EDUCATION
Staying human even as technology transforms education
Digital platforms have reshaped how education is delivered. What remains ope is how much of that move teacher education can absorb without thinning out the human core of teaching.
That tension sits at the centre of a recent Voice of Clarity podcast conversation between Dr. Rashee Singh, professor and head of the School of Education and Humanities at Manav Rachna University, and Rashima Vaid-Varma, dean of the same school. Rather than making sweeping claims about technology’s promise, the discussion returns to a narrower, more difficult question: how teachers are prepared for classrooms that are changing faster than the profession itself.
What gets lost in the edtech rush
For Vaid-Varma, the concern is not access or efficiency, but erosion.
“What is truly getting lost in all this noise of edtech and technology and AI is the human touch,” she says. “We are social beings. We do well when we are in contact with other human beings, and this technology cannot replace a human.”
Teaching, she argues, is not reducible to content delivery. The ability to inspire, empathise and respond to learners in real time remains central and cannot be automated.
Singh notes that this view is already shaping how teacher education programmes are structured. Courses such as Understanding the Self are designed to help future teachers reflect on their own identities and emotional responses alongside understanding learners. The emphasis, she says, is not technical efficiency alone, but empathy and self-awareness.
Why blended learning is becoming unavoidable
Blended learning is often framed as a solution in search of a problem. In this conversation, it is treated as a practical outcome of how education systems now operate.
“The way of teaching and pedagogies will change with the way society evolves,” Vaid-Varma says. As physical presence becomes less essential in many contexts, blended models allow institutions to reach wider audiences without insisting on constant classroom attendance.
Singh points out that with universities increasingly offering online formats, blended learning is no longer experimental. It is fast becoming the default approach.
AI in the classroom: tool, not teacher
Both speakers are clear that artificial intelligence is here to stay. The question is where it belongs.
“AI tools are great tools,” Vaid-Varma says, “as long as we use them as something that supports teaching and learning.” While such tools allow for personalisation and efficiency, she stresses that knowledge itself continues to be built through human interaction.
Singh adds that teacher education programmes have begun introducing dedicated AI courses to equip future educators with relevant skills. The aim, she says, is not to outsource thinking, but to help teachers integrate these tools into pedagogy without surrendering judgement.
Vaid-Varma repeatedly returns to the issue of voice. Heavy reliance on AI, she warns, often flattens expression.
“What people connect with is an authentic voice,” she says. “If your voice is the same as everybody else’s, you get lost in the crowd.”
Authenticity, bias and the limits of automation
The discussion sharpens when it turns to bias. Vaid-Varma points out that AI systems carry inbuilt assumptions shaped by the data they are trained on.
“If you ask an AI tool to create an image of a university classroom with a teacher,” she says, “it will show you a Caucasian man, always. That is an inbuilt bias.”
Teachers, she argues, must be trained not only to use AI, but to question it. Without that awareness, such tools risk reinforcing stereotypes rather than challenging them.
To make the point, she draws an analogy from agriculture. Tools evolved to make human labour easier, but they never replaced human agency. AI, she suggests, should be understood the same way, as an aid, not a substitute.
Bridging the generational skills gap
The conversation also touches on a widening divide within the profession. Newer teachers often enter classrooms with greater exposure to updated pedagogies and technologies, while those trained earlier struggle to keep pace.
“Earlier, a teacher could go 20 or 30 years without upskilling,” Vaid-Varma says. “That is no longer possible.”
Continuous professional development, she argues, has become essential to understand how today’s learners think and engage. Master’s programmes, postgraduate diplomas and short-term certifications are increasingly offered in blended formats to accommodate working professionals.
Teacher education, she adds, now has to serve two groups at once, those entering the profession and those already in it.
Beyond the classroom
Teacher education, the speakers note, is also shedding narrow career definitions. While teaching remains central, education degrees now lead to roles in curriculum design, instructional development, ed-tech, research, professional training and consulting.
Vaid-Varma describes this expanding scope as one of the strengths of contemporary education programmes, particularly at a moment when education itself is being reimagined across sectors.
What must change, and what must not
In a rapid closing exchange, Vaid-Varma returns to fundamentals. Compassion and emotional intelligence, she suggests, remain among the most undervalued qualities in teachers today. Technology can enhance learning when used well, but it can just as easily distract. Teacher education, she argues, must stop treating theory and practice as separate and integrate experiential learning from the outset.
Asked to define the future of teacher education in one word, Vaid-Varma chooses “innovation”. Singh offers a brief summation of her own: staying human in a digital world.
As education continues to evolve, the conversation offers a restrained reminder. The challenge is not whether technology belongs in the classroom, but whether it can be adopted without eroding the judgement, relationships and authenticity that make teaching matter.