In a recent episode of the New AI Project podcast, program director Graham Wolfe and student expert Mary Claire Anderson sat down with Father Nate Wills, CSC, PhD, to investigate the sociotechnical impact of artificial intelligence within K-12 education. As an associate professor of the practice at the Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE), Father Nate brings a unique perspective that blends educational leadership with technology policy. The conversation focused on the necessity of moving beyond “device-focused” research to understand how AI reshapes the actual learning process. Father Nate’s background—spanning from teaching high school in Chicago to researching blended learning—serves as the foundation for his current focus on empowering educators through intentional technology integration.
The Power of Personalization and Teacher Empowerment
At the heart of Father Nate’s approach is the “Higher Powered Learning” philosophy. This framework views AI not as a replacement for the teacher, but as a revolutionary “resource production” tool. Historically, teachers were told to differentiate instruction but were given few tools to manage classrooms with diverse reading levels. AI models like Gemini now allow teachers to instantly adjust a single reading passage for varying levels of sophistication. This capability allows for targeted interventions and data-driven groupings that meet the unique needs of every learner. However, as the conversation transitioned from efficiency to pedagogy, Father Nate warned that the benefits of automation must be weighed against the risks of over-simplification.
Defending the “Productive Struggle” in Learning
One of the most critical tensions identified is the conflict between AI-driven efficiency and the cognitive “productive struggle” required for true mastery. Father Nate utilized a vivid “forklift in a gym” analogy: while a forklift can lift heavy weights with ease, the person operating the lever gains no physical strength. Similarly, he noted his brother’s rule for new drivers—forbidding the use of cruise control for the first year. Just as a driver must learn the fundamentals of the car before using “autopilot,” students must learn core skills before offloading cognitive tasks to AI. This shift has rendered traditional markers of understanding, such as the standard five-paragraph essay, effectively obsolete, as large language models can produce them “for breakfast.” Consequently, educators are returning to “no-tech” methods like handwritten Blue Book exams to ensure genuine skill acquisition.
Literacy, Policy, and Catholic Social Teaching
The Alliance for Catholic Education advocates for a “literacy first” approach, arguing that while individuals may choose to be low-tech, they no longer have the luxury of opting out of AI literacy. Father Nate grounded this mandate in Catholic Social Teaching (CST), framing the Church’s engagement as a vital “moral compass.” He cited proactive Church documents, such as those from Pope Leo and Pope Francis (including Antiqua Nova), which emphasize that technology must serve the common good. Furthermore, Father Nate addressed the “motivational barrier,” noting that even when technological hurdles are lowered—such as through free SAT prep from Khan Academy—access does not guarantee engagement. The teacher remains the essential human element required to provide the motivation and high expectations that technology alone cannot provide.
Conclusion: Toward Human Flourishing
Ultimately, the integration of AI in Catholic schools must be guided by the dignity of the human person. Father Nate concluded the discussion by reminding educators that the goal is not merely efficiency, but student flourishing and the development of virtue. By remaining discerning and grounded in a robust spiritual life, educators can navigate these disruptors without losing sight of the fundamentals. The path forward requires a balance between embracing transformative potential and having the courage to “walk back” technologies that do not serve the deeper intellectual and spiritual growth of the student.
