Exercises — Chapter 16: AI in Education

Exercise 16.1: Assignment Redesign Workshop (Create)

Choose a traditional assignment format from the list below (or use one from a course you are currently taking):

  • A 1,500-word research essay
  • A multiple-choice exam
  • A problem set in mathematics or statistics
  • A book report or literature review
  • A coding project

Redesign the assignment so that it remains a meaningful assessment of learning even if students have access to generative AI. Your redesign should:

  1. Clearly state the learning objectives (what skills or knowledge should the student develop?)
  2. Describe the redesigned assignment in detail
  3. Explain how the redesign makes the student's thinking visible — not just the product
  4. Identify which of the five principles from Section 16.6 your redesign applies
  5. Address potential equity concerns (does the redesign require resources or skills that some students may lack?)

Target length: 400–500 words.

Exercise 16.2: AI Proctoring Stakeholder Analysis (Evaluate)

A university is deciding whether to implement AI proctoring for all online exams. Conduct a stakeholder analysis by considering the perspectives of:

  1. A student with a disability that causes involuntary eye movements
  2. A single parent taking online courses while caring for young children
  3. A professor who has observed widespread cheating on unproctored online exams
  4. The university's chief information officer, who is responsible for data security
  5. A student of color who has read about racial bias in facial recognition software
  6. A company that sells AI proctoring software
  7. An employer who hires graduates from this university

For each stakeholder: (a) describe their likely position, (b) identify their strongest argument, and (c) note what evidence would change their mind.

Then write a 300-word recommendation to the university. Should they adopt AI proctoring? Under what conditions?

Exercise 16.3: Evaluating Personalized Learning Claims (Analyze)

Find a website or marketing material for an AI-powered educational platform (such as Khan Academy's Khanmigo, IXL, DreamBox, Squirrel AI, or another platform of your choice).

Analyze the claims made on the website:

  1. List three specific claims the company makes about learning outcomes (e.g., "students improve by X%," "personalized paths," "mastery-based progression").
  2. Evaluate each claim using the evidence evaluation criteria from this chapter: - Is the claim supported by peer-reviewed research, or only by internal studies? - Are the comparison groups appropriate (compared to what alternative)? - Could the gains be explained by factors other than personalization (e.g., more time on task)? - Is demographic performance data reported?
  3. Research independently. Can you find external evaluations of the platform's effectiveness? What do they say?
  4. Write a "consumer report" (300 words) advising a school district considering whether to adopt this platform.

Exercise 16.4: The Digital Divide Analysis (Analyze)

Consider a specific educational AI tool (choose one: an AI tutoring chatbot, an adaptive math platform, an AI writing assistant, or an AI proctoring system).

Analyze how the digital divide might shape who benefits from this tool:

  1. Access dimension: What hardware, software, and internet access does the tool require? Who might lack these?
  2. Literacy dimension: What digital skills does the tool require? Who might lack them?
  3. Cultural dimension: Does the tool work equally well across languages, dialects, and cultural contexts?
  4. Economic dimension: Is the tool free, freemium, or paid? How does cost shape access?
  5. Environmental dimension: Does the tool require a quiet, private space? Who might not have one?

For each dimension, identify a specific student population that would be disadvantaged and explain the mechanism.

Conclude with a 200-word proposal: How could the tool be deployed in a way that narrows rather than widens the digital divide?

Exercise 16.5: The Debate — Should AI-Generated Work Be Treated as Plagiarism? (Evaluate)

This is a structured debate exercise. You will argue both sides.

Round 1: The prosecution. Write a 300-word argument that submitting AI-generated work should be treated as plagiarism under academic integrity policies. Address: - How is AI-generated work similar to plagiarism (presenting someone else's work as your own)? - What harm does it cause to the student, other students, and the institution? - How should it be sanctioned?

Round 2: The defense. Write a 300-word argument that submitting AI-generated work should NOT be treated as plagiarism (though it may still be problematic). Address: - How is AI-generated work different from plagiarism (there is no original human author being copied from)? - Why might existing plagiarism frameworks be inadequate for this new phenomenon? - What alternative framework would be more appropriate?

Round 3: The verdict. Write a 200-word position paper stating your actual view, drawing on the strongest arguments from both sides. What policy would you recommend?

Exercise 16.6: Historical Comparison — Technology Disruptions in Education (Analyze)

Each of the following technologies was controversial when introduced into education. Research one and write a 400-word comparison to generative AI:

  • The calculator (1970s–1980s debates about whether calculators would prevent students from learning arithmetic)
  • The internet (1990s–2000s debates about whether students would copy from websites instead of learning)
  • Wikipedia (2000s debates about whether students would rely on it instead of reading primary sources)
  • Spell-check and grammar-check tools (debates about whether they would erode writing skills)

In your comparison, address: 1. What were the fears about this technology? 2. Did those fears materialize? Why or why not? 3. How did education eventually adapt? 4. What does this historical example suggest about how education will adapt to generative AI? 5. In what ways is generative AI fundamentally different from this earlier technology, making historical analogies incomplete?

Exercise 16.7: Design an AI Literacy Lesson (Create)

You have been asked to design a single 50-minute lesson on AI literacy for one of the following audiences:

  • High school juniors
  • First-year college students in any major
  • Working professionals in a corporate training session
  • Retired adults at a community center

Your lesson plan should include:

  1. Audience and context: Who are you teaching, and what do they need to know?
  2. Learning objectives: 2–3 specific, measurable objectives
  3. Activities: At least one hands-on activity where participants interact with an AI tool
  4. Key messages: The 3–4 most important takeaways
  5. Assessment: How will you know if participants learned something?
  6. Equity considerations: How will you ensure the lesson is accessible to participants with varying levels of technology access and digital literacy?

Target length: 500–600 words.