According to the latest Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), about two-thirds (66%) of lower secondary teachers reported using AI in the past year, putting Australia as the fourth highest country within the OECD and far above the OECD average of 36%.
So when it comes to the question of whether schools should be using AI, that ship has already sailed. The focus now is how to teach students to use this technology in a way that helps them learn.
For James Thorley, Regional Vice President for Asia-Pacific at Turnitin, that conversation starts with transparency. Working with schools and universities across the region, he’s seeing firsthand how critical it is to make AI use visible, understood, and guided.
Below, The Educator speaks to Thorley about moving beyond the “should we use AI?” debate, what transparency looks like in practice, how to build genuine AI literacy, and how to embrace these tools without compromising learning.
TE: Why is the ‘should we use AI?’ debate holding education back?
The assumption that students will inevitably misuse AI has created an adversarial framing that misses the real issue. With AI already embedded in workplaces, outright bans are both impractical and unwise. While institutions debate permission, students are left without clear ethical frameworks. In fact, 70% of students are already using AI at least occasionally for assignments, yet 50% don’t know how to get real value from it.
The debate of if AI should be used in education forestalls the guidance students actually need, which is how and when to use it effectively and ethically, and how students are learning. While guidelines and frameworks are a good start, they aren’t enough. The goal is to nurture, not restrict, this transformative technology. By doing so, we can cultivate a more capable and responsible generation of AI users.
TE: What does transparency in AI use actually look like in practice?
Transparency in practice can take many forms. For students, it could mean declaring AI use in their work, much like a citation or appendix, or for tasks like brainstorming, drafting outlines, grammar checks, or research. And, in turn, educators can provide clear guidelines and models for responsible use. For educators, it involves providing clear guidelines and examples of responsible AI use.
Modern tools are helping educators shift the focus from simply detecting AI to understanding how AI was used. With the right tools, educators don’t just see “if” AI was used, but gain insights into how students develop their writing, their research methods, and how they interact with AI tools. Moreover, the right tools can provide insights into where they might be struggling, and where they are excelling, allowing for more targeted support. The goal is visibility into the entire process, not just final output, akin to “showing your work” in mathematics.
TE: What does genuine AI literacy look like for students and the skills they need to compete in an AI-dominated future?
AI literacy is now essential for work and life, but it goes beyond knowing how to prompt a tool. True literacy means using AI to enhance thinking—whether it is brainstorming, critiquing arguments, improving drafts—without letting it replace the thinking process. An over-reliance can weaken writing skills, limit original thought, and reduce intellectual confidence. Genuine literacy means students must know how to critically evaluate AI outputs, understand its limitations, and apply independent judgement alongside it.
TE: How can educators and students navigate AI tools without sacrificing the learning process?
Educators can revisit curricula and integrate AI into assessments with clear guidelines, positioning it as a tool to enhance student work rather than replace critical thinking. Essentially helping students find their way with the assistance of AI, but never take full control of the wheel. Students should be encouraged to treat AI as a study partner for defined tasks, while educators have an opportunity to rethink written assessment, and start to focus on process rather than rely on finished product, to distinguish genuine engagement from surface-level reliance on technology.