Teachers must reclaim their authority in age of AI

CLASSES have ended for the semester, and final examinations have begun in the university where I am teaching. As an educator, I am taking stock of the past semester and how it went.

While entering the Cumulative Assessment Marks (CAM) into the system, I found myself reflecting on the effectiveness of the assignments in achieving our intended learning outcomes.

This semester, I made a conscious shift in designing assignments that were less dependent on generative AI tools. In past semesters, research and term papers were a staple of assessment.

Having come from an academic tradition that saw research papers as the apex of intellectual achievement, I once believed that by graduation, a student should be able to write a well-argued academic essay.

But the digital era has complicated that assumption. The ease with which AI-generated content can be accessed has raised serious questions about authorship, understanding and integrity.

Even when the final product looks polished, there is a troubling uncertainty: Whose work is truly being assessed?

Some students copy content from AI without citation while others paste sources without engaging critically with the material. This trend made me rethink what it means to measure understanding in today’s classrooms, so I incorporated alternative assessments, for example, zine projects, forums, engagement with primary texts, and reflective essays. Many of these ideas came from AI itself, ironically enough.

The results were mixed. While the content quality and language fluency improved, the underlying issue remained – there was an over reliance on AI-generated input.

In Malaysia, no institution has outright banned AI usage in education. It is, after all, a tool – one that many now consider indispensable to varying degrees. AI offers undeniable benefits in terms of time-saving, breadth of information, and rapid idea generation.

But we must resist the simplistic slogan that “Natural Intelligence (NI) is better than Artificial Intelligence (AI)” without unpacking what NI actually entails.

NI is more than just the absence of AI. It includes critical reasoning, moral discernment, intuitive insight, and even spiritual and religious consciousness. These cannot be easily replicated or replaced outright by algorithms.

We need to re-frame the conversation: It is not a question of fighting AI or fleeing from it but rather how to engage with it wisely and coexist meaningfully.

This calls for a transformation of our educational systems. Curriculum developers must begin to rethink the integration of AI in pedagogical design. What tasks should remain solely in human hands? Where can AI assist without supplanting NI?

Educators, technologists, and policy makers must collaborate to craft ethical, sustainable frameworks for learning. Above all, the ethical dimension must not be neglected. Integrity of both process and product must be emphasised if we are to prevent a complete outsourcing of thought to machines.

Here, the teacher-student relationship becomes even more critical. The presence of a discerning, wise teacher is vital. The teacher’s role is not just as a content deliverer but also as a guide, mentor and moral compass.

Teachers must reclaim their authority and be seen as more than mere facilitators. Students must recognise that while AI can generate answers, it is their human teachers who can offer wisdom and holistic understanding. This requires fostering more human interaction, not less.

We should remember that humanity’s most transformative inventions, from the printing press to the Internet, have always required discernment and ethical responsibility.

AI is no different. As beings gifted with reason, we must ensure that we govern our tools wisely and responsibly and not be governed by them.

ASSOC PROF DR MEGAWATI MORIS AHAS

Kulliyyah of Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences

International Islamic University Malaysia