Schools across America are scrambling to ban ChatGPT and implement policies to detect AI-generated homework. Teachers are worried about cheating. Parents are demanding clarity on AI policies. Districts are investing millions in detection software.

The panic might be missing the real opportunity. The opportunity to revisit teaching methods that have proven more effective than worksheets and standardized tests, and can’t be AI-generated.

How AI Exposes Weaknesses in Current Teaching Methods

When a chatbot can draft a five-paragraph essay in seconds or complete a worksheet in less than a minute, those assignments lose their purpose. With AI in the mix, familiar assessments no longer give teachers a clear picture of what students actually know or how they think. This moment is forcing schools to ask a bigger question: if old methods no longer work, what does?

The solution isn’t necessarily something new. It lies in practices that have stood the test of time but were often sidelined in the push for efficiency. Now, the rise of AI is making them essential again. Three stand out: the Socratic method, handwritten work completed in class, and oral assessment. Together, these approaches reveal genuine understanding while cultivating the skills students need most in the AI era: critical thinking, creativity, and communication.

AI vs. Socratic Method

The Socratic method, which involves questioning students until they reach a more profound understanding, was education’s gold standard for 2,500 years. Modern classrooms abandoned it for efficiency, but the AI usage crisis is bringing it back with urgency.

Students can’t outsource thinking to a chatbot when facing live questions. Can they explain why their solution works? Can they apply concepts to new scenarios? Can they defend their reasoning when challenged? These abilities separate genuine learning from superficial knowledge regurgitation.

McKinsey research indicates that 87% of executives consider strong verbal communication and critical thinking the most valuable employee traits, which is precisely what Socratic dialogue develops. Tech companies like Google and Apple now include “Human-AI collaboration skills” in job descriptions, but they still require humans who can think independently and communicate complex ideas clearly.

The method works across subjects. Math teachers who use Socratic questioning report that students develop stronger problem-solving skills than those who learn through traditional problem sets. History teachers find that students retain information longer when they must argue different historical perspectives aloud. Science teachers observe improved experimental design when students are required to defend their hypotheses verbally.

Implemented well, the Socratic method transforms classrooms into spaces where students don’t just recall information; they know how to think critically.

AI vs. The Hidden Power of Handwriting

Typing may be faster, but neuroscience shows it isn’t always better for learning. Recent research using brain imaging has revealed that handwriting activates a broader network of the brain—including areas associated with memory, motor control, and language—than typing does. This broader engagement helps students encode information more effectively. Since handwriting takes more time, it also forces students to paraphrase and process ideas rather than transcribe. The result is deeper comprehension, stronger retention, and more original thought, outcomes that ChatGPT can’t replicate.

A reflective journal written by hand during class gives teachers a far more authentic snapshot of a student’s thought process. Likewise, in-class essays done with pen and paper reveal genuine understanding rather than the polished but hollow output AI can produce.

Schools that have reintroduced handwritten assignments report higher engagement and more original thinking. Students may resist at first about giving up laptops, but many quickly realize they think more clearly without digital distractions.

The benefits extend well beyond authenticity. Handwriting slows the pace of thinking just enough to encourage deeper processing, better retention, and more original ideas, outcomes that typing, and indeed AI, rarely deliver.

AI vs. Oral Assessment

Oral defense of ideas may sound old-fashioned, but it remains one of the most powerful tools in education. The moment students explain a concept aloud, their level of understanding becomes clear. Teachers can press further, ask sharper questions, and evaluate learning in real time.

This approach is spreading across K-12 classrooms, where schools report not only higher test scores but also an increase in student confidence. Teachers consistently note that when students must articulate concepts verbally, they reach a deeper level of understanding than written work alone reveals.

Oral assessments also surface insights that traditional tests miss. Students bring in personal experiences, cultural knowledge, and unique perspectives that enrich the classroom and give teachers a fuller sense of how each learner thinks. Research published in the Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education found that students who regularly engage in oral assessments demonstrate stronger achievement on complex reasoning tasks compared to peers evaluated only through written exams.

Unlike essays or worksheets, this is an area where AI can’t step in. A chatbot can generate a polished response, but it can’t think on its feet, adjust to follow-up questions, or show genuine confidence in the moment. Oral assessments force students to practice adaptability, clear communication, and critical reasoning.

While oral exams take more time than written tests, the payoff is undeniable. They provide a more accurate measure of comprehension, give students freedom of expression, and build the kind of confidence and communication skills that last well beyond school. Far from outdated, oral assessments are one of the most effective tools we have to cultivate both competence and connection in the classroom.

AI as Catalyst, Not Catastrophe

AI isn’t the end of education; it’s the wake-up call schools needed. It exposes the cracks in systems built on essays, worksheets, and standardized tests, and points us back toward practices that actually help students learn.
The Socratic method, handwriting, and oral assessment demand skills no chatbot can fake: curiosity, adaptability, creativity, and emotional intelligence. They also give teachers a more accurate sense of student comprehension and understanding.
Education’s role has never been to produce content; it’s to cultivate thinkers. If we’re willing to see it, AI may be the disruption that helps us do that better than ever.

Artificial intelligence isn’t just a subject for researchers and tech companies anymore; it’s becoming part of daily life.

That’s why London Morning is launching a new monthly column on AI with Mark Daley, Western University’s Chief AI Officer. The first conversation focused on how the technology is already shaping education and what it means for students, teachers and families.

Daley said AI should be seen as a “general-purpose technology,” comparing it to electricity or running water, something that eventually becomes woven into every corner of society and used in many different ways. In education, AI is being used in the classroom, in labs, and even in risk management situations.

However, much of the public attention is focused on how students are utilizing AI in their schoolwork. Daley said students can be trained to use AI for everything from study help to meal planning, but the emphasis is always on values.

“Ask yourself: am I using this to make me better? Did I write the essay myself and use AI for feedback, or did I have it write the whole essay so I could go out with friends? One of those makes you better, the other doesn’t,” Daley said.

When it comes to catching AI-written work today, Daley said it is nearly impossible.

“If the student is even moderately competent at prompting and proofreading, then you have no hope of knowing. It’s actually mathematically impossible to be certain.”

LISTEN | Artificial intelligence with Western’s Mark Daley on London Morning:

Daley noted that younger students are also experimenting with AI, but often get mixed messages about whether it’s useful or just “cheating.” He said banning it outright wouldn’t work; instead, parents and teachers should guide students back to their values and ask how the tools can be used to build skills, rather than bypass them.

Looking ahead, Daley believes AI will be as essential as reading and writing.

“The expectation, whether you’re going for a job or higher education, is going to be that you know how to use this tool effectively,” he said.

As a parent himself, Daley advises families not to make the conversation about “shiny technology,” but back to the focus on values. “How can you use this technology to live those values, not rob you of them?”

He also shared a practical tip for those who haven’t yet tried AI: pick a platform like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot, and experiment by automating the three tasks you dislike most about your job.

“It might not solve all of them,” Daley said. “But it could help with one or two, and in the process, you’ll learn how to use it.”

London Morning’s AI column with Mark Daley will air monthly, with the next segment on Tuesday, Oct. 14, at 7:35 a.m. You can tune in at 93.5 FM, online at cbc.ca/London, or on the CBC News app.

In a Boston court hearing last week, US district judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the Trump administration had illegally frozen Harvard’s funding and violated its first amendment rights under the pretence of fighting antisemitism.  

“A review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants [the administration] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on one of this country’s premier universities,” Burroughs wrote in her 84-page ruling.  

“Their actions have jeopardised decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes,” she continued.  

As well as unfreezing the funding, Burroughs granted Harvard’s request for a permanent injunction preventing the administration from withholding any future grants to Harvard “in retaliation for the exercise of its first amendment rights”.  

Burroughs reasoned that the administration’s snap decision to terminate funding, “ostensibly motivated by antisemitism”, was made before it learned of alleged antisemitism on campus, and thus the accusation was “at best … arbitrary, at worst pre textual”.  

White House spokesperson Liz Huston quickly vowed to appeal the ruling by an “activist Obama-appointed judge,” maintaining that Harvard had “failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years”. 

“Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future,” stated Huston, putting White House policy at odds with the legal ruling.  

Their actions have jeopardised decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research

Allison Burroughs, US district judge

The stage was set for the lawsuit this April when the administration sent Harvard a list of demands which Harvard President Alan Garber said violated the university’s free speech rights and exceeded the government’s authority under the civil rights act.   

After Garber publicly rebuked the demands, the government froze nearly USD $2.2bn in research funding, provoking Harvard to file a lawsuit against the administration.  

Though the ruling is a significant legal victory, Harvard’s wider battle with the administration wages on, with government separately trying to revoke Harvard’s ability to enrol international students on multiple fronts, as well as demanding it turns over international student data.  

Garber wrote in a statement that the September 3 ruling affirmed Harvard’s first amendment rights and validated its “arguments in defence of the university’s academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education”.  

Yet with an appeal on the horizon, Garber said the university would “monitor further legal developments and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfil our mission”. 

The legal battle has become the epicentre of Trump’s wider attack on US higher education, with Harvard the only university to challenge the administration in the courts.

Burroughs’ ruling was welcomed by associations and bodies across the sector, 28 of whom submitted an amicus brief in support of Harvard, led by the American Council on Education (ACE). 

“Nothing less is at stake here than the ongoing ability of universities to tackle our toughest medical, scientific and technological challenges, to train our country’s workforce, and to teach our future leaders,” the brief read.  

Responding to the ruling, ACE general counsel member Peter McDonough said he was “pleased to see a federal court affirm what we always knew to be true: the Trump Administration has ignored the law in pursuing politically motivated attacks on Harvard and other institutions.”  

However, experts have said it is unlikely the funding will be restored immediately.  

With an appeal looming, the case is likely to end up in the supreme court, currently composed of six conservative and three liberal justices. 

Harvard Alumni are urging the Ivy League university not to strike a deal with the administration, with a letter from alumni body, Crimson Courage, amassing over 16,000 signatures calling on the university not to bow to political pressure.

Last month, it was widely rumoured that Harvard was considering a $500 million deal with the administration, though talks appear to have stalled in recent days, with significant attention on a potential agreement between the White House and America’s oldest and richest institution.

Applauding Burrough’s recent ruling, the group’s legal adviser Anurima Bhargava said: “The court put a full stop to the Trump Administration’s efforts to take money from Harvard in violation of academic freedom and of the United States Constitution.  

“Not only is the bully stopped today, he is not allowed to try again tomorrow.”