Readers respond: Continuing the conversation on AI

My column piece entitled “Turnitin is not the solution”, published on January 4, 2025, gained traction on social media with around 1,600 reactions (mostly ‘hearts’ and ‘likes’) and over 1,900 shares. While I knew the issue would resonate with young readers, particularly students, I didn’t expect it to have such broad appeal, including among fellow teachers from all parts of the country who share a similar stance on AI.

One of them is Noel, an educator from Luzon. In his email to me, Noel agrees with my contention that for educators to stay relevant with emerging technologies, we need to leverage our pedagogical practices. “I liked your point, Atty, about emphasizing that learning has to take place in the actual setting. Learners need to be engaged in the community to gain a deeper appreciation of what learning is all about,” he says.

“It is no longer about studying per se but about learning creatively in the truest sense. I also concur, Atty, with your statement that knowing your learners matters in the teaching and learning process. It significantly contributes to the holistic development of learners and can foster a meaningful dialogic model during the process,” Noel states.

For netizen Gino, who commented on The FREEMAN’s social media page, he says: “While the critique of Turnitin is valid, the solution lies not in rejecting tools but in using them wisely. AI and platforms like Turnitin shouldn’t replace engagement or critical thinking but should complement them. Teachers should foster creativity and originality through meaningful interactions and reflective assignments, rather than relying solely on punitive technology. Let’s focus on human-centered learning while adapting to technological advances.”

Netizen Mark LP, on the other hand, reflects on the challenges of managing a large number of students while striving for quality education in the digital age. He resonates with my observation that it is difficult to check and improve students' written outputs when managing a large class size --in his case, around 200 students daily.

He emphasizes the importance of individual writing activities to develop independent writers, which is difficult to achieve if students don’t receive proper attention. Mark argues that the ideal class size for a writing course should be a maximum of 25 students. He also expresses frustration over the lack of action to address large class sizes, citing common excuses like insufficient classrooms and funding, despite numerous studies supporting smaller class sizes for improved outcomes.

For Angelica, it all begins with the teacher --their strategy. Commenting on my article, she says: “People opt to use technology as an aid (most likely, some are simply highly reliant on it) to save time and resources—but most importantly, what matters at the end of the day are the skills that cannot be replaced by these advances: humility, critical thinking, and creativity that come with real human connections. Loved this!”

Latifa agrees with my stance on the need for teachers to upgrade their pedagogy. She says, “This has been my contention since AI emerged. AI is not the issue; it is the human capacity to be critical with empathy at all times. This article has said it all…”

I thank the thousands of readers for reading and sharing my column piece. I’m sure many people out there also have contrary opinions. The most important thing is that we start a discussion on AI and its implications on education and continue to do so as a community, preserving our shared humanity amid technological advances.