From Panic to Practice: Why We Keep Asking the Wrong Questions About Innovation in Learning

Here we go again.

A new technology shows up (this time it’s AI) and right on cue, we start spiraling.

Is it ethical? Is it cheating? Should we ban it? Should we embrace it?

I've seen this play out across K–12 schools, nonprofits, and corporate L&D teams. The context shifts, but the cycle doesn’t.

First comes the panic. Then the begrudging curiosity. And eventually, after lots of noise, comes thoughtful integration. By that point, we’ve usually wasted a whole lot of time asking the wrong questions.

When something new enters the learning space, especially something disruptive, we default to “Should we even be using this?” instead of asking “How could this actually help us do our work better?”

The Cycle We Can’t Seem to Break

Here’s the pattern we keep falling into:

1. The Panic Stage

This is when we freak out. We rush to block access, issue warnings, and clutch our pearls about what it might do. Calculators were going to ruin kids’ ability to think. Wikipedia was labeled unreliable. Video learning wasn’t seen as real instruction.

Now it’s AI. ChatGPT was banned in schools before folks even figured out what it could actually do. Nonprofits hesitated over concerns about bias. Companies paused while teams tested it behind the scenes without much structure.

2. The Hesitant Testing Phase

Eventually someone tries it. A teacher drafts IEP goals with AI. A nonprofit automates training feedback to reclaim time. A corporate learning team personalizes onboarding content.

It’s awkward and unclear. People don’t know the rules. But experimentation starts anyway, and often the people doing it quietly are the ones gaining the most value while others wait for clarity.

3. The Integration Phase

This is where intention kicks in. We stop asking if we should use the tech and start focusing on how to use it well. Guidelines are written. Guardrails are created. People begin aligning the tool with real goals and values. And just like that, what felt scary becomes useful.

We’ve Seen This Before

None of this is new. We’ve done this with every major shift in learning technology.

• Calculators were banned at first. Now they’re essential tools for helping students focus on problem solving instead of long division.

• Wikipedia was mocked and banned. Now it inspires internal knowledge-sharing systems in companies and nonprofits.

• Online learning was dismissed as weak. Now it’s a critical format across education and workforce development.

The only difference with AI is the speed. The reaction cycle is still the same.

Real-Life Examples Across Sectors

This pattern shows up everywhere. Some quick examples:

• ChatGPT was banned in schools. Then it became a planning and writing tool. Nonprofits like Saga Education are exploring how to use it to streamline coaching and feedback. Companies are using it to build content, run simulations, and scale development programs.

• AI feedback tools like Writable and Gradescope are helping teachers give students more timely feedback. Nonprofits are using similar tools to reach more learners without burning out staff. In corporate learning, platforms now give managers automated nudges to coach better and more often.

• Personalized learning tools like DreamBox or CodePath got pushback for being too tech-driven. But when used with care, they’re helping learners grow at their own pace, especially when teacher or facilitator capacity is limited.

• DEI and AI is a tricky space. There are serious concerns about bias. At the same time, there are tools helping organizations simulate inclusive decision-making or mask bias-prone data points in hiring. Both sides of the conversation matter.

Better Questions Lead to Better Outcomes

We spend too much time stuck in fear or debate, and not enough time designing with intention.

Instead of asking:

• “Should we use this?”

• “Is this right or wrong?”

We could be asking:

• “How could this tool support learning and growth?”

• “What do we need to watch out for, and how do we plan for that?”

• “How do we keep people at the center of our systems, even as the tools change?”

Final Thought: Let’s Stay Curious

Innovation doesn’t need our permission to exist. But it does need our leadership if we want it to be ethical, equitable, and effective.

So the next time something new shows up in our classrooms, our programs, or our teams, maybe we can pause before we panic. Maybe we ask a different question.

What if this is the thing that helps us do our work better?