Critical Thinking Is the Missing Piece
Drafting AI guidance for schools that puts thinking first
Recently, I co-hosted a Writing Faculty Symposium on Critical AI Literacy. More than 50 high school English teachers and college writing faculty gathered to talk about generative AI use in their classrooms. Our opening speaker underscored a notable shift in our students’ lived experiences, with many of them moving away from embodied encounters with others in favor of disembodied virtual relationships.
Seeing our students walk across campus, heads buried in their devices, we worry that young people are trading authentic engagement with peers for the allure of a glowing screen. More than ever before, they struggle to build meaningful relationships with others and, more importantly, with themselves. One question consistently emerged throughout our conversations:
How can we help students think critically about their relationship with technology?
At the end of the day, several participants approached our team, saying it was the best AI workshop they’d ever attended. What made our time together so impactful? Instead of focusing on tools and skills, we shared strategies to help students frame their thinking as they learn to navigate generative AI.
A Focus on Critical Thinking
Seemingly overnight, the field of education has become saturated with self-proclaimed AI experts pushing quick-fix solutions that promise to save time and improve learning. Their platforms use alarmist language, steeped in fearmongering and finger-wagging, all peddling the same message: Hurry up! Your students are being left behind!
But instead of rushing forward toward uncertainty, many educators are eager for a slower approach. Rather than teaching young people how to use the latest AI tools, educators want time to plan a course of action that helps students think critically about their relationship with this new technology. Teachers want to respond to this technological shift with thoughtful intention instead of impulsive reaction.
When I’m coaching a client who is grappling with something complex, I don’t jump straight into problem-solving after they identify a challenge. I know they will need time to process their thoughts and feelings before taking action. This is where the deeper work happens. After clarifying their thinking, they inevitably move forward with greater confidence. Likewise, many teachers are now struggling to provide effective instruction about AI when they, themselves, are still grappling with their thoughts around its use. Over the course of our symposium, a common theme emerged:
Teachers need more time to have meaningful conversations with their colleagues.
While I believe it is helpful for educators to explore AI tools, it is equally, if not more, important for them to find their own footing around this shift in technology. Teachers crave unstructured spaces where they can engage in meaningful inquiry with each other. Many of my colleagues are grappling with questions about literacy, creativity, and self-expression. They want to support students in developing an inner compass to help them consider when AI might be helpful or harmful, giving students a framework to guide them outside classroom walls.
Guidance That Emphasizes Thinking
Many schools design AI guidance through the narrow lens of compliance. Fears about student cheating and a fervent need to hold offenders accountable overshadow an important opportunity: helping students to think critically about new technology.
As I helped draft AI guidance for a large school district, a number of my colleagues wanted definitive rules for students to follow. They envisioned a yes-or-no decision tree that would hold students accountable for ethical AI use. But when I tried to outline this type of binary thinking on paper, the tree turned into a circle. Every decision led to the same inevitable question:
Did you ask your teacher for permission?
Did you ask your teacher for permission?
Did you ask your teacher for permission? (See…Not very helpful.)
So, I started to outline the types of questions I would want my students to ask themselves before, during, and after they use AI to support their learning. The result was a robust list of metacognitive questions that modeled the thinking I wanted students to internalize. The guidelines still emphasized teacher permission and a set of clear expectations, but the thinking was the centerpiece of the work.
When presented with this framework of questions, my colleagues rallied behind the concept of framing AI guidance around thinking instead of compliance. Suddenly, the group began eliciting a flurry of additional questions they would want their own students to consider. In the end, the document grounded students in thinking more critically about their technology use.
It’s About the Thinking, Not the Tool
Between high school and college, educators have approximately eight years to help students construct their own ideas about how they want to engage with the larger world, including generative AI use. Our classrooms may be one of the few, if not the only, spaces where students are asked to grapple with ethical questions about this technology.
Over the course of the day, colleagues at our symposium shared their hopes, fears, and experiences with AI. They want their students to think critically and creatively. They want them to claim ownership over their own voice and see value in the unique perspectives of others. But most of all, they want students to design an internal framework that helps them decide when and where to engage with technology.
Is it acceptable to have an AI tool review your cover letter for grammatical errors before you submit it for a job interview? Maybe. Is it better for an AI bot to help you manage your anxiety about interviewing, or to reach out to a trusted mentor or friend instead? Definitely the latter. These are the types of questions young people are already facing, and the more support they get in thinking critically about their decision-making, the better!
This is an ongoing and ever-evolving conversation. Already, our group is beginning to plan our next symposium for 2027. It is my fervent belief that education is the underpinning of an empathetic and thoughtful society, so I am grateful to be a part of a profession that takes our work to heart.
(To learn more about my approach to AI use, please see my prior post to learn how I talk about AI with my own kids).
Well said! Like all fields, education must adapt to this new technology by learning how to integrate it.