Reflections on Generative AI, Learning, and What the Pakistan Education System Must Rethink
Artificial intelligence did not wait for policy approvals, curriculum updates, or teacher training workshops. It entered classrooms quietly through homework help, essay drafts, exam preparation, and late-night study sessions. Long before schools decided what to do about it, students had already figured out how to use it.
In Pakistan, this reality feels especially sharp. Our education system has always rewarded correct answers more than deep understanding. In such a context, generative AI can easily become a powerful shortcut, producing fluent responses without necessarily strengthening learning. The risk is not that students are using AI. The risk lies in how they use it and in what our systems encourage them to value.
This is why the OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026: Exploring Effective Uses of Generative AI in Education deserves careful attention. Rather than celebrating AI as a solution or warning against it as a threat, the report offers a more uncomfortable insight: improved performance does not automatically mean improved learning. In some cases, it may even hide learning loss.
When Better Answers Don’t Mean Better Learning
One of the most important findings in the OECD report is the clear distinction between task performance and actual learning. Students using generative AI often complete work faster and score higher in the short term, yet struggle to explain concepts or retain understanding once AI support is removed.
For exam-driven systems like Pakistan’s, this should give us pause. We already prioritise outcomes over understanding. AI simply magnifies that habit. Polished answers can easily be mistaken for learning, even when the thinking behind them is thin.
This pattern is not unique to Pakistan. Recent peer-reviewed research published in Societies highlights that while generative AI can significantly improve task performance and surface-level outcomes, it may also reduce students’ learning and critical engagement when used without structured guidance. The study emphasises that learning gains depend less on access to AI and more on how learning tasks are designed and scaffolded.
The Shortcut Problem in an Exam-Focused Culture
Generative AI does not create shortcuts. It accelerates the ones that education systems already rely on. When learning tasks focus on memorisation, predictable answers, and rigid formats, AI performs exceptionally well. When tasks demand reasoning, explanation, comparison, or personal reflection, AI’s role shifts. It can assist, but it cannot replace thinking.
This reframes the debate entirely. The problem is not student misuse of AI. The problem is a learning design that rewards surface-level outputs. If assignments can be completed without understanding, AI will happily do so. As the OECD notes, effective AI use depends heavily on how tasks are designed, not merely on access to tools.
AI Works Best When It Asks, Not When It Answers
One of the most promising insights in the OECD report is the success of dialogue-based and Socratic uses of AI. These approaches do not focus on giving students direct answers. Instead, they support learning by prompting learners to explain their reasoning, reflect on their thinking, and actively engage with problems.
In practical terms, this means:
- AI prompting ‘Why do you think this?’
- AI is asking students to justify steps
- AI encourages multiple drafts and revisions
Research on AI-supported learning environments similarly suggests that systems designed to encourage metacognition and learner interaction are more effective than those that simply provide solutions. For Pakistani classrooms, the message is simple: AI should increase thinking time, not reduce it.
Teachers Matter More, Not Less, in an AI-Rich Classroom
The OECD report firmly rejects the idea that AI should replace teachers. Instead, it introduces the concept of teacher–AI teaming, where AI supports teachers while preserving professional judgement and autonomy.
This distinction matters deeply in Pakistan. Teachers already work under pressure from large class sizes, heavy syllabi, and administrative demands. Used well, AI can reduce workload supporting lesson planning, differentiation, and feedback drafting. Used poorly, it risks eroding teacher confidence and professional skill.
OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) shows that while many teachers already use AI for planning and summarising, concerns remain about over-reliance and loss of autonomy. The line is clear: AI should support, not replace, teacher judgment.
Parents Are Right to Worry, But Not for the Reasons They Think
Most parent concerns around AI focus on cheating. The research suggests a deeper issue. Tasks that are easy to outsource to AI were already weak indicators of learning. Rather than asking whether children are using AI, a more meaningful question is how they are using it and whether schools are teaching students to engage with AI critically and ethically.
UNESCO’s guidance on generative AI emphasises that AI literacy is not just a technical skill. It is a learning skill that involves judgment, reflection, and responsibility. For parents, this means conversations matter more than bans. Asking ‘What did AI help you think through?’ is more powerful than ‘Did you use AI?’
Equity, Access, and the Illusion of Scale
The OECD highlights that generative AI has the potential to support learning, even in low-infrastructure settings, including personalised tutoring and language support. For Pakistan, this is both an opportunity and a risk. Access alone does not guarantee equity. Students with stronger foundations benefit more from AI support, while others may fall further behind. Without structure and guidance, AI can quietly widen learning gaps.
The World Bank has repeatedly warned that educational technology amplifies existing inequalities unless paired with strong pedagogy and teacher support.
AI must be introduced as part of a learning ecosystem, not as a standalone solution.
What AI Is Really Testing in Our Education System
Generative AI is not testing our students. It is testing our education system. It is testing whether we value learning beyond correct answers, whether we trust teachers as professionals, and whether we are willing to redesign tasks that reward thinking instead of speed. AI simply makes these questions harder to ignore.
The OECD’s research is clear: technology alone does not improve learning. In weak learning designs, it can even weaken it. This is not an argument against AI. It is an argument against using powerful tools inside fragile systems.
For Pakistan, the urgency is real. Students are already using generative AI, regardless of school policies. The choice before us is not control versus chaos. It is guidance versus neglect. The most important decision is philosophical. Do we want an education system that rewards answers or one that develops thinkers? Generative AI will adapt to either. The responsibility for that choice remains firmly in human hands.