学,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,朗教授这简直就是“知行合一”的典范啊!杜威强调,有意义的学习应该促进“成长”,不光是当下,更要为未来的成长创造机会。如果AI只是简单地提供捷径,那可能就是一种“误导性教育”,反而会阻碍学生真正的进步。
马老师
没错,小撒,这就是说,教育者要“慧眼识珠”,判断哪些智力技能是促进学生成长的关键,哪些是AI可以代劳的。比如,朗教授的同事亚历克斯·安布罗斯,有ADHD,他用ChatGPT来整理思路,写作效率提高了十倍。这就说明AI在特定情况下,能成为“助推器”,你懂的。
小撒
这案例太有说服力了,马老师!但另一方面,关于AI在教育中的研究,很多都“经不起推敲”。韦斯·特拉贝尔西教授的报告就指出,大量的研究存在方法论上的缺陷,比如缺乏对照组、没有事后评估,甚至还有“造假”的现象,比如伪造引用、捏造参考文献,这简直是“学术界的泥石流”啊!
马老师
小撒你这形容真是“一针见血”!特拉贝尔西教授把这些研究分成“好科学”、“坏科学”和“丑陋科学”。即使是“好科学”,其发现也往往是“温和”的,远没有那些“天花乱坠”的宣传那么革命性。这说明,对于AI在教育中的作用,我们应该保持“清醒的头脑”,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,这就像咱们武侠小说里,有些江湖郎中吹嘘自己的“灵丹妙药”能包治百病,结果往往是“华而不实”。更让人担忧的是,一些“好科学”研究还发现,过度依赖AI,反而可能损害学习效果,比如有些学生用了AI辅导后,测试成绩反而不如对照组。这真是值得警惕!
马老师
所以你看,小撒,AI虽然是把“双刃剑”,但我们不能因噎废食。目前86%的美国学生都在用AI学习,我们与其“堵”,不如“疏”。AI可以提供个性化学习、减轻老师行政负担、为未来做准备。但是,它也带来了学术诚信危机、算法偏见、隐私泄露和人际连接的减少等问题,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,您这话说到了点子上!这就像一场“拔河比赛”,一边是AI带来的巨大机遇,一边是它可能造成的风险。皮尤研究中心2023年的调查就显示,25%的K-12老师认为AI弊大于利。这说明,我们必须在创新和诚信之间找到一个“黄金平衡点”,才能让AI真正造福教育。
马老师
小撒,AI的出现,确实让我们不得不重新审视传统的学习方式和未来所需技能。我认为,这是一个“凤凰涅槃”的机会,AI应该成为人类学习的“左膀右臂”,而不是“取而代之”。我们要培养AI素养,重新设计课程,强调批判性分析和以人为本的技能,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,您这简直就是“高屋建瓴”啊!AI确实能加速信息整合、提供个性化学习支持、自动化重复性任务,让人类把精力集中在更高阶的认知技能上。但同时,它也带来了批判性思维减弱、技能退化,以及学术诚信、隐私和偏见等伦理风险。
马老师
是啊,小撒,你看现在很多关于AI的“炒作”,其实已经超出了现实。AI生成的摘要,可能还不如人类专家精心整理的。学生用AI写作文,也无法证明他们独立完成任务的能力。这就像“金玉其外,败絮其中”,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,您这比喻真是恰如其分!AI的出现,就像给教育界扔了一颗“深水炸弹”,一开始大家想禁,结果学生们“道高一尺魔高一丈”,总能找到绕过禁令的办法。现在,我们必须把重点从“禁”转到“疏”,重新定义写作,甚至发展出“半人半机”的“赛博写作”模式,让人类和AI协同创作。
马老师
没错,小撒,就像咱们杭普话说的,“该放手时就放手”。在K-12教育中,AI的应用虽然慢一些,但学生日常作业中使用AI的比例已经从2023年冬天的20-40%上升到现在的50-60%。这就要求我们重新修订课程,不再只强调书写美观,而是更注重功能性和伦理应用,把更多时间留给批判性思维和解决问题,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,这简直是“拨乱反正”啊!而且,文章里还提到AI对写作的影响,比如AI驱动的笔可以提供“语法建议”和“上下文信息”,这不就等于给咱们的笔装上了“智能大脑”吗?虽然手写能锻炼精细动作和空间意识,但AI的介入也为语法学习提供了新的可能性。
马老师
小撒,展望未来,AI在教育中的整合,就像一场“武林大会”,各路英豪齐聚一堂。未来教育课程中,AI和数字素养是“必修课”,要培养学生的批判性思维、创造力和解决问题的能力。评估方式也要“以人为本”,确保公平和福祉,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,您这比喻太形象了!未来教育,AI就像一位“智能导师”,它能提供即时、多样的反馈,甚至让学生进行自我评估。但同时,我们也得警惕学术诚信和伦理行为带来的挑战,以及高端AI工具的获取不均问题,这需要咱们“未雨绸缪”。
马老师
没错,小撒。所以教育机构要重新设计评估政策,开发新的素养项目。老师们也要提升评估素养,推动教学向批判性思维发展。这就像武侠小说里,“内功心法”和“招式套路”都要兼修,才能真正成为一代宗师,你懂的。
小撒
马老师,您这简直就是“教育界的武学宗师”!文章还提到,像Kira Learning这样的平台,从一开始就将AI融入教育流程,让AI成为学生的“智能伙伴”,理解学习模式,提供个性化指导。老师们也能借助AI助教,从行政事务中解脱出来,专注于更具人文关怀的教学环节。
马老师
是啊,小撒,这就是说,AI不是要取代老师,而是要“赋能”老师,让老师们从“知识工作者”转变为“智慧工作者”,提供伦理指导、情感支持和语境理解。你看,中国松鼠AI和微软的阅读教练,都在全球范围内取得了显著成效。这说明,AI的教育革命,已经“润物细无声”了,你懂的。
马老师
今天的讨论真是“酣畅淋漓”啊!总的来说,我们没必要为学生使用AI和传统阅读习惯的改变而大惊小怪。AI能让那些过时的学术任务,比如五段式作文和死板的语法规则,变得自动化。这反而能让学生有更多时间去批判性思考,接触更丰富、更多元的内容,你懂的。
小撒
没错,马老师!AI不是洪水猛兽,它是一把钥匙,能打开通往更深层次学习的大门。感谢各位韩纪飞听众朋友的收听,希望今天的Goose Pod能给您带来一些启发。咱们下期再见!

## Summary of "Why I’m Not Freaking Out About My Students Using AI" by John McWhorter (The Atlantic) **News Title/Type:** Opinion Piece / Analysis on Education and Technology **Report Provider/Author:** The Atlantic / John McWhorter **Date/Time Period Covered:** The article references data from 1976 and 2022, discusses current trends, and is published in the November 2024 issue of The Atlantic. The publication date of the article is October 23, 2025. **Key Findings and Conclusions:** The author, John McWhorter, a linguist, professor, and author, argues against the widespread panic surrounding declining reading habits among young people and their increasing reliance on AI for academic tasks. He contends that while these shifts are undeniable, they do not necessarily signal a societal decline into "communal stupidity." Instead, he suggests that this is a natural evolution of information consumption and that educators should adapt rather than lament the past. **Key Statistics and Metrics:** * **Reading Habits Shift:** * In **1976**, approximately **40 percent** of high-school seniors reported reading at least six books for fun in the previous year. * In **1976**, **11.5 percent** of high-school seniors reported reading no books for fun in the previous year. * By **2022**, these percentages had "basically flipped," indicating a significant decrease in reading for pleasure among young people. **Significant Trends or Changes:** * **Declining Reading for Pleasure:** Young people are demonstrably reading fewer books for enjoyment compared to previous generations. * **Increased Screen Time:** Children and students are spending more time on screens, with their attention often captured by digital content. * **Reliance on AI:** Students are increasingly turning to AI for assistance with reading and writing, including essay generation. * **Shift in Entertainment Consumption:** The landscape of entertainment has diversified, with online videos, podcasts, and newsletters now competing with traditional books. * **Evolution of Learning:** Traditional essay assignments, particularly those on abstract topics, are becoming less relevant due to AI's capabilities. **Important Recommendations:** * **Adapt Educational Methods:** Educators should acknowledge the reality of AI and adapt their teaching strategies. This includes: * **Rethinking Essay Assignments:** Moving away from classic five-paragraph essays on abstract topics that AI can easily generate. * **Focusing on Argument Development:** Finding new ways to foster critical thinking and argumentation skills, such as in-class exams with blue books or posing questions that require personal reflection and draw from class discussions. * **Prioritizing In-Class Participation:** Establishing clearer standards for active engagement in classroom discussions. * **Assigning Manageable Texts:** Professors should assign texts that are more likely to be read and discussed thoroughly, rather than overwhelming students with excessive material. * **Embrace New Forms of Content:** Recognize that valuable and insightful content exists beyond traditional books, including Substack newsletters and podcasts. * **Encourage Engagement with Quality Content:** Guide young people to engage with the best available material, regardless of its format. **Notable Risks or Concerns (as addressed by the author):** * **Loss of Traditional Reading Skills:** The author acknowledges the concern that a decline in reading might lead to a loss of certain cognitive skills. * **"Communal Stupidity":** The fear that prioritizing images and short videos over the written word will lead to a less informed populace. * **AI's Impact on Learning:** The potential for AI to undermine the development of fundamental academic skills. **Author's Perspective and Counterarguments:** McWhorter challenges the prevailing pessimism, arguing that: * **Information Access:** Students today have access to more information than ever before, making it understandable that they might not feel the need to read as extensively for the sake of information gathering. * **AI as a Tool:** AI can be seen as a tool that frees up students from tedious tasks, allowing them to focus on higher-level thinking. He draws an analogy to calculators for fractions. * **Evolution of Skills:** Just as society no longer universally needs to grow its own food or tie a bow tie, certain traditional skills like mastering complex grammar rules may become less essential with the aid of AI. * **Value of Different Media:** He argues that video and other digital media are not inherently inferior to books and can foster wit and creativity. He questions whether classic novels would have been better as radio shows. * **Prejudice for Print:** The argument that books inherently create better thinkers might be a "post facto justification for existing prejudices." * **Past Academic Practices:** He points out that even in the past, students often did not read all assigned material, and professors sometimes assigned texts that were not thoroughly discussed. **Material Financial Data:** * No financial data is present in this news summary. **Overall Tone:** The author's tone is measured, reflective, and somewhat contrarian. He expresses pride in his daughters' intelligence and wit, attributing some of it to their engagement with online content. While acknowledging the concerns about declining reading habits, he advocates for a more optimistic and adaptive approach to education in the age of AI.

Why I’m Not Freaking Out About My Students Using AI

Read original at The Atlantic

My tween-age daughters make me proud in countless ways, but I am still adjusting to the fact that they are not bookworms. I’m pretty sure that two generations ago, they would have been more like I was: always with their nose in some volume, looking up only to cross the street or to guide a fork on their plates.

But today, even in our book-crammed home, where their father is often in a cozy reading chair, their eyes are more likely to be glued to a screen.But then, as often as not, what I’m doing in that cozy chair these days is looking at my own screen.In 1988, I read much of Anna Karenina on park benches in Washington Square.

I’ll never forget when a person sitting next to me saw what I was reading and said, “Oh, look, Anna and Vronsky are over there!” So immersed was I in Tolstoy’s epic that I looked up and briefly expected to see them walking by.Today, on that same park bench, I would most certainly be scrolling on my phone.

From the November 2024 issue: The elite college students who can’t read booksAs a linguist, a professor, and an author, I’m meant to bemoan this shift. It is apparently the job of educators everywhere to lament the fact that students are reading less than they used to, and that they are relying on AI to read for them and write their essays, too.

Honestly, these developments don’t keep me up at night. It seems wrongheaded to feel wistful for a time when students had far less information at their fingertips. And who can blame them for letting AI do much of the work that they are likely to let AI do anyway when they enter the real world?Young people are certainly reading less.

In 1976, about 40 percent of high-school seniors said they had read at least six books for fun in the previous year, while 11.5 percent said they hadn’t read any, according to the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future survey. By 2022, those percentages had basically flipped; an ever-shrinking share of young people seems to be moved to read for pleasure.

Plenty of cultural critics argue that this is worrisome—that the trend of prizing images over the written word, short videos over books, will plunge us all into communal stupidity. I believe they are wrong.Print and its benefits will not disappear. It merely has to share the stage. Critics may argue that the competition for eyeballs yields far too much low-quality, low-friction content, all of it easily consumed with a fractured attention span.

But this ignores the proliferation of thoughtful writing and insightful dialogues, the rise of Substack newsletters and podcasts, which speaks to a demand for more ideas, more information—more opportunities to read and think, not less.My daughters still read books; they just prefer to commit their time to works they are on fire about.

This includes Tahereh Mafi’s Shatter Me series and Chris Colfer’s luscious six-book Land of Stories series, which they liked so much when I read it to them that we might do it again. When I was their age, I read far too many books that weren’t very good, because what else was I going to do? Maybe it taught me something about patience and tolerance for experiences that don’t deliver a dopamine high, but I sure would’ve been grateful if shows like The White Lotus had been around.

The choice for entertainment used to be between Middlemarch and music hall, Sister Carrie and vaudeville, The Invisible Man and I Dream of Jeannie. Today, our appetite for easy, silly content is sated by the mindless videos online, the snippets of animal misadventures and makeup tips that my girls sheepishly tell me they are watching.

I have begun limiting just how much of that digital junk they gorge on each day. But dismissing all online clips as crude or stupefying misses the cleverness amid the slop. Both of my girls are wittier than I was at their ages, largely because of all the comedic and stylized language they witness online.

The ubiquity of some content doesn’t mean it lacks art.Critics will argue that books are more valuable than videos because they demand more imagination—purportedly creating better, stronger thinkers. But this familiar argument strikes me as an ex post facto justification for existing prejudices. If there had always been video, I doubt many people would wish we could distill these narratives into words so that we could summon up our own images.

I have also never seen the argument that theater disadvantages viewers by providing visuals instead of letting people read the plays for themselves. Plenty of people used to argue that radio was better than television because it demanded imagination, but who among us thinks that Severance would have been better as a radio show?

We may be overestimating just how much heavy reading students were doing before. (CliffsNotes, anyone?) When I was in college, few of my peers read everything they were assigned. My own students from a pre-TikTok era admit that they, too, neglected most of the material. This is partly because professors often assign boatloads of text, yet discuss only fragments of it.

I recall having to read an endless and nettlesome chunk of Kierkegaard that the professor never even addressed, and Federico García Lorca’s play Bodas de Sangre, about which we discussed a single page. When a student some time ago accused me in an evaluation of making similarly excessive demands, I realized it was time to stop.

I now prefer to assign more manageable passages of text that we are sure to discuss. It’s a better use of their time and mine, and it yields better conversations in class.The rise of AI does mean that I will never again assign a classic five-paragraph essay on an abstract topic. Discuss the expression of irony in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

Discuss Aristotle’s conception of virtue in contrast to that of Plato. Perhaps I sound like I am abjuring my role as professor. But I am merely bowing to the realities of technology. AI can now write those essays. Sending students off to write them is like sending them off to do fractions as if they won’t use the calculator on their phone.

The whole point of that old-school essay was to foster the ability to develop an argument. Doing this is still necessary, we just need to take a different tack. In some cases, this means asking that students write these essays during classroom exams—without screens, but with those dreaded blue books.

I have also found ways of posing questions that get past what AI can answer, such as asking for a personal take—How might we push society to embrace art that initially seems ugly?—that draws from material discussed in class. Professors will also need to establish more standards for in-class participation.

I loathed writing essays in college. The assignments felt too abstract and disconnected from anything I cared about, and I disliked how little control I had over whether I could get a good grade—it was never clear to me what a “good” essay was. I know I wasn’t alone. I always loved school, but those dry, daunting essay assignments kept me from knowing that I could love writing.

I do not regret that AI has marginalized this particular chore. There are other ways to teach students how to think.Tyler Austin Harper: ChatGPT doesn’t have to ruin collegeEssays are also meant to train students to use proper grammar to express themselves in a clear and socially acceptable way. Well, there was also a time when a person needed to know how to grow their own food and tie a bow tie.

We’re past that, along with needing to know how to avoid dangling participles. We will always need to express ourselves clearly, but AI tools now offer us ways to accomplish this.It bears noting that quite a few grammar rules are less about clarity than about fashion or preference, which we are expected to master like a code of dress-–Oxford commas (or not!

), when to use which versus that (something made up out of thin air by the grammarian Henry Fowler), fewer books rather than less books. AI now tells us how to navigate these codes. Some of us will still enjoy knowing when to use who versus whom, just as I might care to properly tie a bow tie, at least once.

But most people will be more than happy to outsource this to a machine.Sure, it’s disorienting to wonder whether either of my own children will ever embrace long, classic novels. But they now enjoy a richer array of material than I ever did, and my job is simply to encourage them to engage with the best of it as much as possible—even if that means they will likely encounter less Tolstoy than I did.

And although I find grammar rules intriguing enough to have devoted much of my life to studying them, I don’t mind that my daughters and students needn’t expend so much energy mastering these often-arbitrary dictates. My hope is that by having AI handle some of this busy work, they will have more time to actually think for themselves.

Analysis

Conflict+
Related Info+
Core Event+
Background+
Impact+
Future+

Related Podcasts