By Žan Rode, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education
These last few years have become increasingly interesting for an educator who enjoys exploring different technologies and ways of using them. As a young educator, I have noticed that much of the technology considered “new and exciting” has actually been around for perhaps 70 years. This raises the question of whether it is still new technology or should now be classified as a “traditional” teaching method (to quote Prof. Andrej Šorgo). For example, technology that has existed since the 1950s, when Arthur Samuel’s checkers programme debuted in artificial intelligence – a system that could improve through experience. In this sense, the idea that machines could “learn” has been with us for decades; however, only in the past few years has this technology become relevant for educators. What is new, at least from my perspective, is the speed with which AI has become visible, accessible, and practically useful in everyday life.
We have experienced other technological changes. Calculators changed how we approached computation. Computers transformed work, writing, storage, and communication. Smartphones put digital tools in our pockets and reshaped social life. Yet none of these felt quite the same as the recent emergence of AI. Perhaps this is because AI does not simply extend our hands or memory; it appears to participate in thinking, writing, explaining, translating, summarising, and creating, even if it sometimes does so imperfectly. What I found especially remarkable was observing this development from within education. At first, AI was exciting but not always clearly useful. Then, almost suddenly, it became useful enough that students began experimenting with it, sometimes before teachers had time to understand it. This created a strange and important moment: educators were asked to respond to a technology that was still evolving while they were trying to define its proper use.
In many cases, the first response did not come from institutions but from individual teachers. They had to investigate AI for themselves, test its possibilities, identify its risks, and create practical rules for students. This was not necessarily a failure of the school system; it is simply the nature of large educational systems – they change slowly. That slowness has disadvantages. Students may move ahead of schools, and teachers may feel they are reacting rather than leading. There are also unresolved concerns, including dependency on AI tools and possible weakening of literacy, writing, and independent thinking skills.
Yet this slowness also has value. When education systems adapt gradually, they can do so through discussion, collaboration, and more careful judgement. Recent guidance on generative AI in education reflects this need for thoughtful, ethical, and pedagogically grounded integration rather than simple rejection or uncritical adoption (UNESCO, 2023).
My astonishment, therefore, is not only about the technology itself. It is about witnessing a new tool enter culture, disrupt established practices, and force education to reconsider learning, authorship, responsibility, and human judgement.
—-
Reference
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research
