Notes
It’s Inconvenient, and It’s Worth It:
The Hard Work of Reducing Technology to Retain Humanity
Erin Neebel
I recently listened to a podcast with John Delony, An Honest Take on Parenting Today With Dr. Becky Kennedy, and Dr. Kennedy made a comment that having kids is "inconvenient" which goes against the convenience our culture seems so fixed on finding. She went on to discuss how despite the inconvenience, having and raising kids is incredibly worthwhile. As a mother, I related to this a great deal. There’s so many things that having changed in my life since having children, and now with two under three, my time is rarely my own. And yet, I know it’s worth it. It’s worth it to stay home and see their milestones, the millions of tiny moments of trial, joy, sorry, and simplicity that add up into their childhood, into the memories I’ll want back one day, even if today it is hard, it is inconvenient, to wait for my toddler to choose her clothes and THEN to put them on, to watch the tupperware spilled across the kitchen again as the baby explores, to finish a grocery run with two screaming children because the toddler couldn’t push the cart and the baby wants to be held again.
But isn’t this paper about technology and AI in the classroom? How does it fit with raising kids? In short, sometimes we have to do the hard work before we can understand the benefits. Don’t let this completely deter you from AI either - there are merits, as other essays will discuss, into how AI can be useful in the classroom, how it can be a powerful tool to bridge gaps and support students and teachers alike. AI has been touted as a convenience, something to help reduce the time it takes to complete tasks, and for students (and even teachers), this is enticing. Who doesn’t want more time? We’re starting to see how AI is showing up in other areas of our day-to-day lives, not just in how our students use it. However, I write caution to leaning too far into technology, especially in the early years of understanding AI usage and the effect it has on our brains and our mental health. There’s something incredibly powerful about our humanity, our ability to critically think and reason and take in a myriad of things that allow us to make a decision that no complex computing or AI could ever replicate (Mairn 21). We need to encourage our students to train their own minds, to challenge themselves in tasks without technology before we can encourage them to utilize it safely.
One of the early articles that has examined the effects of ChatGPT, Your Brain on ChatGPT, investigated how the use of AI influenced students writing an essay. Using three groups, one using a LLM, one using Search Engines, and one using Brain-Only, participants were asked to write an essay with their assigned support (Kosmyna 2). Researchers used electroencephalography (EEG) to record participants’ brain activity (Kosmyna 2). Among their findings, the researchers noted “AI tools, while valuable for supporting performance, may unintentionally hinder deep cognitive processing, retention, and authentic engagement with written material. If users rely heavily on AI tools, they may achieve superficial fluency but fail to internalize the knowledge or feel a sense of ownership over it.” (Kosmyna 138). The need to internalize knowledge, though seemingly less pressing given the overabundance of information literally at our fingertips, is still something that is essential in building cognitive processing skills. We might not need to internalize everything, but knowing information and being able to recall and utilize it, especially given personal connection and ownership over that understanding, is a skill that supports critical thinking. This study was conducted over a four month time period, so the results are only a snapshot of the effects we’re beginning to see with AI usage. In the end, “these findings support the view that external support tools restructure not only task performance but also the underlying cognitive architecture…As reliance on AI tools increases, careful attention must be paid to how such systems affect neurocognitive development, especially the potential trade-offs between external support and internal synthesis” (Kosmyna 136).
The caution shared from this research is not the only example of caution among academia regarding the use of AI. An article from the British Journal of Educational Technology cautions against the potential of “metacognitive laziness” (Fan 489). While GenAI can certainly help with some of the cognitive load, something teachers are well accustomed too, the continued use of GenAI has potential to “lead to habitual avoidance of deliberate cognitive effort, a phenomenon echoing the emergence of what we term metacognitive laziness “ (Fan 492). If we feel like our students are already cognitively lazy, the overuse of AI could further exacerbate the issue. These researchers noted the need to continue developing “self-regulated learning” which requires “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviours directed toward achieving personal goals,” as well as its complement, metacognition (Fan 491). As secondary teachers, we are at the forefront of encouraging and teaching students to use these self generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. As they continued their study, these researchers clearly state that the existing research shows “the results are mixed and inconclusive” (Fan 494).
Our understanding of the effects AI has on our motivation, our writing, our very thought processes, is still in its infancy at this time and more longitudinal research is needed to better understand the effects. Mazhar Bal and Emre Öztürk, also writing for the British Educational Research Journal, after reviewing writing with technology (especially AI) in the K-12 world concluded: “It is important to examine the relationship between technology use and cognitive development through neuropsychological research, to investigate the long-term effects of AI-supported writing systems and to analyse technology-supported writing processes in different sociocultural contexts” (1309). Approaching AI and technology in our classrooms requires we take intentional consideration about how we’re asking our students to use technology and how that is or is not encouraging their ability to think critically and maintain high levels of cognitive development. At the heart of our teaching, we have to truly see each student as a unique individual, not one that fits into the cogs of the education machine we’re so often forced to push them towards, especially when it comes to incorporating technology.
Michael Gerlich, a professor at the Swiss Business School, conducted some of his own research to examine how AI impacts critical thinking skills and to look more closely at the role cognitive offloading plays in AI usage and critical thinking (2). In a study of over 650 participants from the United Kingdom, a survey of 23 questions was conducted (Gerlich 8). While participants were self evaluative in their use of a Likert scale, the results are particularly interesting for the young generation (Gerlich 8). Gerlich found “ Younger participants (17–25) exhibited higher AI tool usage and cognitive offloading, but lower critical thinking scores. In contrast, older participants (46 and above) showed lower AI tool usage and cognitive offloading, with higher critical thinking scores (10). Additionally, using the demographic variables collected, Gerlich also noted that “education level, age, and occupation were found to have
significant effects, highlighting their critical roles in shaping cognitive engagement” (13). Seeing how quickly differences of age, education, and eventually, occupation influence critical thinking in the age of AI further demonstrates just how important our job as secondary teachers is as we continue to confront the usage in our classroom and our society.
Up to this point, a lot of the research I have shared has been rather bleak, showcasing the difficulties AI poses to teachers. We know that there are many benefits that AI has, and delving further into benefits for cognitive offloading (and teaching students when and how to do so) are elements that must also be considered. The “collaboration between learners and AI in future learning and hybrid intelligence is inevitable, so offloading and onloading cognitive and metacognitive load should be a dynamic and developmental process…and learners do need scaffolding to learn how to ethically and effectively divide labour with AI and actively develop their metacognitive skills (Fan 506). Thankfully, other authors in this collection have begun to cover some of those strategies for incorporating AI, and I encourage readers to further explore their writing for additional ideas and resources on how to incorporate AI. My suggestions, in contrast, will focus on keeping AI out of the classroom in favor of the elements we need most - our students and their unique humanity as they come of age with technology.
Adrienne LaFrance, the executive editor of The Atlantic, poignantly suggests that “we are on this planet to seek knowledge, truth, and beauty - and that we only get so much time to do it” (20). She reminds us that “tapping a ‘like’ button is not friendship; it’s a data point” and we owe our relationships more than existence and sustainability in a digital world (LaFrance 19). Instead, in our classrooms, we need to focus on providing spaces for our students to authentically connect with each other, through conversation, discussions, writing (yes, more handwritten options), and shared reading experiences. We need to teach them how to tap into their own humanity, the power that their personal observations and thoughts and feelings have when given the time to explore without the aid of technology. They deserve the opportunity to figure out who they are outside of a screen and to grow into that potential.
Michael Peters and his colleagues in their research of AI and the Future of Humanity, opted to ask ChatGPT about its intelligence, and shared that the response received indicated “ChatGPT-4's intelligence is limited to language processing and does not encompass other forms of intelligence such as emotional intelligence, spatial intelligence, or social intelligence.” (833). These types of intelligence, the emotional, spatial, and social realms, are where we can focus and encourage our students to grow in understanding. Much of this work needs to be done outside of the use of technology too, especially since the value of human interaction, particularly face-to-face interactions, can’t be replaced by screens or algorithms.
The work in our classrooms goes much further than ensuring our students can read, write, and think. Often, especially in the secondary classroom, we are helping our students better understand themselves, their unique personhood and identity. Adrianna Prothero, writing with Education Week, looked further into some of their survey data regarding students and their SEL support at schools post pandemic. I found it interesting that “many students indicated they could use more guidance in answering some of the big questions around identity. When asked if adults at their school were helping them figure out their identity—who they are, what they want to be, where they belong, and what they believe—a little less than a quarter of students said they completely agreed with the statement (Prothero). Students are seeking connection and understanding, and turning to technology to answer some of those big life questions isn’t helping. Prothero also found “forty-four percent of middle and high school students reported…that their level of social anxiety and loneliness has gone up” since the pandemic. Even this information is dated, published in 2021. GenAI can help us to find information, but we must be the critical processors of that information and what it means outside of the “complex computing” that artificial intelligence really is (Mairn 21). We must encourage our students to work together. We must build safe spaces for them to do the messy and slow work of learning about themselves, of learning how to learn and think and communicate.
Works Cited
“An Honest Take on Parenting Today With Dr. Becky Kennedy.” The Dr. John Delony Show, 16
June 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-honest-take-on-parenting-today-with-dr-becky-kennedy
Bal, Mazhar, and Emre Öztürk. “The Potential of Deep Learning in Improving K-12 Students'
Writing Skills: A Systematic Review.” British Educational Research Journal, 2025, pp.
1295–1312. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4120.
Fan, Yizhou, et al. “Beware of Metacognitive Laziness: Effects of Generative Artificial
Intelligence on Learning Motivation, Processes, and Performance.” British Journal of Educational Technology, 2025, pp. 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544.
Gerlich, Michael. “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the
Future of Critical Thinking,” Societies, vol. 15, no 6, 2025, pp 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
Kosmyna, Nataliya, et al. “Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt When
Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task.” Arxiv (preprint), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872.
Lafrance, Adrienne. “In Defense of Humanity.” Atlantic Monthly, vol. 332, no. 1, July 2023, pp.
18-20. EBSCOhost,
research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=4474a65d-7d08-3580-b23f-48ad0def7804.
Marin, Chad. “AI and Emerging Technologies in Education: A Conversation With Sid Dobrin.”
Computers in Libraries, Nov. 2024, pp.19-21.
Peters, Michael A., et al. “AI and the Future of Humanity: ChatGPT-4, Philosophy and
Education – Critical Responses.” Educational Philosophy & Theory, vol. 56, no. 9, Aug.
2024, pp. 828–62. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uni.edu/10.1080/00131857.2023.2213437.
Prothero, Adrianna. “Middle and High School Students Need Social-Emotional Learning, Too.
Are They Getting It?” Education Week, 12 October 2021.
Licensing
Copyright Erin Neebel, 2025. Licensed CC BY-NC 4.0.