AI in Education: The challenge is to strengthen thinking, not replace it

Dr. Luis Medina Velázquez, a professor in the School of Education and Humanities at Anáhuac Mexico University, emphasizes that the educational use of artificial intelligence requires digital literacy, pedagogical criteria and shared responsibility among institutions, teachers and families.

Digital culture in education faces the challenge of transitioning from the indiscriminate use of technology to a deliberate, critical and responsible incorporation of technology into teaching. In this regard, tools such as artificial intelligence (AI) should not replace students’ ability to think but rather strengthen it.

Through “digital literacy”, this process must be accompanied by ethical criteria, safety, well-being and the ability to recognize misinformation, bias and synthetic content.

This is one of the main insights offered by Dr. Luis Medina Velázquez, an academic from the School of Education and Humanities at Anáhuac Mexico University, who argues that the educational debate surrounding new technologies must move beyond the question of whether to allow or ban them and focus instead on defining how, when and for what purpose to use them.

Technology isn't the issue; it's the way it's used

The approach suggests shifting the focus from access and digital literacy to AI citizenship. This enables students to use technology safely and critically, protecting their data and identity. Above all, it teaches them when to use artificial intelligence and when not to.

Dr. Medina Velázquez begins with an idea: technology has always been part of human development. From the earliest tools created for survival to today’s digital technologies, humans have transformed their environment and, at the same time, have had to adapt to the changes created by such tools. In this process, he argues that technology cannot be considered good or bad; rather, it depends on human agency.

This perspective takes on particular significance in the field of education, where generative artificial intelligence has advanced rapidly and institutions have had to face the challenge of defining criteria for its integration. In light of this, Dr. Medina Velázquez states: “The discussion right now is not about whether or not to use technology, but rather about determining which technology to use, for what purpose, at what age and under what criteria and conditions.”

Digital literacy for responsible citizenship

For professors in our undergraduate and postgraduate programs, one of the main challenges is ensuring that the use of technology is not limited to the technical mastery of devices and programs. Training must include the ability to analyze, question and use these tools responsibly.

“We need to educate people in what is currently called digital citizenship,” he explains. This involves developing not only technical knowledge but also the skills needed to use technology in a critical, reflective, careful, responsible and ethical manner.

Dr. Medina Velázquez also points out that information and communication technologies (ICT) have both positive and negative effects.

Its benefits include access to information and resources, creativity, collaboration, personalization and inclusion; while its risks include distraction, dependency, cognitive superficiality, the digital gap, misinformation, cyberbullying and overexposure.

In this context, the professor points out that restrictions on the use of cell phones and personal devices in various educational settings should be understood as part of a broader debate on how to regulate their use, without confusing regulation with a rejection of digital culture.

Using AI to expand capabilities

One of the central points of Dr. Medina Velázquez’s analysis is to define the moment when a given technology truly contributes to learning. His view is that technology should be incorporated when it strengthens human skills and encourages independent thinking.

From this perspective, the educational response should not rely exclusively on prohibition. He suggests combining regulation, standards and laws with digital literacy programs because “prohibiting things does not prevent people from exposing themselves to risks or problems. What needs to be done is to educate people.”

In this regard, he believes that this task corresponds to society as a whole. The government, educational institutions and families all have specific responsibilities. In universities, he emphasizes the need to establish appropriate governance of generative artificial intelligence, which addresses aspects such as access, quality content, technical and pedagogical training and the motivation and empowerment of the educational community.

“You should incorporate technology when it helps expand human capabilities. When it teaches you to think, when it teaches you to learn,” he says. On the other hand, its use should be limited when it replaces students’ skills and reduces their ability to make decisions.

The new challenge for educators: transforming mindware

The integration of AI into the classroom does not depend solely on access to platforms or devices. It also requires transforming the way teachers plan and implement learning.

“Teachers need a different mindset to understand which technologies to use, when to use them, for which type of student and at what point in the program,” explains the professor. For this reason, he considers pedagogical training to be essential as a complement to technical training.

This change also extends to evaluation. In light of tools capable of generating texts, answers or solutions, Dr. Luis Medina proposes evaluating not only the final result, but also the process the student followed to reach it. He refers to this oversight as the “traceability of learning”, which makes it possible to identify the thought processes used to complete an activity.

Technology, education and shared responsibility

Given the risks associated with the educational use of AI and other technologies, Dr. Medina Velázquez emphasizes the importance of addressing digital literacy from an early age. However, he cautions that children and adolescents do not always have the maturity to self-regulate their behavior and develop appropriate digital consumption habits.

Similarly, he emphasizes that a cell phone can serve both a technical and an educational purpose when there is a pedagogical plan that determines how and for what purpose it should be used.

The professor’s reflection thus places the individual at the center of the educational process: technology can become a tool for learning, researching and solving problems, but its educational value depends on the human decisions that guide its use.