Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) create new jobs in teaching history?
Welcome to my Substack Our Times Today and Tomorrow series on spirituality and many related things.
People fear AI will take over jobs. Technology definitely drives change and that often means introducing ways to do things that eliminate old jobs. Additionally, that means that mundane and difficult jobs are done by technology, so that people can focus on the more interesting or challenging aspects of their jobs. AI is limited in what it can do: human judgment is paramount.
Image Romeo & Juliet by Author Tulane Public Relations on Wikipedia, from Flickr
My source is MIT and other institutions, and I wrote a book about this, Preparing For the Future of Work, Education, and the Economy. It’s free even though it took over two years to research and write. Do a search for books by Dorian Scott Cole and you’ll find it on several platforms. Ask for it at your library - it's on Overdrive.
Think of it this way. If you look at the jobs available in 1700, they were mostly agriculture-related. Few people were in professional or technology-related jobs. Jobs then shifted to manufacturing. This mix was still true in 1900. Even in 1950 around 80% of the jobs that exist today weren’t even conceived of in those days. Technology brings change, but overall it creates more jobs.
So let’s open a probability space here. A probability space means thinking about ideas whose time has come. Everything is in place, so the moment is pregnant with possibility. It's futuristic. In light of the current state of technology and current needs, we can speculate as to what can be reasonably accomplished.
I hated history
I hated history in high school. I was a poor example of a student. I would lay my head down on my desk and sleep. Most boring class ever. Memorizing dates and people with minimal context wasn’t education.
I really like history
After I left high school I realized I actually like history if it’s presented well. One example is the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece that I studied in college. What is fascinating about it is the difference in attitudes in a Democracy that clashed and brought war. Why did this happen? Why were people jealous of power and threatened by it during a time of peace? Why did people view others’ lifestyles as unacceptable?
Athens Greece was a major regional power with a huge fleet of both trading and military ships. It was very wealthy, and the people had a very plush lifestyle for the time. It was culturally rich in playwrights and philosophy. Two of the world’s most influential philosophers, Plato and Socrates, came from the Athens area. Athens' government was influenced by the people.
Athens' neighbor, Sparta, was very different. We get the name “Spartan life stye,” from them. It’s a simple, strict existence with no luxuries, emphasizing a life of discipline and self-denial. Their democracy was also different. It had more of a representative government like in the US. Citizens could not make proposals. Decisions were made by the oligarchy, which consisted of wealthy aristocrats. Aristocrats are people of privilege because of their wealth or high social status. They weren’t elected representatives. Sparta envied Athens' power in the region, and Sparta and its allies saw its monopoly on power as a threat. Because of their lavish lifestyle, the Athenians were viewed as weak. They thought Athens would be soft and easy to chew, so they attacked.
After twenty-seven years of war, Sparta eventually defeated Athens and installed its own government. Within a few years, Athens was able to regain its independence. The effect of this war was to remove Athens and Sparta as major regional powers. Nothing was gained, but much was lost.
We see similar attitudes in the world today. Dictators, oligarchs, and even regions within the US have attitudes like Sparta, thinking only they know what is right. They are horrified at the public having easy lifestyles. But history tells us that neither is absolutely right, and tearing one down only tears us all down.
Democracy is hard earned in most cases. It is deeply rooted and highly valued. People will fight to get it and fight to keep it.
Enough history examples for today.
What does this mean for learning?
I don’t exactly follow the maxim that those who don’t learn history are bound to repeat it. As individuals we all have to learn some things the hard way. We don’t have to learn everything the hard way even though some choose that path. But our larger society can make informed decisions based on history.
Learning isn’t done effectively through the Nuremberg Funnel method – that is opening the top of student’s heads and pouring in information. Or by blasting it in their ears. Rote learning (repetition) is also not effective.
A variety of things facilitate learning. Getting students involved through discussion helps immensely. Having them apply their information to real-world challenges is very effective. Challenging them in a game-like atmosphere to accomplish goals or tasks is incredibly effective. Timed reinforcement helps things stick for longer periods of time.
The most effective memory tool is emotion. Emotion makes things stick. (This is neuroscience, not hokum.) This doesn’t mean getting your hand slapped every time you make a mistake, or getting rewarded for every correct answer. Evoking an emotional response must be crafted carefully.
Using game theory - and this doesn’t mean playing games - is one way of getting an emotional response. It provides a feeling of accomplishment that motivates students to dig in. Applying knowledge to real-word situations is another great way.
Another way of engaging and remembering through emotion is simply through being in plays, watching plays, and watching movies that evoke emotion. The Broadway play, Hamilton, is an example. Hamilton is about the rise of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton as he fights for honor, love, and a legacy that would shape the course of a nation. It covers the American Revolution and the political history of the early United States. It’s memorable.
Rather than putting people to sleep with boring dates, names, and descriptions of events, stories engage and involve emotion. They teach lessons that stick.
What does this mean for jobs?
Teaching history through story engagement opens up a whole new arena for better learning and jobs. (It's used to some extent today.) It may go far beyond what I have cited today as possibilities.
There are roles for historians to research, writers to put the stories on paper, actors, filmmakers, and IT people who send and display it, and of course educators. School coops could work together to produce these so that they are freely available and have less bias from producers. These would be fun projects for educators.
Through these stories, in whatever form and media, students could get tuned in to the role of personalities who made decisions in history, what situations they faced, who else was involved, whether these beneficial or like typical Greek tragedies that could only come to a bad end, and how they affected history.
Artificial intelligence and motion tracking could be used to give a face and other mannerisms on these historical figures. The entire thing would be memorable. Timed reinforcement could be used for up to a year later to help establish these as unforgettable lessons.
Go ahead, make me learn this way! I challenge you to do it. :)
The future and beyond - more of the same
In my novel, Nowhere Man, I add the funeral speech for a lonely man who collected comic books. They all followed a certain character. The character matured through the series which covered fifty years. This was reflected in the man as he matured, and his interest followed. Stories reflect us. They can be gateways to understanding ourselves and others.
If you found this article challenging, I’ve done my work. Please subscribe.