Tag Archives: Teaching

AI and Learning: There’s a Fraction too Little Friction

Leave a reply

I’ve been thinking quite a lot recently about what happens to learning when we introduce generative AI.

My concern is that if AI makes it easier to complete a task, are we also making it easier to avoid the thinking that gets us there?

That’s why I was interested in a recent paper looking at human-AI collaboration at scale.

AI, Claudius

The researchers analysed almost 250,000 real-world conversations with Claude. Rather than looking at what AI could do in a controlled experiment, they looked at what people were actually doing with it.

There’s quite a lot of learning going on.

In 67% of learning and upskilling conversations, Claude engaged in some form of teaching. This wasn’t just school or university work. Software development, health and lifestyle, and business were among the most common areas.

The most common approach was combining conceptual explanation with step-by-step guidance.

So far, so good. But teaching and learning are not the same thing.

I can ask AI to explain how something works. I can also ask it to do the work for me. The two interactions might look superficially similar, but the consequences for learning are very different.

Then I read that almost half of the conversations involved some form of friction.

The AI misunderstood the question, made a mistake, couldn’t do what the user wanted, or perhaps the user’s instructions weren’t clear enough.

Normally, we think of this as something technology should get better at eliminating.

However, in 78.7% of these cases, users tried to recover from the problem, and when people challenged the AI’s reasoning, those attempts were successful 81.5% of the time.

This is much more interesting than the headline that AI can teach.

Resistance is not futile

There is a version of AI-supported learning that looks like this:

Ask a question. Get an answer. Move on.

There is a more productive version:

Ask a question. Get an answer. Notice something doesn’t make sense. Challenge it. Work through the disagreement. Correct the answer.

The second interaction looks rather like learning.

There is effort, uncertainty, feedback. There is the possibility of being wrong. The learner still has to think.

This brings me back to a question I have been exploring in some of my recent writing about AI and education:

Are we using AI to make learning more effective, or to make tasks more efficient?

A student who uses AI to produce a better piece of homework may well get a better piece of homework. But that doesn’t tell us whether the student has become better at the underlying task.

On the other hand, an AI system that helps a student formulate a question, tests their understanding, gives them feedback and challenges their reasoning could potentially be a very powerful learning tool.

The difference is what the human is doing.

The answer isn’t to keep AI away from learning. Quite the opposite. The potential is enormous.

But we should be careful about celebrating every reduction in effort.

Effort is the point. Productive effort drives learning.

If AI removes all of it, we may discover that we have superficially made learning “easier” but also thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

The interesting question isn’t whether AI can teach: it can.

The question is whether we can use AI to make learning easier without taking the learning out of it.

AI in Education: Are We Automating Learning or Augmenting Learners?

1 Reply

I was struck by a recent article in the Economist about whether AI is stopping children from learning.

The headline finding is extraordinary.

Recent research, based on 30 months of data from 26,811 Chinese secondary-school students, found that after adopting generative AI, students’ homework scores increased (on average by 18%), while the time they spent doing their homework fell (by 30%).

So far, so good. Except that their exam scores subsequently fell by 20%.

In other words, students were producing better homework, faster, but learning less.

The authors found that the problem was concentrated among students whose behaviour was consistent with outsourcing their homework to AI. Those who used AI but continued to spend roughly the same amount of time on their work experienced only small learning losses.

The Power of Productive Struggle

This made me think about productive struggle.

Learning is not simply about getting the right answer. It involves building and retrieving knowledge, making connections, trying something, getting it wrong, receiving feedback, revising your thinking and trying again.

That process requires effort and involves some friction or struggle. In the case of learning, in contrast to that of work, that effort is not a bug in the process but rather a key part of it.

This is consistent with the idea of “desirable difficulties” developed by Robert and Elizabeth Bjork: conditions that make learning feel harder or less efficient in the short term can, under the right circumstances, produce more durable learning.

The Tutoring Paradox

I keep coming back to Benjamin Bloom’s famous “2 sigma” research. Bloom found remarkably large gains from one-to-one tutoring compared with conventional classroom instruction. Shouldn’t using AI (tutors) result in similar learning gains?  

That would be the Holy Grail, but maybe we’re not there yet.  Tutoring isn’t simply a matter of giving each student the right answer. The tutor continually diagnoses where the learner is, asks questions, provides feedback, adjusts the level of challenge and keeps the learner engaged in the task. There is a human relationship involved too.

This is the question for AI in education.  How can AI provide the benefits of a tutor without removing the struggle that makes the learning happen?

Augmentation Works

Interestingly, a recent randomised experiment by Zara Contractor and Germán Reyes found that students using AI to learn an unfamiliar subject performed better on subsequent unaided knowledge tests, with the gains persisting a week later. But the strongest delayed gains came from students who used AI to augment their learning. For example, by asking it to explain concepts rather than using it to automate the production of their work. The authors found that AI users shifted time away from drafting and towards reading and searching for information.

To Be or Not To Be

The real distinction we should be looking at isn’t between “AI” and “no AI”.

It is between AI that does the thinking for you and AI that makes you think better.

If we optimise education for productivity (higher homework scores in less time) we may accidentally optimise away something much more important: the learning itself.

Coaching and Mentoring

Leave a reply

Today was my last day as Chairman of Infinitas Learning — and the end of an important chapter for me in educational publishing, following my earlier years as CEO of Sanoma Learning.

Those who know me well know how passionate I am about learning, and about the role organisations like Infinitas and Sanoma play in supporting learner outcomes and helping teachers in their vitally important work.

Following its acquisition by NPM Capital as lead investor, we have doubled the size of the business, including expanding into Portugal and Poland. Working on that growth — alongside the company’s digital and, more recently, its AI transformations — has been especially rewarding. There are enormous opportunities ahead to better support both teachers and students.

Most of all, I’ve valued the people. My colleagues at Infinitas and NPM Capital have been outstanding, and I’m genuinely grateful to have been part of the journey. I wish them every success for the future.

Over the past 15 years leading and chairing organisations in edtech and learning, I’ve accumulated hard-won experience in leadership, transformation, and what it takes to grow — both as an organisation and as a person. And I’m still very much learning. What continues to fascinate me is how much of leadership ultimately comes down to learning.

In the next phase, I want to put that experience to work more directly through coaching and mentoring, alongside my ongoing board commitments in edtech, including as Chairman of Ovivio.

Where I’d most like to help:
> Executive transition coaching — supporting leaders stepping into C-suite or senior roles for the first time.
> Strategic leadership — working through the real complexity of leading organisations through change.
> Personal effectiveness — helping leaders perform at their best.

For mentoring, my focus will naturally remain close to education and edtech (while avoiding conflicts with Infinitas or Ovivio). For coaching, the methodology is different, and I am keen to work more broadly across sectors — including healthtech and business services.

If any of this resonates, or if you simply want to catch up, feel free to reach out here or directly at: johnmartin@contentconnected.com

Looking forward to what comes next.

#learning #education #edtech #coaching #mentoring

Is the teacher still the ‘killer app’ in the age of AI?

Leave a reply

AI in education is often framed as a battle between humans and machines. Based on conversations with teachers, founders and investors over the past year, I believe the real opportunities lie in partnership, not replacement.

The OECD’s Digital Education Outlook 2026 frames AI’s role in relation to teachers across three paradigms: replacement, complementarity and augmentation. But there’s a second often overlooked dimension: institutional embedding.  Moats in education aren’t built on technology or data alone, but on alignment with pedagogical goals, curricula, regulations & governance, procurement processes and professional practice.

1. Replacement — The Productivity Play

In replacement, AI automates tasks historically done by teachers. For example, grading, summarising texts, preparing lessons, generating worksheets and providing basic feedback loops.

This is where much of today’s AI attention is focused. Tasks that were once labour-intensive can now be executed quickly using general-purpose large language models.

However,  technology that replaces discrete tasks can be easy to replicate.  Application-layer companies that don’t control workflow, data or distribution potentially become interchangeable.

2. Complementarity — Enhancing the Teacher

Complementarity is where AI does not replace teachers but meaningfully enhances their capacity. For example:

  • turning classroom data into real-time insights
  • tracking student progress against goals
  • flagging risks and opportunities
  • designing targeted interventions

Here, teachers retain judgement while AI expands insights and  sharpens execution. The result? More impactful and stickier solutions because:

  • the solution integrates with daily workflows
  • the value is tied to teacher judgement, not automation
  • switching costs rise as the technology adapts to context
  • integration with existing systems (LMS, assessment frameworks, schedules) deepens.

In Europe especially, where education systems are fragmented by language, standards and national curriculum requirements, this tailored integration is the key to durability.

3. Augmentation — Supercharging the Teacher

Augmentation involves human–AI co‑evolution: AI learns from teacher feedback over time, adapts to their pedagogical style, and augments their professional practice in ways that produce outcomes neither could achieve alone.

In theory, this is the next frontier.

But the evidence suggests caution. Recent cross‑sector analyses have found that human–AI teams often underperform the better solo performer — not because AI is weak, but because synergy is hard to design and requires:

  • structured feedback loops
  • task‑specific modelling
  • data that is pedagogically meaningful
  • long‑term usage and refinement.

These conditions are relatively rare — and do not emerge automatically from generic chatbots. Consequently, many augmentation efforts risk failing before a few succeed spectacularly.

This layer will be hard to build, slow to monetise, but potentially transformative if it materialises. The Holy Grail, but not for the faint-hearted investor.

But even the most advanced augmentation tools will fail if they don’t address a deeper challenge: institutional embedding.

The Overlooked Dimension: Institutional Embedding

If replacement, complementarity and augmentation describe how AI interacts with the teacher, the moat is arguably how deeply a solution embeds in the system.

Edtech solutions thrive where:

  • curriculum alignment exists
  • pedagogical norms reinforce its use
  • there are many rules and regulations
  • procurement frameworks are understood and effective go-to-market capabilities are developed and in place
  • teacher support boosts adoption
  • governance structures (schools, districts, ministries) endorse and fund it

Know-how about working with institutions and alignment with standards determine durability.

This is particularly true in Europe, where:

  • education is governed nationally and regionally
  • language and curriculum diversity creates product differentiation challenges
  • procurement cycles are long and complex
  • teacher autonomy is the norm.

A solution that is embedded institutionally — even if technically less advanced — will often outlive and outperform one that is technically stronger but misses the expertise around the institutions it is designed to serve.

This is where real moats are built.

The next edtech winners won’t rely on algorithms alone.  They’ll succeed by understanding that the best AI doesn’t replace teachers or even just work for them. It works with them.

Where do you see the biggest opportunities?

Looking forward >>

How big is the global teacher shortage?

1 Reply

According to UNESCO in a report published this week, we need to attract no less than 44 million additional teachers into the profession to achieve universal primary and secondary education by 2030.

¡Viva la profesora!

Put in to context, that’s more than half the size of the current global workforce of teachers (about 77M) and roughly the population of Spain!

Hello, Goodbye

The gap is caused by two main factors (with the impact and underlying drivers differing significantly by country):

  1. Expansion as demographics push education systems to grow (42% of the 44M), and
  2. Attrition due to teachers leaving the profession (58% of the 44M).

About 1/3 of the total demand for new teachers by 2030 comes from Sub-Saharan Africa (15M additional teachers). This is driven to a significant extent by demographics and growing access to secondary education (62% of the gap is to fill new teaching posts). However 93% of the 4.8M additional teachers required in Europe and North America, are needed because of attrition.

Push, Pull, Personal

There are clearly many factors that affect teacher recruitment, retention, job satisfaction and productivity, often driven by local dynamics. Broadly, the report highlights several “push factors” (e.g. working conditions, teacher well-being), “pull factors” (e.g. remuneration and professional development) and “personal reasons” (e.g. retirement, health, family circumstances) that influence whether people join the profession and how long they stick with it.

Can AI solve the problem?

There isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all answer to finding 44M new teachers in the coming years. AI can surely help in many areas, such as optimising the recruitment and deployment of the teaching workforce, and saving time on administrative tasks for teachers so they can focus on teaching (about half of the working time of a typical teacher is spent on non-teaching tasks outside the classroom).

However, beware of solutions that completely substitute teachers. The human teacher plays an essential role in the process of learning and coaching. Parents are unlikely to leave their (especially younger) children in the hands of a robot. Larger class sizes will likely exacerbate the negative “push factors” in the teacher workplace.

In my view, solutions that super-charge rather than disintermediate teachers are most likely to succeed.

Imagine all the Teachers

Imagine the positive impact we can make on the prosperity, well-being and sustainability of the next generation across the globe when we ensure universal access to primary and secondary education. On the other hand, imagine what declining levels of literacy and numeracy might mean, not only in a faraway land but in your own neighbourhood.

This is a high impact, solvable challenge. We should give it the priority it needs.