The Pedagogy of AI Mistakes: Fostering Higher-Order Thinking

As generative AI (GenAI) tools become easily accessible, there is promise in using such tools to support instructors. To that end, this paper examines using GenAI to help generate slides from instructor authored course notes, emphasizing instructor and student perceptions. We examine an end-to-end education tool (NotebookLM), two general-purpose LLMs (Claude, M365 Copilot), and two coding assistants (Cursor, Claude Code). We first analyze whether GenAI generated slides are good'' via narrative assessment by educators. We choose the best slides to use (with some modification) in a real course setting, and compare the student perception of human vs. AI generated slides. We find that coding assistant tools produce slides that were most accurate, complete, and pedagogically sound. Additionally, students rate GenAI slides to be of similar quality as instructor-created slides, and cannot reliably identify which slides are AI-generated. Additionally, we find a negative correlation between a high quality rating and a high AI-generated'' rating, suggesting students associate poor quality with the source of the slides being AI. These findings highlight promising opportunities for integrating GenAI into instructional design workflows and call for further research on how educators can best harness such tools responsibly and effectively.

Higher education institutions are increasingly expected to ensure that both students and staff develop Generative AI (GenAI) literacies. In response, they are introducing professional development programs and embedding GenAI skills within student curricula. However, current educational frameworks typically assume a linear progression of GenAI literacy, implying that foundational technical understanding must precede creative application. This paper challenges such an assumption through a psychometric analysis of a taxonomy-based self-assessment instrument (n = 158). We applied Rasch measurement theory and Guttman ordering to map the latent perceived order of difficulty of GenAI skills across students, academics, and professional staff. Results reveal a fundamental divergence in perceived competence profiles: while academics follow a more traditional linear path, students exhibit an "inverted" profile, frequently mastering high-level creation tasks before acquiring foundational conceptual understanding. Furthermore, the correlation of skill difficulty between students and academics was weak (r = 0.188). We argue that this "skill bypass" creates a fragile sense of fluency, where high self-efficacy in prompting masks low literacy in AI mechanics. These findings challenge the "one-size-fits-all" curricula and provide the empirical basis for diagnostic-driven, modular interventions that foster genuine human-AI synergy.

Education is not merely the transmission of information or the optimisation of individual performance; it is a fundamentally social, constructive, and relational practice. However, recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) increasingly emphasise efficiency, automation, and individualised assistance, risking the weakening of relational learning processes. Despite growing adoption, AI in education (AIED) research has yet to fully articulate how AI can be designed in ways that sustain the social and ecological relationships through which learning occurs. In this paper, we re-centre education as relational and frame learner-AI interactions as context-specific relationships with clearly defined purposes and boundaries, rather than positioning them as substitutes for, or replacements of, human interaction. Grounded in participatory design practices and inspired by Indigenous worldviews (including Aboriginal Australian, Native American, and Mesoamerican traditions) that foreground reciprocity and relational accountability, we argue that meaningful educational AI should support learning with others rather than replace them. We advance this perspective by: i) conceptualising AIED as a relational design problem grounded in reciprocity; ii) articulating key tensions introduced by GenAI in education; and iii) outlining design directions that expand the AIED design space toward reciprocity, including when not to use AI, how to define pedagogical boundaries, and how to support responsible uses of AIED innovations that sustain communities and natural environments.