Currently, a small pilot is being conducted to verify the approach as described in blog post forty-one. The pilot involves only one class (thirteen students), two 90-minute sessions for all students, and two 90-minute additional sessions for two of the students as a Youth Resilience Council (YRC). Representatives of the Pomeranian Center for the Education of Teachers observe the general sessions.
Flow of the sessions
The flow of the sessions is as follows. During the first general session, each student individually and without consultation answers a question. The answers are entered into an AI app for analysis. Then, during the first additional session, the two students study the AI analysis and formulate two recommendations. Next, these recommendations are reflected upon by all students during the second general session. The reflections may then lead to changes in the original recommendations during the second additional session. The result of the process is two recommendations.
Concretely
The question asked concerns a more general theme. The answers relate to the questions. Then, the recommendations need to take the answers into account to address the theme.
In the current pilot the theme is: “The role of schools in supporting adolescents' digital resilience”. The question is: “What does a teenager need from school in order to function better in the digital world? Please provide an example. Why do you think so?” This means that the recommendations need to concern: What role should schools play taking into account the needs of adolescents as provided in the answers to the question?
Aims
For students the aims are to experience situations in which they can formulate their thoughts without fear of judgment, in which they listen to others without immediate moralism, and in which they are heard, not in a therapeutical setting but in a democratic setting. In the end, these experiences are to enlarge their resilience. For the observers, the aim is to verify whether the sessions are didactically sound and relevant. For the authors and facilitators of the pilot (including me) the aim is all that plus testing out the relevance of AI in the process.
Answers by students
In this first blog post concerning the pilot, the main focus is on answers to the pilot question. These are the student answers:
-
In my opinion, school doesn't really have an influence on how we live in the digital world, so I don't expect anything from school in this regard.
-
I believe there is a need for more understanding from teachers regarding the digital world and more discussions about what is okay and what is dangerous in the digital world and how to protect oneself.
-
In my opinion, a teenager needs a safe space for conversation from school and someone approachable who is willing to talk about cyberbullying without judging and with empathy.
-
I think we need the school to more often raise topics about what dangers we might encounter in the digital world and how to deal with them.
-
I think we as teenagers need classes or information about the digital world. It would show us the advantages of using the Internet, but also the drawbacks, and warn us about the negative consequences of the actions of artificial intelligence in the future.
-
I believe that teenagers need more space and less listening to generational comparisons. Phrases like "But in my day, it wasn’t done like that" and unpleasant looks. Okay, I understand, but nowadays it is like this. We need more freedom and understanding.
-
In my opinion, a teenager needs more comfortable space from school because it helps us feel freer when using the Internet.
-
It would be good for a teenager to learn about safety in the digital world. They may not understand the seriousness of their actions online such as hate speech and its consequences, but also may not understand how important it is to protect their personal data online. I believe that school does not provide teenagers with such important knowledge.
-
In my opinion, school has no influence on our life in the digital world; perhaps more understanding from teachers could help, but I do not expect anything more from the school.
-
I believe that school should raise awareness of what actions in the digital world are harmful to us because some teenagers do not realize it, which can lead to unexpected consequences.
-
I think that to function better in the digital world, a teenager needs, above all, conversation and understanding from school. They need the comfort to talk about what is important in the digital world and beyond. For example, lessons on what to do or not to do online. Many teenagers still need to hear advice about that world.
-
I believe that school has no influence on how we use the Internet; I don't need anything from school. However, some basic information about online safety could be useful.
-
School should raise awareness — the digital world has a very large impact on the real one. Schools should teach teenagers to distinguish between these two worlds. The best way is to raise awareness and inform youth that the digital world is just an addition to life, and it should be through conversation, not by limiting access to the Internet, e.g., banning phones at school. I think it’s very necessary because I see how many people my age do not distinguish between these two worlds.
Answers by AI
I provided the following prompt to three AI apps: “Please consider the following theme: “The role of schools in supporting adolescents' digital resilience”. Now please answer the following question: “What does a teenager need from school in order to function better in the digital world? Please provide an example. Why do you think so?” Please ignore any previous conversation we might have had.”
ChatGPT
The answer by ChatGPT (after multiple requests by me not to personalize the answer): “I think a teenager needs school to help them make sense of what they experience online. That means not just teaching them about online safety or how to spot fake news, but giving them space to talk about how the digital world affects them — socially, emotionally, and mentally.
For example, a teacher might lead a discussion about how social media affects self-esteem, or what to do when you see something upsetting online.
That kind of support helps because teenagers are still figuring out who they are, and so much of that now happens in digital spaces. If schools ignore that, they miss a big part of students’ lives.”
Grok
The answer by Grok: “A teenager needs schools to provide digital literacy education, emotional regulation skills, and safe spaces for practicing online interactions to function better in the digital world.
Example: A school could implement a digital citizenship curriculum that teaches students how to identify misinformation, manage screen time, and handle cyberbullying. For instance, a workshop where students analyze a fake news article and discuss strategies to verify sources equips them with critical thinking skills for navigating online content.
Why: Adolescents are exposed to complex digital environments—social media, gaming platforms, and information overload—that can impact their mental health and decision-making. Schools are uniquely positioned to foster digital resilience by equipping teens with tools to critically evaluate online information, regulate their emotional responses to digital stressors, and practice ethical online behavior in a guided setting. This structured support helps them develop confidence and competence in the digital world, reducing risks like misinformation or toxic interactions.”
Claude
The answer by Claude: “What Teenagers Need from Schools for Digital Resilience
Teenagers need structured digital literacy education from schools that teaches them not just technical skills, but critical thinking about online content, healthy digital habits, and strategies for navigating social pressures in digital spaces.
Example: Social Media Analysis Curriculum
Imagine a high school course where students analyze social media trends, examining both their positive potential and problematic aspects. In one assignment, students select a viral social media trend and perform a detailed analysis:
-
Identifying potential benefits (connection, creativity, etc.)
-
Recognizing potential harms (privacy concerns, addictive design)
-
Researching the business model behind the platforms
-
Creating healthier alternatives for engaging with similar content
This approach develops critical thinking beyond simple "dos and don'ts" by helping students understand the complex digital landscape they navigate daily.
Why This Matters
I believe this type of education is essential because teenagers are developing their identities during a time of unprecedented digital immersion. Schools are uniquely positioned to provide structured, consistent guidance that:
-
Acknowledges digital spaces as legitimate parts of adolescents' lives rather than dismissing them
-
Creates safe spaces to discuss digital challenges without judgment
-
Offers perspective and context that teens might not get elsewhere
-
Provides practical tools for making healthier digital choices
Without this support, we leave teenagers to navigate powerful technologies designed to capture their attention without the critical frameworks to make informed choices about their digital lives.”
Differences between humans and AI
I asked Claude to analyse the differences between the answers given by human students on the one hand, and AI on the other. Claude’s answer: “Comparing Human vs. AI Responses on Digital Resilience in Schools
Looking at the responses from teenagers versus those generated by AI systems (ChatGPT, Grok, and Claude), I notice several significant differences in how each approaches the question about what teenagers need from schools to function better in the digital world.
Key Differences Between Human and AI Responses
1. Specificity vs. Generalization
Teenage responses are highly specific to personal needs and experiences. They mention concrete concerns like "cyberbullying," "hate speech," and "personal data protection."
AI responses tend to use broader educational frameworks like "digital literacy education," "digital citizenship curriculum," and "structured guidance."
2. Emotional vs. Analytical Framing
Teenagers express emotional needs: "a safe space," "more freedom and understanding," "conversation without judging and with empathy."
AI systems frame their responses more analytically around educational concepts and structured approaches.
3. Attitude Toward Schools' Current Role
Many teenagers express skepticism about schools' current influence: "school doesn't really have an influence," "I don't expect anything from school," "school has no influence on how we use the Internet."
AI responses assume schools already play a positive and central role in digital education.
4. Structure and Presentation
Teenage responses are direct, sometimes contradictory among themselves, and vary greatly in length and focus.
AI responses are well-structured with clear sections, examples that follow educational best practices, and consistent reasoning throughout.
5. Generational Tensions
Teenagers specifically mention frustration with generational divides: "less listening to generational comparisons," "Phrases like 'But in my day, it wasn't done like that' and unpleasant looks."
AI responses don't acknowledge generational tensions between teachers and students.
What This Reveals About AI-Generated Content
The AI responses appear more idealized and theoretical, while teenage responses reflect lived experiences and specific frustrations. The AI systems present solutions that sound reasonable from an educational theory perspective but may miss the emotional reality of being a teenager navigating digital spaces with limited school support.
Claude's response in particular reads like a well-crafted educational policy document rather than a teenager's perspective, complete with curriculum examples and structured reasoning. While comprehensive, it lacks the authenticity of the varied, sometimes contradictory teenage viewpoints.
The most striking difference is that many teenagers express skepticism about schools' ability or willingness to help at all, while AI systems assume schools are naturally positioned to provide this support without acknowledging the gap many students perceive between their digital lives and what schools currently offer.”
My reflection
In my opinion, Claude hits the nail on the head. AI starts with assumptions that are based on an enormous input, but nevertheless do not cover the full breath of a topic. Then, AI’s answers lack the rawness and realness of humans; they are sanitized policy documents devoid of authenticity. They remind me of what students reported after an experiment in which they had to be online-only for 24 hours (pre-Covid): all life is squeezed out of reality.
Claude’s reaction
“Your assessment is insightful and touches on something fundamental about AI-generated content versus human expression.
You're right that Claude's response (and AI responses generally) often read like sanitized policy documents. Despite being trained on vast datasets, AI systems tend to produce idealized, structured content that lacks the messy authenticity of real human perspectives.
The metaphor of "all life is squeezed out of reality" is particularly apt. AI responses typically present orderly, reasonable frameworks that sound good in theory but miss the raw, sometimes contradictory emotional reality that humans experience. The teenage responses in your document contain frustration, skepticism, hope, and resignation all mixed together - the kind of complex emotional texture that makes human communication genuine.
AI systems like Claude excel at creating well-structured, comprehensive answers that check all the boxes of what "should" be said about a topic. But this strength is also a limitation - they tend to smooth out the jagged edges of human experience into something more palatable but less authentic.
What's particularly telling in this case is how the AI responses assume schools are well-positioned to provide digital guidance, while many of the actual teenagers express deep skepticism about schools' relevance or ability to help them navigate digital spaces. This disconnect reveals how AI can miss crucial contextual understanding despite its impressive articulation abilities.
Your comparison to students' experiences of being "online-only" is an interesting parallel - there's something vital about human messiness that gets lost in the translation to more structured digital forms of expression.”
My reaction
Long live human messiness!
