AI in the Classroom: What is it Amplifying?

Most teachers are not debating whether AI belongs in schools anymore. Instead, what many are trying to make sense of now is something a little more uncomfortable.

Students are turning in work that looks stronger than it did a year ago. Essays sound more confident. Organization is logical. Vocabulary is suddenly…”ambitious.” And teachers are left staring at the page thinking: is this really growth and learning?

Used carelessly, AI can hide confusion the way spellcheck hides weak grammar. Used intentionally, it can strengthen the practices that actually lead to learning. The difference is not the tool. It is an honest reflection about how students are using it.

The four questions below are meant to function like a diagnostic. They are designed to help teachers notice what generative AI is actually amplifying in their classrooms. These questions are worth wrestling with, together, in grade-level, department, PLC, and leadership teams.

1. Are We Designing AI Use That Requires Students to Think?

In some classrooms, AI functions like a thinking partner. In others, it quietly does the thinking for students. If we’re honest, many of us have had moments where the work looked great… until we asked students one follow-up question, and it was clear that understanding fell apart.

AI can support thinking, but it can also replace it. That distinction is not technological; it is instructional. It lives in the tasks we design and the expectations we set for how students interact with AI outputs.

If students are not wrestling with ideas, learning stalls no matter how polished the final product may look. Instructional design shapes whether AI becomes a shortcut for learning or a catalyst for deeper levels of learning.

2. Are We Intentionally Using AI to Strengthen Feedback Cycles?

Most teachers know the feeling of giving thoughtful feedback only to see it fixed in five minutes and forgotten by lunch.

Generative AI can respond to student work instantly, which sounds like the dream for teachers. But speed alone does not make feedback effective. What matters is what students do with it.

Are students learning how to evaluate feedback and revise meaningfully? Do they understand why the changes they make improve their work? Or are they just blindly accepting suggestions and moving on?

AI can improve appearance very quickly. Improving understanding takes intention.

3. Are We Designing AI Experiences That Support Transfer?

One of the hardest parts of teaching is helping students apply learning beyond a single assignment.

AI can move ideas across contexts effortlessly. Students cannot, at least not without practice. If AI is only used to complete isolated tasks, transfer remains unlikely. The real question is whether AI use is helping students connect ideas, apply learning in new situations, and see relevance beyond schoolwork.

If we want students prepared for life beyond our classrooms, AI cannot just help them complete work. It must help them connect it.

4. Are We Teaching Students How to Use AI with Agency and Discernment?

This may be the most important question of all.

If students rely on AI to make decisions for them, agency shrinks. If they learn how to question outputs, evaluate quality, and make informed choices, agency grows.

Discernment does not develop automatically. It has to be modeled and taught. Rules and policies alone will not form thoughtful users of generative AI.

In faith-based schools especially, this is not just an instructional issue. It is a formation issue. We are not simply shaping students who can produce stronger assignments. We are molding Christian learners who must understand how to use these powerful tools wisely and ethically.

What the Answers to These Questions Reveal

Taken together, these questions point to a simple truth: generative AI is not an instructional strategy. It is an amplifier.

• It amplifies clarity OR confusion.

• It amplifies thinking OR shortcuts.

• It amplifies meaningful feedback OR surface polish.

• It amplifies transfer OR task completion.

• It amplifies agency OR dependence.

The real issue is not whether students are using AI. It is what that use is revealing about learning and about the kind of learners we are forming.

If you or your team are unsure or disappointed by your answers to these questions, it does not mean you are behind. It means you are paying attention and are in a perfect position to grow and learn.

Generative AI is not going away. It will continue to advance. It will continue to amplify.  The question is: what will it amplify in your school?

As educators, we have a responsibility to ensure it amplifies clarity, thinking, growth, and agency, not shortcuts and surface polish. That work cannot be accidental. It must be led.

That is why I’ve created resources over the past several years to support educators in stewarding AI wisely. And it is why I believe school leaders must drive this conversation intentionally.

AI will continue to advance and become more impactful. The real question is whether the learning in your school will continue to do the same.

The AI Blueprint Summit

If you want to learn how to align your faculty’s use and understanding of AI, amplify student learning, and build a healthy, mission-aligned AI culture in your school, I encourage you to bring your leadership team to the AI Blueprint Summit this summer.