This article is the first in a series on techniques for integrating Generative AI into faculty professional development. The following article will examine how to use AI case studies to encourage meaningful discussions with teachers.
Over fifteen years of working with and supporting high school teachers, I have seen new tech tools and various teacher responses to those tools come and go in classrooms. The reactions to these fleeting changes included pioneers or early adopters who tried anything they saw and didn’t necessarily need too much support to implement. Then, some traditionalists felt strongly about their practice and the art of teaching and did not see a need to integrate anything new. Finally, a larger group was on the fence, torn about the tension between being an excellent teacher in the traditional sense and demonstrating the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of students and appropriate new technologies. The latter group often needed inspiration: a contextual introduction, a little hand-holding or coaching, or time to see how things would shake out before jumping in. Then, Generative AI arrived.
I knew something was different about this particular technology. It felt much more emotional to my colleagues. Some thought this technology directly conflicted with what they were trying to do in the classroom, meaning that students would take shortcuts. The conversations we had were about peaks and valleys. We would leave a session on a high, feeling like we had made progress and understood. However, by the next meeting, people were arguing and leaving upset due to not understanding why they were so troubled by Generative AI. I originally introduced Gen AI as a disruption we needed to learn about and offered suggestions that might help teachers and students. However, teachers began to stop listening and became very defensive.
The teachers’ responses could be categorized according to their experiences. They either wanted to explore the topic, chose not to explore it, or rejected it for personal reasons. To engage in conversations about this technological disruption, the framework through which it was presented was clear: it needed to originate from the middle and acknowledge the accompanying feelings. If someone is too enthusiastic, it may be perceived as threatening, causing others to shut down; alternatively, if someone is too indifferent, the sense of urgency for discussion gets dismissed. This situation was causing frustration for me as the facilitator of these conversations and for my colleagues. A new approach I had never tried before would need to be adopted. I aimed to develop mutual understanding and respect for experiences, which I reinforced before an authentic dialogue about this technology could happen.
This new approach led me to adopt a values-centered framework. To introduce this, I asked teachers three key questions:
- What skills do you value most in your discipline?
- To what extent do large language models (LLMs) disrupt, for better or worse, your discipline’s skills and values?
- To what extent do you see your discipline’s skills and values needing to be protected from or augmented by LLMs?
These questions helped us identify the core reasons for teachers’ emotional reactions to GenAI. For many, the technology seemed to challenge fundamental skills they aimed to cultivate in students—critical thinking, creativity, reasoning, writing, and reading. Teachers feared these skills were at risk, and this fear was manifested across disciplines, from English to STEM. This realization fostered a sense of unity and opened the door to authentic dialogue. Teachers began to articulate their concerns and the potential opportunities that GenAI presented. Importantly, this framed GenAI not as a personal issue but as a challenge requiring a collective, school-wide approach.
The values-centered approach involved our district’s established structure of technology integrators. During quarterly meetings, school and district tech leaders discuss technology’s role in education. At our final meeting of the year, I asked a foundational question: Why did we become educators and technology leaders, and what values drive our work? The conversation was rich and filled with personal stories reinforcing our shared purpose. One technologist later applied this strategy in her professional development sessions, noting that it “grounded the conversation in understanding and trust.”
Built on that conclusion, we formed self-selected inquiry groups of teachers to explore GenAI. These groups focused on understanding the technology and its implications, setting student guidelines, and creating a shared knowledge base. At our first meeting, we used the values-centered framework to establish goals. Teachers included their core values in these goals. One wrote, “To show students the value and importance of using their minds in their work without relying on technology.” This sentiment resonated widely and provided a foundation for our collective efforts.
Below, I summarize the three groups with whom I have implemented the value-centered approach and the outcomes:
- Technology Integrators: We encouraged these tech-savvy educators to consider how GenAI might challenge the values of their less tech-oriented colleagues. The subsequent conversation fostered empathy and helped them avoid unintentionally isolating fellow teachers.
- Multi-Disciplinary Inquiry Group: This group of teachers explored how GenAI might impact their teaching practices and the essential skills they aim to develop in their students. They expressed concerns about the potential impact on foundational skills, which they already see as challenging.
- Entire Faculty: This was our most powerful experience. By framing GenAI as a shared responsibility, we encouraged a school-wide dialogue about supporting colleagues and students in navigating this new landscape. While not everyone fully grasped the implications, we successfully opened lines of communication and fostered mutual understanding.
These experiences demonstrated the value of grounding conversations about GenAI in shared values. I quickly realized this was something that I would use with the implementation of other technology in the future. If teachers believe you are preaching or not listening, they will shut down. Values helped us establish a starting point and personal alignment, allowing us to do the following:
- Validate emotions: It acknowledges that strong reactions connect to deeply held beliefs.
- Personalize the impact: It recognizes that teaching is a deeply personal endeavor.
- Build understanding: It fosters a culture of shared values and collaborative problem-solving.
- Facilitate respectful dialogue: It allows for difficult conversations to move forward constructively.
Looking ahead, we plan to take additional steps, including developing case studies with guiding questions, facilitating value-driven conversations within individual departments, evaluating GenAI software, and incorporating student voices into the discussion.
Centering ourselves on our core values should be at the heart of approaching any challenge in education. This values-driven approach, initially employed for GenAI, has broad applications for navigating any disruption or complex issues we face in our schools. It’s a powerful tool for fostering understanding, encouraging collaboration, and ensuring technology serves our educational goals.
About the author
Meredith Dutra has been an educator for over fifteen years and is currently the technology integration specialist at Scarsdale High School. Before joining Scarsdale High School in the fall of 2019, she was a classroom social studies teacher and K-12 STEM coordinator. Meredith’s career allows her to see education differently, involving planning, implementation, and action. She is passionate about embedding real-world applications in the classroom that students can use beyond their K-12 experience. She realizes the need for in-depth media literacy, including artificial intelligence, and has made it one of her top priorities for students and teachers today. In 2023, Meredith won the Lower Hudson Regional Information Center award for Outstanding Innovative Educator for her work in supporting teachers and students through their exploration of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Meredith has a master’s in instructional technology from Pace University and an M.A. in educational leadership from Bank Street Graduate School of Education in New York City.
