Technology must not become a pedagogical authority

In a time when algorithms evaluate, correct and teach, Professor of Methodology at the University of Montenegro, Dr. Diana Vuckovic, warns that technology cannot and must not replace the human dimension of education. In an interview with “Vijesti”, she talks about the potential and dangers of artificial intelligence in the classroom, the ethical dilemmas it brings, and the role of teachers, which, instead of disappearing, is transforming into a mentoring, reflective, and empathetic one.

As a university professor and researcher in the field of education, how do you view the current wave of digitalization and integration of artificial intelligence into the education system?

The integration of artificial intelligence into the education system brings both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, digitalization and AI offer significant opportunities for personalization of learning (something that has been “dreamed of” in didactics and methodology for decades), more efficient monitoring of student progress, timely feedback, and the development of truly innovative teaching methods. AI-based tools allow teachers to better understand students’ needs, adjust the pace and style of teaching, and focus on the development of higher cognitive processes and skills - critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving. On the other hand, there are also numerous challenges - ethical, pedagogical, psychological, and social. It is important to ensure data privacy and security, as well as the transparency of algorithms. There is a real danger of over-reliance on technology in processes that are essentially deeply human, such as education. Insufficient critical digital literacy of the population, and the potential dehumanization of education, are serious topics that require attention and responsible reflection. I believe that the integration of VI in education should not be guided exclusively by technological possibilities, but by clear pedagogical principles and ethical frameworks.

What intrigues you most, and what worries you most, about AI in the classroom - and in higher education in general? Can artificial intelligence enhance the pedagogical process - or, as some argue, undermine the essence of the relationship between professor and student?

Most intriguing is the potential of AI to radically change the way we learn and teach. AI gives us the ability to create personalized, dynamic, and inclusive learning environments, where each student can progress at their own pace and according to their own interests. The fascinating idea is that technology can help uncover educational needs that we might not have noticed with traditional methods, and that it can relieve teachers of routine tasks and free up their time for some essential activities: mentoring, dialogue, and the development of critical thinking.

What worries me most is the possibility that in this process we will lose the human dimension of education. The relationship between professor and student is not just a process of knowledge transfer or, in the terms of critical pedagogy, a process of depositing knowledge in the banking model of education – but rather it is primarily an interactive relationship in a developmentally oriented educational ecosystem. This system offers space for the social construction of knowledge, and it is where motivation, inspiration and intellectual growth take place. If AI becomes the dominant mediator, there is a risk that this relationship will be reduced to a technical exchange of information, without the emotional and social component that makes education meaningful. In addition, the personalization of learning itself could reduce the so-called cognitive conflict, i.e. the mental situation in which we find ourselves before solving a problem that requires our full engagement and is in the zone of our further development. This cognitive conflict is a powerful driver of learning. I am also concerned about the issue of ethics and responsibility – who decides what data the algorithms use, on the basis of which criteria “pedagogical” recommendations are made and how to ensure the overall ethics of the use of AI in education. Namely, everything we do in education must respect the rules of academic integrity, and VI brings challenges in this regard.

In essence, I believe that AI can enhance the pedagogical process, but only if we use it thoughtfully and in the service of humans. The key is for technology to be a tool, not a pedagogical authority - to support the teacher, not replace him (that should not be the idea!). The essence of education, in my opinion, still lies in dialogue, empathy, and the shared pursuit of knowledge - and here AI can be a valuable assistant, but not a substitute for the teacher.

How is the role of teachers changing in an age when machines can explain, correct, grade, and even "teach" students?

The role of the teacher in the era of AI is not reduced - it is transformed. The teacher is no longer the primary source of information, but should be the creator of meaningful learning experiences. His role becomes more mentoring, reflective and social. Instead of transmitting knowledge (by the way, this transferable or transmissive character of teaching has long been considered invalid), the teacher today guides students on how to critically examine the information offered to them by AI, how to ask the right questions and develop the ability to use technology ethically and responsibly. The teacher becomes a guide through an abundance of data and situations, someone who helps students build (critical) understanding, not just information. This brings us back to the original idea of ​​pedagogy, because the pedagogue is fundamentally the one who guides the student, and all teachers, including university teachers, should be in this role at least while they are in the classroom. The teacher also remains crucial in preserving the human dimension of learning - in nurturing empathy, collaboration, intellectual curiosity, and moral reasoning. These are elements that no machine, no matter how sophisticated, can fully replicate.

AI brings new challenges to academic integrity - from plagiarism to “invisible” assistance. How does it change the understanding of knowledge and assessment?

AI opens a whole new chapter in the debate about academic integrity. While plagiarism challenges have traditionally been about copying someone else’s work, today we are faced with much more subtle forms – such as the “invisible” assistance of algorithms in writing, analyzing or even creating content. This forces us to reexamine not only the rules of evaluation, but also the very foundations of what we consider knowledge. Traditionally, assessment has been based on the assumption that work reflects the individual understanding and effort of the student. However, in the era of AI, the boundaries between the student’s contribution and the contribution of AI are becoming blurred. This leads us to ask: are we still measuring acquired knowledge, or are we now valuing the ability to use tools in a thoughtful and responsible way? I think we need to transform and evolve as both teachers and institutions. Instead of fighting AI as the “enemy of integrity”, we need to include it in the learning process and clearly define when and how its use is acceptable. The focus is increasingly shifting from the reproduction of knowledge to understanding, interpreting and making sense of it – what no tool can do for us. In addition, it is also meaningful to think about what we will actually assess: the products of the learning process (test answers, essays, various other written works) or the learning process itself. In other words, AI forces us to redefine what it means to “know” something and what it means to “learn”. If a student uses AI to reach a solution more quickly, the key question is no longer whether it is permissible, but whether he understands the process by which he arrived at that solution. In this sense, AI does not undermine academic honesty, it challenges us to understand it more deeply and maturely.

How can professors develop a critical attitude towards technology in students, and not just technical skills in its use? Or - what does teaching look like that uses AI, but remains human and empathetic?

Teachers today should not focus only on how students use technology, but on why and with what understanding they use it. A critical attitude towards technology is not developed through technical training, but through a pedagogical approach that encourages reflection, ethical reflection and independent decision-making, all within the system of a critical pedagogical paradigm. The first step is to make teaching a place for dialogue about technology, and not just a place for its uncritical application. Instead of prohibiting the use of AI tools, we can analyze with students how these tools function, what assumptions and biases they carry, how they shape our understanding of knowledge, truth, attitudes, values. In this way, AI becomes not only an auxiliary tool, but also a topic of learning.

Second, teaching that uses AI, but remains human-centered and empathetic, must emphasize experience, dialogue, and co-creation of meaning, or social constructivism. On a practical level, this means that teachers could: include reflective tasks in which students analyze their own use of AI tools; discuss ethical dilemmas and the consequences of decisions involving technologies; encourage interdisciplinary learning that connects technology to society, culture, and humanistic values; and create learning communities where technology is a tool for collaboration, not a substitute for human contact.

There is a real danger of over-reliance on technology in processes that are inherently deeply human, such as education. The lack of critical digital literacy among the population and the potential dehumanization of education are serious issues that require attention and responsible reflection. I believe that the integration of AI into education should not be guided solely by technological capabilities, but by clear pedagogical principles and ethical frameworks.

Will universities, at least those in the region and here, react quickly enough to adapt to new processes? And how do you see the future of university education in light of technological evolution?

I believe that the pace of adaptation of universities - especially in our region - will be uneven and slower than it should be. However, I believe that there is potential for profound transformation, and this will depend on the ability to recognize the broader picture of man and technology in the modern world. Universities are, somehow, conservative institutions by nature - they are the guardians of knowledge, tradition and academic values. This role is extremely important, but in the context of rapid technological change it can become an obstacle to development. In many of our institutions, transmissive teaching and an education model focused on content, exams and formal procedures still dominate, while digital pedagogy, interdisciplinarity and innovative approaches are slowly developing. However, I believe that the pressure of change - from the labor market, through student expectations, to global educational trends - will inevitably lead to a redefinition of the role of universities. The future of higher education, as I see it, will not be based only on the transfer of knowledge, but on the development of learning abilities (the so-called metacognitive skills), meaningful adaptation and critical thinking u i o a world that is constantly changing.

Universities that recognize AI as a partner in learning and research will become places where people and technologies successfully come together in an ethical environment. Such institutions will not only “produce” experts, but will also shape responsible citizens of a digital society. This, of course, requires vision and even courage on the part of academic staff and institutional leadership.