From Artificial Intelligence to Real Dummies-Scilight

Digital Technologies Research and Applications

Article

From Artificial Intelligence to Real Dummies

Downloads

Vivian, R. (2025). From Artificial Intelligence to Real Dummies. Digital Technologies Research and Applications, 4(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.54963/dtra.v4i2.1205

Authors

  • Robin Vivian

    PERSEUS Laboratory (UR 7312), UFR MIM, Université de Lorraine, Metz 57006, France

Received: 28 March 2025; Revised: 13 May 2025; Accepted: 18 May 2025; Published: 25 May 2025

As educational policies increasingly advocate integrating generative artificial intelligence (AI) into teaching practices, important questions arise about its effect on students’ cognitive development. By observing how students use large language models (LLMs), we can see their potential to disrupt traditional learning frameworks, such as Bloom’s Taxonomy. This article explores how AI influences students’ work habits, knowledge acquisition, and cognitive skills based on two years of observations of 70 first‑year computer science students in an 180‑hour programming course. The results suggest that generative AI could undermine the hierarchical structure of Bloom’s Taxonomy by enabling students to bypass essential cognitive processes, such as comprehension, application, and analysis. This allows them to replace their personal efforts with AI‑generated results. These findings raise concerns about the erosion of critical thinking and problem‑solving skills, which could reshape educational goals established since the 1960s. Rather than taking a position for or against the use of AI, the article aims to stimulate debate about its long‑term implications for developing and managing students’ knowledge and skills. The article highlights the need for teachers and policymakers to address ethical challenges and strategies that ensure AI enhances, rather than replaces, cognitive engagement in learning. After an introduction, Chapter 2 provides an overview of Bloom’s taxonomy. Chapter 3 explains the principles of how LLMs work. The next chapter describes how students use LLMs based on behavioral observations. Before concluding with the importance of policy decisions to be made in the coming years, Chapter 6 discusses how LLMs can influence teaching methods.

Keywords:

Generative AI Education Behavior

References

  1. Bloom, B.S.; Engelhart, M.D.; Furst, E.J.; et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain; Longmans, Green: New York, NY, USA, 1956.
  2. Anderson, L.W.; Krathwohl, D.R.; Bloom, B.S. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2001.
  3. Krathwohl, D.R. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Pract. 2002, 41, 212–218.
  4. Jain, J.; Samuel, M. Bloom meets Gen AI: Reconceptualising bloom's taxonomy in the era of co-piloted learning. 2025, Not Peer-Reviewed. Preprints.org. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202501.0271.v1
  5. Krutka, D.G., Heath, M.K., Willet, K.B.S. Foregrounding technoethics: Toward critical perspectives in technology and teacher Education. J. Technol. Teach, Educ. 2019, 27(4), 555–574.
  6. Lee, M.; Winzenried, A. The Use of Instructional Technology in Schools: Lessons to Be Learned; Acer Press: Camberwell, VIC, Australia, 2009.
  7. Groff, J. Personalized Learning: The State of the Field and Future Directions; Center for Curriculum Redesign: Boston, MA, USA, 2017. Available online: https://dam-prod.media.mit.edu/x/2017/04/26/PersonalizedLearning_CCR_April2017.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2025).
  8. Zawacki-Richter, O.; Marín, V.I.; Bond, M.; et al. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2021, 18, 1–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
  9. De la Higuera, C.; Iyer, J. AI For teachers: an open book. Pressbooks. Available online: https://web.unican.es/buc/Documents/Formacion/AI-for-Teachers-an-Open-Textbook.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2025).
  10. Krathwohl, D.R.; Bloom, B.S.; Masia, B.B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain; David McKay: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
  11. Gardner, H. Les intelligences multiples. Changing schools: taking different forms of intelligence into account [in French]; Retz: Paris, France, 1996.
  12. Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences; Fontana Press: Waukegan, IL, USA, 1993.
  13. Biggs, J.B.; Collis, K.F. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982.
  14. Gagné, R.M. The Conditions of Learning; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1965.
  15. Gagné, R.M. Contributions of learning to human development. Psychol. Rev. 1968, 75(3), 177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025664
  16. Weizenbaum, J. ELIZA-a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM 1966, 9, 36–45.
  17. Rabiner, L.R. A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proc. IEEE 1989, 77, 257–286.
  18. Hochreiter, S.; Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 1997, 9, 1735–1780.
  19. Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; et al. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA, 4–9 December 2017.
  20. Radford, A.; Wu, J.; Child, R.; et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog 2019, 1, 8.
  21. Brown, T.B.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2020, 33, 1877–1901.
  22. Wolf, T.; Debut, L.; Sanh, V.; et al. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Online, 16–20 November 2020; pp. 38–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.6
  23. Bender, E.M.; Gebru, T.; McMillan-Major, A.; et al. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Virtual, 3–10 March 2021; pp. 610–623.
  24. Enseignement Public & Informatique (EPI). Public Education & Information Technology (EPI). Editorial from EPI Bulletin No. 1 [in French]. Rev. EPI [in French] 2001, 104, 201–204. Available online: https://edutice.archives-ouvertes.fr/edutice-00000893/document (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  25. Baudé, J. The Sèvres seminar (March 1970) [in French]. Bull. Soc. Inform. Fr. [in French] 2017, 11, 115–127. Available online: https://1024.socinfo.fr/2017/09/1024_11_2017_115.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  26. Zaphir, L.; Hansen, D. The trouble with Bloom’s taxonomy in an age of AI. THE-Times Higher Education. Available online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/trouble-blooms-taxonomy-age-ai (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  27. Niu, W.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, C.; et al The role of artificial intelligence autonomy in higher education: A uses and gratification perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031276
  28. Faraon, M., Granlund, V., Rönkkö, K. Artificial intelligence practices in higher education using bloom's digital taxonomy. In 2023 5th International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (WAIE), Tokyo, Japan, 28-30 September 2023.
  29. Ifenthaler, D.; Majumdar, R.; Gorissen, P.; et al. Artificial intelligence in education: Implications for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. Tech Know Learn. 2024, 29, 1693–1710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09747-0