According to surveys from across the world, a major chunk of high-school teachers have reported using AI tools daily. But are these tools truly enhancing learning, or being solely used as shortcuts?
The original purpose of artificial intelligence in education, dating back to the early 1950s, was to develop a “helping hand” that serves as an ally rather than a replacement for human educators or basic human learning accessibility.
From the mid-20th century, AI was originally designed to solve the two “sigma problems”. Students tutored one-on-one would perform significantly better in juxtaposition to those in a standard classroom. Early systems like PLATO and LISP Tutor, from the 1960s to 1980s, took the initiative to move away from static textbook towards dynamic platforms that provided instant, personalised guidance. It was meant to help mimic a human mentor’s ability to spot certain errors.
The tech boom of the 2010s brought a wave of optimism that “AI would be the great equaliser”—the possibility to bridge social and economic divides. Giving a student in a rural area access to the same quality of individualised assistance as another in a wealthy urban centre doesn’t sound bad, right? AI is seen as a way to dismantle geographical language barriers through real-time translations.
But what about the students that actually worked hard and those who did not? Won’t it be considered inequitable if some students read through some material one day before an exam with no approach towards learning?
AI is meant to generate tailored practice problems and real-life solutions. At this point, it isn’t evolving with us; we are evolving with it. I use it myself when I struggle with fractions. It scaffolds difficult material for me. Instead of waiting days to get my essay graded, I send the text to AI and immediately receive critiques on grammar, structure and tone.
It is undeniably convenient considering its implications involving universal accessibility. Teachers also use AI tools and softwares to generate tailored tools and prep-materials for students.
Platforms like Duolingo use algorithms that utilise real time content and leaderboards based on the learner’s response. This allows students to grasp foundational concepts before jumping to more complex and demanding subjects. Read a random sentence in French and you would pop up your phone to use your AI translator—that is, assuming you don’t know French.
But rather than solely being a helping hand, AI is often misused as a substitute. Students generate their entire assignments with just a single prompt. This leads to passive consumption rather than palpable engagement. When students are later tested without the usage of technology, they show significant productive struggle since they miss out on developing the analytical skills required to navigate complex real-world problems.
Conversely, it creates an ethical crisis in academic integrity and verifying work as authentic, which later consumes time. Teachers have started feeling a sense of “lack of control” over assessment integrity. AI should be an assistant, not a shortcut. The goal is to augment human intelligence, not replace the effort required to build it.
We cross into dangerous boundaries when convenience eclipses learning. Developers must build authentic tools, teachers must guide their use, and students must commit to integrity. The effort required to build AI tools should now be utilised, in order to integrate AI-detection and verification tools should be used for plagiarism checks. Students shouldn’t be intellectually lazy. They must audit their own tech use.
Educational leaders should examine their own technology usage—ensuring tech budgets prioritise learning over hype. We are supposed to teach the tool, but it’s teaching us. Taking everything into account, the original promise of AI in education remains as a transformative helping hand that personalises learning for every student.
Without firmness and ethical oversight, AI becomes a shortcut that sidesteps productiveness, eroding critical thinking skills.
Aahana Goyal is a student of Genesis Global School. Views are personal.
Also Read: In the world of social media, everyone can speak. Not everyone is heard