“Always invite AI to the table but be the human in the loop”: Reflections on the 1st Medipol University CPD Forum on AI
By Züleyha Tulay
On November 29, I attended the 1st CPD Forum on AI and the Future of CPD at Istanbul Medipol University. The theme, "Embracing Change, Overcoming Challenges," felt particularly timely. As we navigate the rapid integration of Generative AI into our curriculum and daily lives, the question isn't just about how to use these tools, but who we become when we use them.
The forum brought together educators to dissect the role of AI in our professional growth. Here are my key takeaways from a day of "Co-Intelligence" and critical reflection.
Reimagining Teacher Growth: The "Co-Pilot" Mindset
The day opened with Asst. Prof. Mustafa Polat (Marmara University), who challenged us to reframe our relationship with technology. He argued that the goal of AI isn't to replace teachers but to liberate us from the "drudgery" of administrative work—which reportedly consumes up to 40% of a teacher's time.
He introduced the concept of "Co-Intelligence," where humans and machines work as a hybrid team. The highlight for me was his distinction between two types of tasks:
• "Delegated Tasks": Routine work like scheduling, basic grading, or initial resource discovery that AI should handle.
• "Just Me Tasks": Ethical reasoning, pedagogical judgment, and emotional connection—areas that must remain strictly human.
His mantra was simple yet powerful: "Always invite AI to the table, but be the human in the loop."
Ctrl + Alt + Develop: A Reality Check
Dr. Emrah Akkurt (Acıbadem University) provided a necessary counter-narrative, reminding us that "Pedagogy comes before Technology." He posed a provocative warning about the "Idiocracy" risk: if we outsource too much of our cognitive load to AI, do we risk atrophying our own teaching muscles?
He raised a critical concern about homogenization. If every instructor uses the same AI tools to plan lessons, do we risk erasing our unique teaching styles and converging toward a robotic "mean"? It was a strong reminder that efficiency should never come at the cost of creativity.
Food for Thought
The roundtable discussions left me with several questions that I believe are worth discussing in our own staff rooms:
1. The Empathy Test: Can AI ever effectively simulate the role of a human mentor, or is there an empathetic nuance to mentorship that AI can never replicate?
2. The "PD Divide": As high-quality AI coaching tools move behind paywalls, how do we ensure equitable access for all teachers, regardless of institutional resources?
3. Teacher Agency: In a classroom where AI acts as a "Tutor" for students and a "Co-worker" for the teacher, how does our role shift from "sage on the stage" to social-emotional guide?
Moving Forward
The consensus from the forum was clear: the future isn't about "Human vs. AI." It's about moving from merely keeping a "Human-in-the-loop" to placing the "Human-at-the-Center."
As we continue to explore AI at Sabancı University, it is of utmost importance that we remain the pilots of this transformation. We should embrace the efficiency AI offers, but fiercely protect the "Just Me" tasks that make our teaching human.
