Home > Opinion > Columns

Korea’s AI textbook debate calls for pragmatism, not panic

Published: 13 Jun. 2025, 00:03

Kim Won-bae

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

“Don’t use AI like a Google search bar,” says Jeremy Utley, a lecturer at Stanford University. “Treat it like a peer, and let it ask you questions.” The quote, widely shared on YouTube, captures a growing shift in how educators think about artificial intelligence in the classroom.

One personal encounter with AI underscores the point. I prompted the chatbot to engage me in a Socratic dialogue. When I told it I wanted to explore a topic, it began asking questions — tough ones. I answered freely, unfiltered. The process was jarring and illuminating. Unlike information retrieval via search engines, this experience prompted genuine reflection and conceptual depth.

An employee of an AI textbook publisher shows how the program works at the governmental complex in Sejong on December 2, 2024. The left monitor shows the display that students will see, and the right monitor shows students' academic progress. [NEWS1]

For centuries, the gold standard in education has been one-on-one tutoring. Today’s public school systems cannot realistically provide this for every student. But large language model-based generative AI is beginning to offer an alternative. “ChatGPT Edu,” developed by OpenAI, has already launched for universities and will be introduced to high school students and teachers in Estonia this fall.

Korea, meanwhile, began piloting AI-powered digital textbooks this year for grades 3 and 4 in elementary school, as well as first-year middle and high school students. But the program faces mounting political and public resistance. The Democratic Party (DP), which opposed the rollout, now argues that the AI textbook should be downgraded to a general instructional resource. The party proposes developing a public platform offering a wide range of AI learning tools instead.

People who object to the introduction of an AI textbook hold a press conference in front of the government complex in central Seoul in November 2024. [YONHAP]

Teachers’ unions say the technology’s educational effectiveness remains unproven, while parents are concerned about children becoming overly attached to digital devices. Critics also claim the AI tools are underperforming. Yet others counter that redefining the AI textbook as mere supplementary material would weaken quality assurance and limit the government’s ability to manage learning data.

A closer look at the opposition reveals conflicting concerns. Some argue the technology isn’t good enough, while also fearing it could diminish teachers’ roles. It raises the question: Is the real fear that AI textbooks might succeed? If they do, it would likely require rethinking not just pedagogy but the entire structure of formal education. Framing the tool as optional might lead to limited and inconsistent adoption.

Currently, Korea’s AI textbooks operate largely on preset question-and-answer functions — reactive rather than adaptive. In contrast, generative models like GPT-4 can comprehend the context of a student’s inquiry, offer tailored explanations and reframe questions based on difficulty. Of course, generative AI still carries risks, including the possibility of delivering false or misleading information. This limits its application in K–12 classrooms — for now.

But the technology is advancing quickly. In the United States, a GPT–4–powered tutor called “Khanmigo” is already supporting student learning. At this pace, it would not be surprising to see AI-powered teaching assistants in public schools in countries like the United States or China within a few years.

This is where pragmatism, as emphasized by President Lee Jae-myung, must guide policy. The Yoon Suk Yeol administration initially planned a mandatory rollout of AI textbooks but scaled back to a voluntary model after backlash. Forcing use in schools that oppose the change may be unwise. But banning or blocking use where it is effective and welcomed would also be a mistake.

The DP's proposal for a public platform offering various AI learning tools is not an immediate solution. In the meantime, the existing AI textbook program needs time for evaluation. Substantial government funding has already gone into its development. Even with its limited adoption, companies have filed lawsuits claiming damages due to the administration’s policy reversal.

This photograph shows the logo of the Chinese app DeepSeek, left, and U.S. app ChatGPT displayed on a mobile phone in Paris on Jan. 28. [AFP/YONHAP]

Whether labeled a textbook or instructional material, the priority should be to choose what best supports students and teachers. If the public education system fails to effectively integrate AI tools, private institutions will fill the void. That could widen educational gaps, particularly if wealthier students gain access to more powerful tools. In some U.S. universities, students’ essay quality is reportedly linked to whether they use the free or premium versions of GPT-4 — at a cost of up to $200 a month.

Salman Khan, founder of Khan Academy and author of “Brave New Words”(2024), stresses that using AI in education requires not only creativity but also “educated courage.” He defines this as the ability to recognize the reasonable fear that comes with disruptive technology while still embracing its possibilities. Clinging to traditional methods may feel safer, but it risks closing off students’ futures.

This is not a moment for retreat. Now is a time for courage.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.