Can a learner reach the same goal without using the AI tool?

Our view: an AI activity should explain its learning purpose and consider a workable alternative. Tool use alone is not the learning outcome.

UNESCO’s2023 guidance promotes human agency and inclusion in generative AI education. Our interpretation is that the learner’s choices deserve attention alongside the tool’s capabilities. This is a design argument, not a claim that every school has a particular legal opt-out rule.

An invented writing lesson

Imagine a class whose goal is explaining an argument with evidence. One route uses AI to propose questions; another uses a teacher-provided question sheet. Both can be assessed against the same argument-and-evidence rubric. This is our example, not a classroom experiment.

Explain why the tool is part of the task

If the lesson specifically teaches critical use of AI, working with AI may be relevant to the goal. If the goal is unrelated, ask why the tool is necessary. Alternatives need to fit the actual learning objective rather than remove it.

Ask whether the alternative is workable

Our proposed questions are whether it has clear instructions, comparable access to feedback and a fair assessment route. A theoretical alternative that no one can complete is not much of a choice. We have not measured learning gains or compared students here.

Keep the benefit and the choice visible

AI can offer useful prompts or practice in suitable settings. Our opinion is that explaining those benefits should not replace explaining the conditions of participation. Teachers and institutions should state the purpose, permitted use and available routes clearly.

Published October14, 2026. Opinion based on existing2023 UNESCO guidance. No students, school policy, teaching trial or legal entitlement were assessed; the lesson and alternative are invented.

Sources: UNESCO · Education guidance.