AI in Education: Beyond Teaching Methods – Rethinking What & Why We Learn
Universidad Iberoamericana Director Calls for Fundamental Rethinking of AI in Education
Mexico City – Luis Medina-Gual, Director of Educational Innovation at the Universidad Iberoamericana, Ciudad de México, has issued a sharp critique of the current debate surrounding artificial intelligence in education, arguing that the focus on how to adapt teaching methods obscures more fundamental questions about what is being taught and why. Medina-Gual’s remarks, delivered in a recent statement published by educacionfutura.org, challenge the prevailing assumption that AI is merely a tool to be integrated into existing pedagogical frameworks.
Medina-Gual contends that the conversation has become fixated on addressing immediate concerns – such as preventing plagiarism and adapting assessment strategies – while neglecting a broader re-evaluation of curricula in light of AI’s transformative potential. He asserts that the rapid evolution of AI capabilities necessitates a critical examination of the skills and knowledge deemed valuable in a rapidly changing world. “We are, in great measure, asking the wrong question,” he wrote.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Medina-Gual’s research interests center on the evaluation of learning, both in terms of its process and outcomes, as well as the application of new technologies to education. He has held several leadership positions within the Universidad Iberoamericana, including coordinator of the Interinstitutional Doctorate in Education from 2018 to 2023, as detailed on medinagual.owlstown.net. Since 2024, he has also been a visiting scholar at the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona and the University of Bath in the United Kingdom.
Medina-Gual’s critique extends to the concept of “cognitive offloading,” where students rely on AI to perform tasks previously requiring significant cognitive effort. While acknowledging the validity of concerns about potential cognitive decline, he argues that this discussion is incomplete without addressing the broader structural changes occurring in the labor market and the nature of work. He suggests that professions are being fundamentally redefined, requiring a reassessment of the skills and knowledge necessary for professional success.
He warns against a “simulation of change,” where institutions adopt new tools and redesign activities without fundamentally questioning the underlying values and priorities embedded within the curriculum. This superficial transformation, he argues, risks perpetuating existing inequalities and failing to prepare students for the challenges of a digital economy.
Medina-Gual’s concerns are particularly relevant for Latin America, where the AI models currently dominating the market are largely developed and controlled by entities in the Global North. He emphasizes the importance of developing educational approaches that are grounded in local contexts and priorities, rather than simply importing solutions designed elsewhere. He cautions against becoming consumers of intelligence designed to address problems defined by others, potentially exacerbating existing dependencies.
Medina-Gual has received multiple awards for his research, including the FIMPES award for educational research three times, the FICSAC-Ibero award for research in 2022 and 2025, as noted on medinagual.owlstown.net. He is currently a member of the steering committee of the Mexican Council for Educational Research (COMIE) and Vice President of the International Society for Dialogical Science (ISDS). He recently co-authored a paper, “A tridimensional model of AI literacy: An empirical analysis of student performance and demographic patterns in higher education,” published in the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.
He concludes that the central question is not simply what skills to teach in the age of AI, but rather what kind of individuals, workers, and citizens education should aim to produce. He suggests that a critical education should equip students with the ability to understand, critique, and shape the technological landscape, rather than passively accepting its dictates.