A weekly collection of education-related news from around the web.

Educator’s Notebook #480 (April 7, 2025)

INTRODUCTION

  • Happy Monday, all!

    First, I’ve been head down working for the past three weeks, so I’m behind on the newsletter. The result: the longest issue yet. Apologies for the length, but there was so much interesting writing — I hope you’ll find it’s worth the browse. This week’s AI section, in particular, is especially noteworthy.

    Second, I’m so happy to share that the preoccupation has been something of a writing retreat during which my coauthor and I completed a first draft of a book that we aim to release later this year.  It’s entering a rigorous production cycle now, so it will be a short spell before it surfaces again — and that’s all on the topic for now…

    In the meantime, much in this issue to dive into. The two features focus on pedagogy and on holding on to school values in complex times. Then, in the issue, find several practical posts on pedagogy, a number of remarkable historical discoveries, good thinking on curriculum, and much more, including a new genre of film I had not heard of: “competence movies.” It would be interesting to explore that movie playlist and reflect on what the skills are that are demonstrated in the films that are deemed as characters showing competence.

    And for AI: I’ve opened a new category of posts: “TECH/AI: SOCIAL”. As I’ve noted for about the past year, I believe AI companions and synthetic relationships are going to have a larger impact on humanity in the long run than job displacements and the fears some have about learning.  Writing about AI companions is now accelerating. This week, three of the AI featured posts are on AI companions, including interviews with students. Kids are trying them out. Read about this if you haven’t yet.

    And if you missed it last month, here are the final results of the “Literary Villains March Madness” bracket, shown below…!

    These and more, enjoy!

    Peter

    Literary Villains Bracket, as voted on by readers of Literary Hub. See the full post in the Humanities section

     


     

    Browse and search over 14,000 curated articles from past issues online:

    Subscribe to the Educator’s Notebook

     

    • Grading for Growth
    • 03/24/25

    “Two quick disclaimers on the research findings that I will discuss in this blog post. These studies concerned feedback on student-produced mathematical proofs, and much of the data came from clinical interviews that were not connected to a specific course. Although this specific research focused exclusively on student proofs, many of the findings could apply to other areas of mathematics and other subject matters.”

    • Big Questions Institute
    • 03/19/25

    “Through mission-focused leadership schools can navigate complexity and uncertainty with clarity for what’s most important for kids and their learning.”

ADOLESCENCE

ARTS

ASSESSMENT

CHARACTER

CREATIVITY

CURRICULUM

DIVERSITY/INCLUSION

GOVERNMENT

HEALTH

HUMANITIES

LEADERSHIP

LEARNING SCIENCE

PD

PEDAGOGY

READING/WRITING

STEM

TECH

VISUAL DESIGN

WORKPLACE

GENERAL

A.I. Update

A.I. UPDATE

  • So, there are a few extra features this week — three weeks in AI news is an eon.

    Mostly, I want to highlight the extraordinary acceleration in social and affective AI. This means that AI is racing to affect people socially and emotionally. This is a major development that, especially in schools, we need to be attentive to. If you are not keeping up, be sure that someone at your school is.  Here are some headlines:

    • From the Medium post by the Rithm Project: A majority of kids 14-18 have experimented with social AI companions or know someone who has. A majority approve of AI friendships. A majority disapprove of romantic relationships with AI, but a minority do approve of them.
    • Writing in the New Yorker by Jaron Lanier anticipates that AI lovers will be common in the future. It explores the implications.
    • OpenAI has begun intentionally testing affective (emotional) character traits in their voice mode conversations with users. They published the results in partnership with MIT. Of the many headlines: higher engagement with affective voice modes correlate with higher loneliness, dependence, problematic use, and lower socialization. It’s worth reading the difference in the write ups from MIT and OpenAI — and what that portends for the future.

    My take: no one knows how exactly this will affect us, and we’ll all be figuring it out together in the years ahead. But time is important now while habits and policies are taking shape. Have conversations about it with your colleagues and with your students. Schools need to be actively working out how to support healthy socialization of this technology, because we can’t leave kids to their devices, as it were — we need to be moving at least as fast as commercial-driven AI companies that are seeking to monetize the hours people — including kids — are spending with AI companions.

    There are other remarkable developments in this issue: more comparison of AI’s deep research capabilities (a feature I use weekly at least), breakthroughs in responsive image generation, helpful writing on AI in education, and the remarkable moment we’ve hit: now AI writes funnier memes, on average, than people.

    The world is changing faster than ever. Hang on tight.

    Peter

     

    One person with an AI teammate performed better than a team with no AI, and almost as well as a team with AI. See the feature study for more.
    • Medium
    • 04/02/25

    ““What, if at all, have you, your friends, and people your age used genAI for?” Over half of our 27 interviewees spontaneously named experimenting with AI characters specifically, unprompted. Interviewees were keenly aware that AI companions “were a thing”, with many naming either direct personal experimentation with sites like Character AI or by “hacking” ChatGPT to become a character, or knowing of at least one young person in their community who was engaging with AI companions on a regular basis.. A slim majority of our interviewees (19 of 27) thought AI friends were more acceptable than not, but nearly all of them had qualifications for whom, how, and under what conditions this acceptability might fall under.”

    • No More Marking
    • 03/31/25

    “We now have results. Our headline finding is that AI is very good at judging student writing and is a viable and time-saving alternative for many forms of school assessment. Here are the details… We have been running similar tasks since 2017 for students at primary and secondary, and have assessed nearly 3 million pieces of writing using human Comparative Judgement. The process typically delivers very high levels of inter-rater reliability, and is the gold standard of human judgement. The crucial difference with this assessment is that we did not just have human teachers making the judgements. We got an AI to make judgements, too… In total, our human judges made 3,640 decisions. Of these 3,640 decisions our AI agreed with 81% of them. On our most recent previous human-judged Year 7 assessment the human judges agreed with each other 87% of the time, which is fairly typical.”

    • New Yorker
    • 03/22/25

    “I have proposed, in these pages, that the best moment when using virtual reality is when you take the headset off and perceive the world with fresh eyes. Maybe falling in love with A.I. and having A.I. yanked away will be how people learn to appreciate one another in the future.”

    • One Useful Thing
    • 03/22/25

    “When working without AI, teams outperformed individuals by a significant amount, 0.24 standard deviations (providing a sigh of relief for every teacher and manager who has pushed the value of teamwork). But the surprise came when we looked at AI-enabled participants. Individuals working with AI performed just as well as teams without AI, showing a 0.37 standard deviation improvement over the baseline. This suggests that AI effectively replicated the performance benefits of having a human teammate – one person with AI could match what previously required two-person collaboration.”

    • MIT
    • 03/21/25

    “Results showed that while voice-based chatbots initially appeared beneficial in mitigating loneliness and dependence compared with text-based chatbots, these advantages diminished at high usage levels, especially with a neutral-voice chatbot. Conversation type also shaped outcomes: personal topics slightly increased loneliness but tended to lower emotional dependence compared with open-ended conversations, whereas non-personal topics were associated with greater dependence among heavy users. Overall, higher daily usage–across all modalities and conversation types–correlated with higher loneliness, dependence, and problematic use, and lower socialization.”

    • Ars Technica
    • 03/19/25

    “The study comes with an important caveat. On average, fully AI-generated memes scored higher than those created by humans alone or humans collaborating with AI. But when researchers looked at the best individual memes, humans created the funniest examples, and human-AI collaborations produced the most creative and shareable memes. In other words, AI models consistently produced broadly appealing memes, but humans—with or without AI help—still made the most exceptional individual examples.”

TECH/AI: EDUCATION

TECH/AI: ETHICS AND RISK

TECH/AI: GOVERNMENT AND LAW

TECH/AI: INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT

TECH/AI: SOCIAL

    • New York Times
    • 03/30/25

    “It’s part of a growing market of A.I. products that promise users an experience that closely approximates the impossible: communicating and even "reuniting” with the deceased. Some of the representations — like those offered by HereAfter AI and StoryFile, which also frames its services as being of historical value — can be programmed with the person’s memories and voice to produce realistic holograms or chatbots with which family members or others can converse.”

    • CharacterAI
    • 12/12/24

TECH/AI: USES AND APPLICATIONS

TECH/AI: GENERAL

Issues

Every week I send out articles I encounter from around the web. Subject matter ranges from hard knowledge about teaching to research about creativity and cognitive science to stories from other industries that, by analogy, inform what we do as educators. This breadth helps us see our work in new ways.

Readers include teachers, school leaders, university overseers, conference organizers, think tank workers, startup founders, nonprofit leaders, and people who are simply interested in what’s happening in education. They say it helps them keep tabs on what matters most in the conversation surrounding schools, teaching, learning, and more.

Peter Nilsson

Subscribe

* indicates required