It’s Not Just for the Birds
Have you ever wondered what those chirpy zebra finches are saying to one another? Now we know. Thanks to the diligent and creative research by Dr. Julie Elie, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies interspecies communication, we humans can understand what other zebra finches have always known: that those songs aren’t random but are comprised of eleven core calls that communicate who’s here, who’s coming, what they’re doing, and maybe even what they are planning to do.
What’s most brilliant about this translation from Zebra Finch to Human is that Dr. Elie enlisted the finches themselves to give her feedback and confirm the linguistic hunches she made. After compiling abundant data from thousands of recordings of the bird songs, recognizing recurring patterns, and compiling a “dictionary” of eleven “core” zebra finch words, she then devised ingenious experimental techniques that allowed zebra finches to respond to the words in the core dictionary. They either confirmed, rejected, or complicated (or confused) the dictionary definitions she was proposing, basically responding as she predicted or not. No core words made it into her zebra finch dictionary without this sign off–and she stayed open to the bird responses, actually learning more about bird communication from the birds themselves. In a nutshell, she used the most familiar active learning tool: feedback from the learners themselves. Instead of occupying the role of ornithological “sage on the stage,” she found a way to engage the birds themselves in the learning cycle. In the end, she didn’t just learn about bird-to-bird communication. She learned from the birds themselves.
Active v. Artificial Learning
I am thinking about this a lot because I recently heard back from a middle-school STEM teacher I’ve been working with for a while who was dismayed that their fancy private school has gone all-in with AI. (NB: I am purposely changing and disguising details here because I do not want anything punitive to happen to this teacher and I don’t know the borders of regulation at her institution.). I suggested to her that she try, as an experiment that she carefully observes and studies, a technique where two days a week she and her team of fellow teachers goes all in with the requisite “innovative” AI methods her institution is advocating, and then also have two days a week when the protocol is either “devices in bags” or carefully controlled, managed, studied use of devices (teacher’s choice). Friday would then be used as a recap day where, like those zebra finches, the students themselves reflect on all they learned and did that week, both using AI and not using AI or some combination of both.
That simple suggestion turned out to be, in the hands of a gifted and dedicated (human) teacher, pure gold. The kids not only loved doing it. They loved studying what they were doing, coming up with ways to measure what they were learning and how. They began challenging themselves (and one another) to come up with things for their non-AI days that AI couldn’t do.
And they compiled documents of all the things they, as brilliant and energetic and involved humans, were able to do that left AI in the dust. Literally. Apparently they divided up and made “learning to run faster and farther” a goal. Some used AI (really, simple search) to read about ways to improve one’s running. Others just practiced a bit more, but without doing the research using AI. Someone even brought in a physical book (imagine that!) from home that had ideas for improving speed and endurance. They used stop watches–old school and phones. They came up with alternative aerobic exercises for classmates for whom running was difficult. And they designed charts with all the results and insights they gained.
Running was just the beginning. In its simplicity, it became their baseline learning model. I haven’t heard all the specifics yet but I gather that they designed similar challenges for themselves adapted to traditional middle school subjects–algebra, geometry, language learning, writing, reading, social science, history, art . . . I can’t wait to learn more about what they learned.
Most important: whether they used AI as a tool or not, they learned that AI could not replace their bodies and it could not replace their will and it could not replace their creativity or their ability to know what was human and what AI. Like those zebra finches, they were the final arbiters of what counted, what was real, useful, or accurate. They decided that their own ability to know and identify, to test and experience and validate (yes, I’m thinking of those participatory zebra finches again) were key to learning–human, precious learning.
Curiosity Takes Confidence
In our earliest exchanges, this teacher said how her students had gone from proud, assertive, joyful learners to feeling discouraged and dependent on AI. That was what she hated most. AI was robbing their confidence. Without confidence, there’s no curiosity. Only acquiescence, a form of defeat. By alternating AI and non-AI days–and then (per the zebra finches) having the students report on what different ways they were learning–the students not only regained confidence and curiosity, but also escalated their own learning goals. They wanted to beat AI.
Prohibition Is Not Preparation
What I like about this experiment is it puts agency in the hands of students and in the hands of their teacher. That is, instead of AI being the prime mover of their learning, AI becomes a tool they use to learn and also the subject of their learning. They have input. They have determination. They have choice (including a choice of when not to use it). While I am hugely sympathetic to the “BAN AI!” movements across the country, in some ways they dis-empower students as much as the “AI ALL THE WAY!” movement. In both cases, there is a reduction of AI and a reduction of humanity. There is a denial of human power to see the limits of a technology or a fearful shrinking before the technology, as if it is so powerful that there is nothing we can do but run away. How in the world does fearfulness protect us? Ever?
In the experiment that my STEM colleague tried at their school, a few of the students have proposed an end-of-the-year science and art exhibit. The would like to pass out forms to all the visitors and challenge the visitors to guess which experiment or creation was done by AI, achieved with AI as a tool, or done without any AI at all.
These confident students are proud of their accomplishments and proud of their experiment. They want to invite other students, teachers, parents, friends.
And the students want to invite the school principal too.
***
PHOTO CREDIT: Courtesy of HASTAC. Staff photographer. Annual Conference, Arizona State University. Pictured, HASTAC Graduate Center Team: Kalle Westerling, Cathy Davidson, Lauren Melendez, Danica Savonick