Teaching by Stepping Aside: Rethinking Pedagogical Presence in an Age of AI

In this post, I reflect on how submitting my ASPIRE PRP fellowship application forced me to rethink the educator’s role – arguing that true engagement emerges not from being the smartest person in the room, but from strategically stepping aside. Through my use of Perusall and Edstem, which enable pre-seminar collaboration and ChatGPT as a critical sparring partner, I make the case for a “pedagogy of strategic disappearance.”

When I began preparing my ASPIRE fellowship application, I approached it as an exercise in documentation. Like many academics, I assumed the task was to present evidence of effective teaching: well-structured modules, carefully managed seminars, and positive student feedback. Implicit in this assumption was a familiar model of pedagogy, one in which teaching quality is closely tied to the visibility of the educator.

What emerged through the process, however, was a different realisation. The most meaningful changes in my practice did not stem from what I added, but from what I reduced. In particular, the integration of Mentimeter, online forums, and the critical use of ChatGPT led me to reconsider the role of the educator, not as the primary source of knowledge, but as a designer of learning environments in which students engage more independently and collectively.

A first shift occurred with the introduction of Mentimeter and online forums to restructure participation. A recurring challenge in seminar teaching is the uneven distribution of engagement: a small number of confident voices dominate, while others remain silent. This is often interpreted as a question of motivation or preparation. Yet it is also a consequence of the format itself, which tends to privilege immediacy and verbal confidence.

Mentimeter introduced a different dynamic by allowing all students to contribute simultaneously and anonymously. Questions, interpretations, and points of confusion could be surfaced without the social risk associated with speaking in front of peers. Online forums extended this interaction beyond the classroom, creating a space where students could continue discussions, revisit concepts, and respond to each other asynchronously.

Together, these tools altered the structure of participation. Engagement became less dependent on individual performance in real time and more distributed across the cohort. Students encountered not only the material, but also the diversity of perspectives within the group. As a result, seminars no longer relied on my intervention to initiate or sustain discussion. My role shifted toward selecting, organising, and deepening contributions that had already emerged.

A second development involved the use of ChatGPT within seminars, not as a shortcut for answers, but as an object of critique. Student-generated questions were posed to the AI, and its responses were analysed collectively. While these responses were often coherent and persuasive in form, they frequently lacked depth, precision, or critical nuance.

This created a productive tension. The AI was credible enough to be taken seriously yet limited enough to be challenged. By reframing the task, asking students to identify what the AI overlooked rather than what the author intended, I encouraged a more evaluative mode of engagement. Students were required to interrogate arguments, detect omissions, and assess the quality of reasoning. In doing so, they developed a more active relationship to knowledge, grounded in judgement rather than reception.

Across these interventions, a common pattern emerged. Learning was not enhanced by increasing instructional presence, but by redistributing it. My contribution became less visible in its traditional form, yet more intentional in its design. Instead of directing every stage of the discussion, I focused on creating the conditions under which meaningful interaction could occur without constant mediation.

The fellowship application ultimately captured this shift. Rather than presenting teaching as a series of visible performances, it reflected a reconsideration of pedagogical presence itself. In a context where students have access to abundant information, and where artificial intelligence can generate plausible explanations with ease, the role of the educator may lie less in delivering content than in structuring encounters that develop critical engagement.

This does not imply withdrawal in any absolute sense, but a recalibration. To step aside, in this context, is to make space for uncertainty, dialogue, and independent thought. It is within that space that learning becomes less about responding to the educator, and more about engaging with ideas, and with others, on its own terms.

Image source: Unsplash

For more information please contact: