Earlier today I presented the keynote at the PBL2025 conference in Belo Horizonte. The talk explored whether PBL’s philosophical foundations enable it to respond differently to AI relative to traditional education systems, which tend to bend new technologies into the shape of existing control structures. I argued that PBL already embodies the principles needed for meaningful AI integration—learner agency, collaborative knowledge construction, authentic problems, trust-based environments—potentially providing the infrastructure for transformation rather than just another context for tool adoption.
The main thrust of the argument went something like this:
- Defensive institutional responses expose pedagogical misalignment. AI detection and control policies reveal that education has always measured proxies for learning rather than learning itself.
- PBL’s foundational commitments align with what AI enables. Its rejection of hierarchical knowledge transmission and emphasis on agency create space for AI as thinking partner rather than a threat.
- Context sovereignty preserves learner agency. Students maintain control over meaning by curating personal context that guides AI interactions toward their personal learning goals.
- Evaluative judgement becomes the central educational work. When AI collapses execution barriers, education must focus on developing capacity to decide what problems matter and what solutions serve justice.
- Transformation requires shifting from control to cultivation. This demands institutional courage to align practice with stated values.