Breaking Free from the Trap of Instant Gratification: Lecturers’ Strategies and Role Modelling in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

By : Nur Azmi Ainul Bashir, S.Kom., M.Kom.

[OPINION] As lecturers, we are accustomed to delivering course materials, encouraging group discussions, and asking students to present their work. Various teaching methods are employed, ranging from interactive lectures and case studies in small groups to question-and-answer sessions and in-depth discussions to assess students’ understanding of the subject matter.

This phenomenon is not confined to universities. From primary school classrooms to secondary education, teachers and students alike are now facing the same wave of instant gratification.

Ideally, through these methods, students should not merely sit passively as recipients of information or become little more than mouthpieces for technology. Lecturers hope that students will become active learners: critically examining cases, engaging in discussions to explore different perspectives on an issue, and having the confidence to stand in front of the class and present their findings or understanding in their own words and style.

In the classroom, lecturers facilitate learning activities, while students bring the substance to life. However, in recent years, a contrasting scene has raised an important question: why, when students are asked to discuss a topic in groups, do they immediately turn to their respective mobile phones? Why do discussions finish in such a short time? And why, when students present their findings, do almost all of them read from notes or their phone screens rather than speak directly to the audience?

On closer examination, the root of the problem lies in how students seek answers. When presented with a case study or an assessment question, students increasingly choose to delegate the task of thinking to Artificial Intelligence (AI). They ask AI the same questions that lecturers ask them. AI then provides responses based on the prompts it receives. Students take these answers at face value, copy them, and read them verbatim in front of the class. The essence of a presentation—the ability to communicate one's understanding orally and critically—eventually disappears, replaced by the ritual of reading machine-generated text.

Challenges and Solutions: Addressing Instant Habits Through Education

Faced with this phenomenon, educators cannot simply stand by. Doing so would mean allowing students to become complacent with a convenience that may ultimately disadvantage them. Therefore, several concrete, albeit challenging, measures need to be introduced to help students return to the true purpose of learning.

The first and most fundamental step is to reshape students’ understanding of technology. They need to recognise that AI is not a substitute for human thought, but rather a critical discussion partner.

One useful analogy can be found in everyday life: the escalator. According to the Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI), an escalator is a “motorised staircase with moving steps that travel upwards or downwards and are equipped with a handrail”. Ideally, people using an escalator continue walking while it carries them, allowing them to reach the next floor more quickly than they would by taking ordinary stairs—or simply standing still on the moving steps.

If an escalator represents AI, users should not simply stand still and wait for answers. Instead, they should keep moving alongside the technology. AI should be treated as a platform for discussion and questions that help generate insights, not merely as an instant typing assistant or an all-purpose answer machine. Students need to take an active role by asking follow-up questions, challenging responses, and independently verifying information before accepting it as fact.

Once this foundation for critical thinking has been established, the next challenge concerns how assignments are completed. In an increasingly sophisticated technological age, asking students to rewrite material or submit handwritten assignments may sound unusual, even contradictory to the movement towards paperless practices. However, just as people still need to take steps on an escalator even though the equipment itself moves, handwriting can serve as an effective “cognitive brake”.

By rewriting information obtained from various sources, including AI, students are compelled to read the material twice: first from the original source, and then again as they process and organise it in their own handwriting. This physical process can help students internalise the material more effectively than simply copying and pasting digitally.

The final stage of this process is tested when students have to speak in front of the class. The greatest challenge is encouraging them to speak without relying on lengthy scripts or their phone screens.

Lecturers need to be more flexible about the quantity of material students are expected to deliver. A presentation does not have to be lengthy, provided that what students say genuinely reflects their own understanding. Not every student will immediately feel confident enough to speak without a script. Lecturers should therefore allow reasonable flexibility for those who need written prompts, such as small notes containing key points, rather than a full text to be read word for word. The objective is simple: to build confidence and encourage students to take full responsibility for the substance of their presentations.

A Mirror for Educators: Leading by Example in Teaching

Ultimately, efforts to educate students about the responsible use of AI also require awareness among educators themselves. Digital integrity and ethics cannot be demanded solely of students; they must begin with the example set by lecturers in the classroom. Lecturers, too, need to demonstrate professionalism by delivering material confidently, using simple analogies, and teaching without becoming dependent on full scripts or reading directly from slides.

Being responsible in the use of AI does not mean that lecturers should automatically prohibit students from using technology, nor does it mean that lecturers must avoid AI when preparing course materials. The point is not to forbid students from using the escalator while educators avoid it themselves. Rather, it is about showing students how to walk on an escalator properly.

When lecturers demonstrate how to use artificial intelligence proportionately to develop teaching materials, rather than copying its output without critical examination, students have a real example to follow. This approach should, of course, remain sensitive to reasonable exceptions for individuals with specific accessibility needs.

Through a combination of students’ critical awareness and willingness to keep moving forward, alongside the ethical example set by their lecturers, we can break free from the trap of instant gratification and protect the academic world from the pitfalls of artificial intelligence. []

Author: Nur Azmi Ainul Bashir, S.Kom., M.Kom., is a lecturer at the Faculty of Information Technology and Head of the Computer Engineering Study Programme at UNU Yogyakarta. He holds a Master’s degree in Informatics from Universitas Islam Indonesia. He also serves on the board of the Miftahussalam Islamic Boarding School Foundation in Mlati, Sleman, and as an Islamic Education Advisor at Miftahussalam Integrated Islamic Kindergarten (TKIT Miftahussalam).

Editor: Latifah

Editorial Note: This article is the author's own work. All content, views, interpretations, and information presented are the responsibility of the author. The editorial team is not responsible for the opinions or views expressed in the article, apart from the editing undertaken for publication purposes.