Revisiting Teaching Methodology in the Age of AI: AI and Textbooks Alone Don’t Teach; Teachers Do

It is stating the obvious to note that easy access to open AI and the quality of any new curriculum cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and classroom practitioners. Educational reform initiatives often place strong emphasis on textbook design and curriculum innovation at the expense of teacher training and teacher continuous professional development. While textbooks are still relevant as they provide roadmaps and structure, AI has accentuated the ease and the swiftness of access to authentic and varied material both in terms of quantity and quality. While students oftentimes acknowledge the inspiration and lasting impact of their teachers, expressions of appreciation toward textbooks or curricula are notably rare. This highlights a critical dimension of textbooks and AI but they remain simple instruments that function as pedagogical tool rather than autonomous agents of learning and/or teaching. Drawing on the piloting and implementation of the new Spotlight textbook in middle school English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts in Morocco and the new wave towards adopting AI in education, this article argues that effective curriculum reform depends not only on well-designed materials and cutting age technology but also on redefining methodological practices, teachers’ pre/in-service training and continuous professional development. Although Spotlight series represents a significant step toward upgrading EFL instruction for beginner learners and AI provides promising opportunities as mediator of instruction, their success or failure hinges heavily on teachers’ capacity to mediate content, enact curriculum intentions, and align classroom practices with the reform’s pedagogical philosophy and long-term goals. This paper further contends that persistent student disengagement will not be fixed with AI alone; it will persist as a byproduct of traditional, teacher-centered implementation (this is especially true in an era that is increasingly predominant with social media and easy access to more engaging and stimulating stuff with Open AI). As a broad implication, sustainable curriculum reform, therefore, emerges from, a dynamic interaction between an optimal use of AI and a continuously innovative textbook design and reflective, engaging and stimulating learner-centered teaching pedagogy.

Open AI. curriculum innovation/reform, textbook design; students’ engagement; methodology issues; teacher vs. learner-centered pedagogy

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. Kagan Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study