Reimagining learning with AI

The theme of the workshop was based on ‘Concept to Action’ within the ‘Human-AI-World ecosystem’. It was a group, challenge-based, hands on session that encouraged collaboration, ideation, and co-construction of new knowledge. Although not so much recently, I have run many of these types of workshops in the past as part of Flat Connections / Flat Classroom events and conferences. It is always a delight to see people become motivated and excited about learning, interacting, sharing, solving problems, and building on new ideas.

Below I have shared the journey of each group. This includes various parts of their ideation, moonshot development, pitching and redevelopment based on peer feedback, to the final pitch to the whole room. Before I do this below are the AI tools I created to support learners in this session.

Group Task

Mixed groups of 3 or 4 were given the challenge of coming up with an initiative that interconnects and relates to the concept of Human-AI-World. Now sometimes this takes a while to happen – especially if people do not know each other. But these groups were on fire. They launched straight into the task, full on conversation and exploration and marched into new ideas and approaches to learning. Some were learning designers, others program/curriculum designers, or from other areas of education.

AI Tools used in the Workshop

It is a bit of fun creating Chatbots and AI Agents – and yes there is a difference – Claude.ai told me so:

• An AI chatbot is primarily designed for text-based conversation. It responds to user queries within a single conversation context, typically in a reactive manner. Chatbots excel at answering questions, providing information, and engaging in dialogue, but they generally can’t take autonomous actions beyond the conversation itself.
• AI agents are more advanced systems designed to perform tasks and achieve goals with greater autonomy. They have more agency (ability to act independently) and can perform sequences of actions to accomplish specific goals.

The AI personas to the right include Buddy and Ellie who are technically Chatbots. Then there is Connie and she has been designed as more of an AI Agent. You can tell my level of anthropomorphism is quite high these days!

Meet, from left to right:

Project Buddy – A supportive, thoughtful project buddy who collaborates equally, energizes, and celebrates wins. He is designed to help with group collaboration and keeping track of workflow.

Explainer Ellie – Explains anything clearly for terms, concepts, and processes and more!

Contrary Connie – Designed with an enhanced Human-AI-World focus to especially support this workshop theme. She encourages constructive and critical discussion on the topic, providing mainstream and contrarian viewpoints to help build ideas and approaches.

You too can try my AI friends for whatever you need! Follow the links, and perhaps start with the question, ‘Who are you and what do you do?’

Group 1

This group focused on student employability related to Kristiania University goals and plans. Their final ‘moonshot’ was to develop an AI powered ‘matchmaking service’ between students and companies.

They stated: “Let’s build a university where learning is not a prelude to life—it is life.”

Group 2

Final AI app suggestion called ‘Thinkback’.

Our vision: a digital companion that helps everyone—from schoolchildren to policymakers—to ask better questions, think with others, and act with integrity.
We don’t want just another smart assistant.
We want a global co-thinker.
Not AI that answers like a mirror –  But AI that reflects like a prism.

Group 3

“I Don’t Know Yet” Classroom Assistants
What it is: An AI bot embedded in a learning platform that doesn’t give answers directly—instead, it gives hints, counter-questions, or learning resources when a student says “I don’t know.”

This group …

Problem: How to create a safe space to test and innovate with AI as an educator?
Challenge Title: “Braver Than Smart: Designing AI Ecosystems that Rewards Not Knowing”

Our moonshot is simple but profound:
We want to design AI systems, learning spaces, and social norms that reward collective curiosity, not polished certainty.

Review and Reflection

Some key points as I review and reflect on the workshop, remembering that this is the very first time I have used self-made AI tools to support learning, collaboration and group outcomes.

• Everyone was very excited about and willing to use the AI tools. All three of the chatbots/agent were used by each group (I believe) because they served different purposes, or in some cases because the group wanted ‘another opinion’.
• Use of the AI saved time….and we had very little really for this event – 3 hours that included a 45 min. lunch was not long to go through this reimagining process
• Use of the AI helped broaden and deepen the groups understanding and access to language around the ideas they had come up with. At times they had not rephrased the specific responses from the AI in simple language, and it was noticeable – however in a teaching situation this would be discussed and original edits of AI help encouraged, or maybe mandated
• The AI also helped create images and logos – and each of the three groups utilised this effectively

I have yet to receive survey feedback, however I can confirm that verbal feedback on the day was very positive. Comments revolved around the session being so different and more exciting than a typical conference where participants mostly ‘sit and get’ the information.

There is more to be said……and more workshops to run. I will keep you, as the interested reader, posted!

What next?

Above all I believe the HUMAN element emerged as the dominant influence and agent in this process.

• It was the humans that verbalised the original ideas that they then took to the AI for refining, reworking, advice, synthesis etc.
• It was the humans who made choices as to what best aligned with their ideas and needs from the AI material and crafted their vision statement and moonshot pitch as they needed

The AI provided a much welcomed extension and ‘extra group member’ to meet the challenge.

• The AI consistently performed, and re-performed, and was always there to support – without emotion, without getting tired
• The AI was always willing to ‘redo’ things based on the next prompt or question – no questions asked

What about the ‘World’ part of the ecosystem….well….

• I believe collaborating in a mixed group (although only somewhat mixed in cultural influences given this involved participants from one city only) provided enough of the ‘worldly’ intelligences and attributes to afford diverse thinking and critical reflection
• The opportunity to discuss, be opinionated, come to a compromised position and as ‘one’ pitch both the challenge and the solution is above all a skill that participants will take with them out into their world for future use!