Over the past 12 years we have been writing a regular column in TechTrends, broadly around “Rethinking Creativity and Technology in Education.” More recently, we have been exploring the complex relationship between emerging technologies and educational practices, with a particular focus on how generative AI is transforming teaching and learning environments.

Our newest piece (Control vs. Agency: Exploring the History of AI in Education) examines the historical tensions between control and agency in AI-driven educational technologies—tracing how early conceptual frameworks continue to shape current debates and implementations. This historical lens provides context for understanding current implementations and is something I have been interested in for a long time—stretching back to my high school days reading Gödel, Escher, Bach. We framed this article as a fundamental tension between two contrasting views, instantiated in the the stories of two influential figures—John Anderson and Seymour Papert.

This paper (the first of two) connects current debates within a broader historical context and offers us insights into how today’s generative AI tools might either reinforce traditional power structures or foster greater learner autonomy and creativity.

Citation & Abstract

Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., Woo, L. J., & Oster, N. (2025). Control vs. Agency: Exploring the History of AI in Education. TechTrends, 69(2), 184-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01064-2

Abstract

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has reignited long-standing debates about technology’s role in education. While GenAI potentially offers personalized learning, adaptive tutoring, and automated support, it also raises concerns about algorithmic bias, de-skilling educators, and diminishing human connection. This article examines these tensions by tracing the historical evolution of AI in education, revealing how early conceptual and terminological choices—such as the shift from cybernetics to artificial intelligence—have shaped current situations and debates. Through a comparative analysis of two contrasting AI-driven educational models—John Anderson’s structured cognitive tutoring systems and Seymour Papert’s constructionist approach emphasizing creative agency—we explore the enduring struggle between control and autonomy in learning. As GenAI becomes increasingly integrated into education, understanding these historical patterns offers critical insights into its future trajectory. Rather than viewing AI’s role in education as predetermined, we argue that thoughtful and informed decision-making will shape and determine whether these technologies will reinforce traditional structures or promote greater learner agency and creativity.

Citation