Post

I was happy to see an honest review of lesson planning with "AI" in the cover article from this MTLT. I was thrown by the somewhat contradictory presentation in the journal. Maybe the partially completed progress bar is intended to imply that we are not there yet, despite the directive title.

A more appropriate title would have been "Don't Lesson Plan With AI", considering the authors describe the results in the introduction as "less than inspiring" and conclude that "we do not think AI is ready to be used in this way" after pointing out several unresolved issues. #ITeachmath #MTBOS

Was the highlighted text on page 2 a pull quote? Because I'm not seeing where the authors wrote this sentence, and it sounded like the authors concluded that K-12 teachers *cannot* reliably prompt ChatGPT to create more ambitious, student-centered mathematics lessons...

I appreciate the authors not over-anthropomorphizing chatbots, although there were multiple times where they referred to a chatbot making assumptions or choices. I would avoid describing text-generation this way since, at times, it seemed to imply a level of metacognition the software does not have.

What stood out to me as conspicuously missing were failing to acknowledge three things in particular: 1. Teachers having to do this level of lesson planning is wild, and this should be much less labor-intensive (or unnecessary) if teachers have sufficient curriculum resources.

2. These lessons aren't "crafted" by chatbots, it is the work of the teacher who would "have to sift through some subpar tasks like this one before finding one worthwhile" iterating on an inefficient process that involves reading and re-reading, assessing and editing, validating, and doing it again