Why testing the \u201cwe\u2019ll always need teachers\u201d claim helps us design better learning<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The conference theme \u201cHumanity in the Intelligent Age\u201d echoes the common refrain these days that there must always be a human in the loop. In education, that becomes \u201cwe\u2019ll always need teachers.\u201d It\u2019s a comforting claim. But the real value isn\u2019t in defending it; it\u2019s in testing it, critically, collaboratively, and in public in order that we design better systems whatever the future holds.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Acting as our own Devil\u2019s Advocate is a standard scientific method: trying to break your favourite hypothesis. If it survives, it\u2019s stronger; if not, you\u2019ve learned where to improve. We can apply that spirit to the teacher question, not to dismiss teachers, but to clarify which human roles truly add irreplaceable value, and where we might safely reduce reliance on traditional teaching roles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And no, this is not an economic inevitability sermon. It\u2019s pragmatic. Systems are under fiscal pressure; leaders expect more learning for the same or fewer resources. That doesn\u2019t have to mean \u201cfewer teachers.\u201d It can mean teachers focusing on fewer, higher-impact tasks, perhaps the parts where human judgement, care and culture matter most.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even in a \u201cteacher-light\u201d system, humans are not necessarily absent. They may shape identity, community and values; read context and culture; celebrate achievement with genuine pride; spot when a learner needs encouragement rather than another quiz. They almost definitely set purpose, guardrails and governance.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We often compare technology to an idealised classroom with an expert teacher, a small class, and abundant time. Most learners experience something more constrained. A fairer question might be: could an AI-supported model deliver learning that matches, or sometimes exceeds the typical classroom, rather than the ideal, while expanding access and affordability?
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What might a credible \u201cteacher-light\u201d pathway look like at scale?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This may not capture the full richness of human-led teaching, but it could be good enough (and in some contexts better) for many learners, especially those currently excluded by cost, geography or capacity constraints.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We don\u2019t need to proclaim that we care about ethics, belonging and teacher professionalism; we can just design learning to maximise participation and impact even if that means dealing with limited resources. Institutions and companies will always care about competitiveness and financial sustainability. Fortunately, building trust, fairness and learner wellbeing is not charity. It\u2019s also smart and can lead to better engagement, better outcomes, better reputation.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
None of this happens overnight. Technology shifts create inertia and adaptation, not instant replacement. Remember the anxiety about self-driving trucks and how long that has taken to materialise at scale. Labour markets adjust; people move into roles with higher demand (we can\u2019t get enough nurses, doctors, plumbers, carpenters). Expect evolution, not a cliff edge.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is not armchair speculation. It mirrors what educators will do at OEB: design, test and imagine AI-supported learning structures together. The spirit matches OEB\u2019s \u201cEdHack: A Participatory Design Sprint for Advancing Educator AI Literacy\u201d, not replacing human intelligence, but enhancing it through critical, collaborative re-imagining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our workshop takes the same stance: we\u2019ll try, in good faith, to design a credible learning experience that minimises direct teacher involvement. If it breaks, we\u2019ll learn where and why the human role is essential. If it holds, we\u2019ll have a blueprint for expanding access while reserving teachers for the highest-impact work.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019re open-minded, and willing to critique your own assumptions, then join us. Perhaps a teacher-light pathway won\u2019t be what you prefer. It may still be useful: more accessible, more affordable, and, in some contexts, better than today\u2019s reality. We may not be able to stop these shifts but perhaps we can shape them. Let\u2019s do that work together, thoughtfully, humanely, and with design rigour.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Brian Mulligan<\/strong>, previously Head of Online Learning Innovation at Atlantic Technological University, Ireland is now a consultant with Universal Learning Systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul Bacsich<\/strong> is a UK-based consultant in online learning and e-learning with over 30 years’ experience, known for his pioneering work on virtual universities, open educational resources, and benchmarking digital education in both higher education and schools sectors. Paul and Brian will be facilitating a workshop at OEB 2025 titled: \u201cHigher Education Without Teachers? Re-imagining Learning in an AI-Supported, Low-Cost Future<\/strong>\u201d
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Written for OEB 2025<\/a> by Paul Bacsich<\/a> and Brian Mulligan<\/a>.
Join Paul and Brian for their Learning Caf\u00e9 at OEB25.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n