I think from a systems perspective, adding more ed tech will make things worse. In my experience, most ed tech just results in additional demands over time, and it doesn't end up saving time without sacrificing quality, treating students as data, and sucking the joy out of teaching.

Yes, but this premise is that we have a terrible system, so we're going to create trainings that make it an individual duty to overcome barriers with outside tech that has major problems, rather than fix education. Do you think that they won't continue to squeeze as soon as you can breathe a bit?

Software is not your 'partner'. And the whole idea of 'correct' prompting puts the onus on the user to make the technology work effectively, blaming them when it's not useful. Yes, it can save time, but there is a cost to offloading thinking about lessons.

Yes, that's what makes this a sales pitch for the new tech.

This is my point, though, that instead of a PD around solving a problem in teaching and learning, it's a PD that's "here's a tool, hope you can find some use in it. If not, never mind." I don't think that's a good use of limited PD time, especially with the dangers we already know of using it.

Lol, yes, I love MS, but this is the danger, that our automation often doesn't automate, but just asks others to do the job for us. We have to be careful what we're doing doesn't put the onus on students to compensate for what's lost in automation.

I think you are a positive person, and I appreciate that about you. I don't see any ed tech as saving teacher time in the long run. I don't think AI will save time in absorbing that material unless it facilitates the avoidance of absorption. We should be allowed time to absorb it.

"And the impact? Immediate. This session kick-started AI adoption"

"Practical, hands-on training is essential—the more teachers feel confident using AI, the more they’ll integrate it into their daily practice."

Your goal is obviously for them to use the tech.

That discrepancy may come from a mismatch in what is classified as 'AI' in different circles. My broader concern is that your goals appear to be more about promoting tech adoption and less about effective teaching and learning.

From your description, it seems like the main outcome you wanted from the session was for teachers to have a positive view of integrating software into their workflow, in particular Copilot. This is why it comes off as a marketing or sales session. Where do student experience or outcomes come in?

Isn't planning your lessons focusing on high-impact teaching? If you say it's not automating that process, why this quote:

"What MS Copilot can actually do— lesson planning, admin, differentiation."

What does Copilot do if not automate cognitive work? Why nothing on the risks of that?

If you were doing a 'PD' on how to use Copilot, which is what you described, then it's training on a product, not training on 'AI'. If that training was focused on encouraging teachers to use this product rather than on teaching and learning (again, as described), Microsoft should be paying you.

Effective at what? What are the impacts on student outcomes? Why in the world would you fob off lesson planning onto a piece of software knowing the benefits teacher engagement in planning has on lesson efficacy? Where are the cautions on the risks? It seems more like tech marketing than anything.

I'm addressing the post and the article as is, and I have no desire to use software to twist their text into something that's less damaging.

I already looked at the paper when you sent the abstract. It's not relevant to the conversation, and your description of what it's about is entirely inaccurate. Are you sure you're referencing the one you're thinking of?

Also, can you clarify why you linked the abstract to that paper? It doesn't appear to be related to what I was referring to in my post. Thanks!

I read plenty of research, which is why I find the unsupported claims in the article I linked so frustrating.