Another Look Behind the Curtain

How I use AI to help me think rather than as my ghost writer.

Several months ago I tried to pull back the curtain on my writing process and the way I was using AI in the process. After some welcome feedback from a friend I decided to eliminate my use of AI for help in writing my posts. Instead I have been limiting use to final proofing of my words.

My last Substack post about Post-It Notes vs Velcro was an example of that approach. My writing, AI used for correcting only. Based on feedback from the post, however, I want to give you a second look behind the curtain – this time to show how AI can be used as a thought partner, rather than as a ghost writer. I start out with my original query to ChatGPT, but then I’m including what ChatGPT did to help my thinking in a productive way.

My intro (my words)

I’m fortunate enough to meet with an outstanding group of world language educators from across the country every Wednesday afternoon. Our focus ranges across a broad range of professional concerns though much of the discussion centers around the FILL approach to language proficiency.

Yesterday we took a few minutes to discuss my last Substack post on Post-It Notes vs Velcro. The most valuable part of the discussion was the pushback from those colleagues. Other readers may have had the same reaction but didn’t express it so I thought it might be helpful to consider the major arguments in the push back.

For me the point of the post was clear – “Curriculum” - which I define as the teacher’s plan for the course that includes content to be covered and the sequencing for that coverage, is doomed. Successful long-term learning must start with the individual learner. It’s fine for a teacher to carefully plan, but that’s like a Post-It Note – it will stick for awhile, but probably not long term because there is no “loop” from the student to go with the curricular “hook” provided by the teacher. Even when a teacher tries to make sure content connects to a class, chances are that’s still going to be relatively short term. That’s the teacher’s attempt to use a really sticky Post-It Note. It’s still just one sided, unlike Velcro

The following is an example of how I use AI to push me to think more deeply about a topic. The process was straightforward. I uploaded a transcript of the discussion and then asked ChatGPT to help me understand the arguments, identify the weak spots in my post, etc. I’m sharing my ChatGPT query and response here:

(Image generated by Google’s Gemini program using a selfie I provided of my face)

The lengthy query: “Much of the discussion in yesterday’s Neural Network meeting was a reaction to my Substack post “Post It Notes vs Velcro”. My point was that a curriculum that lays out the goals for a course and the pacing for the year is doomed to failure because it starts with the teacher, not the learner. Even very “engaging” assignments are still originating from the teacher. Analyze the discussion and figure out how I can understand the points of disagreement in order to clarify my argument. In my mind, FILL is dependent on getting away from a traditional curriculum and instead focusing on the learning needs of the learner. Part of the “problem” might also be attributable to the fact that most of them had not yet had the chance to read the Post. Help me understand where my arguments were weakest or least convincing and offer some suggestions. I’m thinking about talking about this in today’s post so I have a dual purpose in mind.

Chat’s Response

Where the friction actually came from

Listening to that discussion, I don’t hear people rejecting your core idea. I hear them protecting something they believe still matters.

Most of the pushback seemed to cluster around a few implicit concerns:

1. “If we don’t start with a curriculum, what ensures coherence?”
Several comments circled this without naming it directly. There’s a deep, almost reflexive belief that without a planned sequence, learning becomes fragmented or uneven.

2. “Teachers still need a role in designing learning.”
There was some resistance to the idea that teacher-originated tasks are inherently limiting. For many in the group, “engaging curriculum” is already a step forward from traditional models, so your argument can feel like it dismisses meaningful progress.

3. “What about students who aren’t ready to drive their own learning?”
This one is always just under the surface. If we start with the learner, what happens when the learner doesn’t yet have the capacity, confidence, or clarity to do that?

4. “Is this scalable or realistic in current systems?”
Even when not stated directly, you could feel it. People were trying to map your idea onto existing structures—courses, schedules, expectations—and it doesn’t quite fit.

---

Where your argument felt least convincing (or easiest to misinterpret)

This is where things get useful.

You may be collapsing two different critiques into one.

You’re arguing:

• Starting with the teacher (curriculum-first) limits learning

• Even engaging, well-designed tasks are still teacher-driven

But what some listeners heard was:

• Curriculum = bad

• Teacher-designed learning = inherently flawed

That’s a stronger claim than you probably intend—and it triggers resistance.

---

A subtle but important distinction you might make

Right now, your argument can sound like a rejection of curriculum.

But what I think you actually mean is something more precise:

The problem isn’t that curriculum exists.
The problem is when curriculum becomes the starting point rather than a resource.

That shift matters.

Because many of your colleagues are still thinking:

• Curriculum = structure, clarity, equity

While you’re thinking:

• Curriculum = pre-determined pathway that may or may not fit the learner

Those are not the same conversation.

---

Where the Post-it vs. Velcro metaphor may need strengthening

The metaphor is powerful, but it may be doing a bit too much work without enough grounding.

If I read the room correctly, some people may have thought:

• “Post-it notes” = engaging activities (which they value)

• “Velcro” = something vague or idealized

So the metaphor risks feeling like:

“What you’re doing is weak; what I’m proposing is stronger”

…without clearly showing why or how.

---

How you might clarify your argument (and strengthen today’s post)

Instead of sharpening the critique, you might deepen the contrast.

Here are a few directions that feel very aligned with your voice:

---

1. Reframe the issue as a starting point problem, not a design problem

You might say something like:

It’s not that teachers design poor learning experiences.
It’s that even excellent designs can miss the learner if they don’t begin there.

That keeps respect for teachers intact while still shifting the center.

---

2. Separate “engagement” from “alignment”

This feels like a key insight that didn’t fully land in the discussion.

An activity can be:

• highly engaging

• thoughtfully designed

…and still not connect to what the learner is ready for or needs next.

That’s your Velcro point.

---

3. Lean into your first guiding principle

This is where your voice is strongest:

Absolute respect for the individual learner means we don’t assume the path—we discover it.

That gives your argument an ethical grounding, not just a structural one.

---

4. Address the readiness concern directly

You might say:

Starting with the learner doesn’t mean leaving them on their own.
It means meeting them where they are—and building from there.

That connects beautifully to your work with Duke and the Urban Pooch example.

---

5. Acknowledge the partial reading issue without calling it out

You don’t need to say “people didn’t read the post,” but you can gently restate the core idea in clearer terms:

I may not have been as clear as I needed to be…

That invites readers back in rather than putting them on the defensive.

---

A possible through-line for today’s post

You might frame it like this:

The conversation this week helped me realize something important.
The challenge isn’t convincing people that learning should be meaningful.
We already agree on that.

The challenge is something deeper—where learning begins.

From there, you can clarify:

• Not anti-curriculum

• Not anti-teacher

• But firmly pro-learner as the starting point

---

Three questions to help you go deeper (for your Substack)

1. When teachers say “students aren’t ready to lead their learning,” what assumptions are we making about readiness—and who defines it?

2. What is lost when we design a full-year pathway before meeting the learners who will walk it?

3. If curriculum became a flexible resource instead of a fixed roadmap, what new kinds of learning might become possible?

My closing thoughts

It would be interesting to know what percent of my readers are regular AI users. If you are, this may not have provided much insight, but I wanted to use it as an example of ways in which a writer (student or adult) can use AI to stimulate thinking and not merely as a way to have it write a post.

For the next post I’m going to compose my “response” to the insights and advice from ChatGPT which you see here. Then when that is done and posted, I’ll ask ChatGPT to write a complete post for me. I’m looking forward to comparing the two versions - and I hope you are too.