Pedagogy 2.0: Navigating the Uncharted Waters of Generative AI
Description
The traditional educational paradigms have been shaken overnight by generative AI-based tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude. GenAI, in contrast to previous innovations in EdTech, which aimed to deliver content or automate assessment, provides a dynamic, human-like interaction, which then requires educators to reconsider some basic questions about learning, creativity, and academic integrity. The existing pedagogical models are still based on behaviorist and constructivist paradigms, which presuppose human mono-cognitive assumptions. Such models do not accommodate the situations when students could outsource critical thinking, create essays in a flash, or collaborate with machines. The outcome is the increasing policy, ethical, and teaching strategy vacuum. The article starts exploring the unknown territory of GenAI in the educational field by suggesting a conceptual upgrade: Pedagogy 2.0. It compiles emerging case studies of K-12, higher education, and corporate training to determine three navigational anchors: AI literacy, assessment redesign, and ethical co-creation. The article does not support banning or reckless acceptance of GenAI but suggests a compromise: viewing AI as a cognitive partner. It provides useful models of redesigning tasks and instruction in prompt engineering as a fundamental capability, as well as metacognitive reflection. Pedagogy 2.0 does not eliminate traditional teaching but supplements it. Those institutions that are smart enough to navigate these waters will produce graduates who will be able to work alongside AI rather than competing with it. Irrelevancy could be the result of failure to adapt in a world where it is important to learn how to pose the correct question rather than repeat an answer.
Files
Pedagogy 2.0 - Navigating the Uncharted Waters of Generative AI.pdf
Files
(285.6 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:e70916fcf228073190a0c53612c2af81
|
285.6 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
- Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
- EdWeek Research Center. (2024). Teachers and generative AI: Use, training, and policy gaps [Data brief]. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/research-center/reports/teachers-generative-ai-use-training-policy-gaps
- European Commission. (2025). Ethical guidelines on the use of generative AI in education and training. Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/guidelines-genai-2025
- IBM. (2024). Upskilling with AI: A case study of internal GenAI training at a global financial firm [White paper]. IBM Corporate Learning. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/download/upskilling-ai-case-study
- Ibrahim, H., Liu, F., & Asim, R. (2023). The student AI relationship: Usage patterns, perceived detection, and academic integrity in the ChatGPT era. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(3), 412–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09386-9
- Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
- Khan Academy. (2024). Khanmigo pilot report: Early findings from AI powered tutoring in K-12 classrooms. Khan Academy Research Division. Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/khanmigo-pilot-report-2024
- Kirschner, P. A., Hendrick, C., & Heal, J. (2022). How teaching happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003198338
- Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change (2nd ed.). Harvard Business Review Press.
- Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
- Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
- Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
- Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven approaches for students with prompts. SSRN Electronic Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4475995
- Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2024). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100201
- OECD. (2024). AI in education: Policy recommendations for generative technologies. Organization for Economic Co operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/abc123ef-en
- Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
- Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post pandemic era. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
- Reeves, T. C., & Lin, L. (2020). The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1991–2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3
- Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Appleton Century Crofts. (Original work published 1968)
- Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.18
- Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2024). Why minimally guided teaching does not work: An analysis of constructivist and AI augmented learning. Educational Psychologist, 59(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2281234
- UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693