In Korea, where high technology is deeply embedded in all aspects of life, the application of artificial intelligence in education was once considered a matter of course. With the ambition to create a comprehensive transformation, the Government of this country expects AI textbooks to help each student have a personalized learning experience, instead of having to follow a dry general roadmap. The goal of the program is to optimize teaching and learning: AI will monitor the acquisition ability of each student, provide appropriate lectures and support teachers to reduce pressure in daily work.
To realize that ambition, a series of publishers have been mobilized to develop AI textbooks, schools are equipped with new equipment, and teachers are trained to use digital tools. This is not a small experiment, but a national-level strategy, introduced as a symbol of digital transformation in education. With a huge investment amount, along with strong promotions that AI will support students who cannot keep up with their lessons and help teachers save time, the project will become the focus of the whole society.
But after only one semester, the program was forced to stop. A series of problems arose, from technical errors, overloaded screen time, to concerns about personal data leakage. What is promised to be a solution for the future becomes a burden for teachers, students and parents. When expectations are dashed, the question arises: Why is a country like South Korea, which has an advanced technology foundation and experience in implementing educational technology, failing?
Investing big for a leap
Korea's AI textbook program started with enthusiasm and confidence. The government declares this a step forward to help students study at their own pace, reduce dropouts and at the same time free teachers from repetitive jobs. One of the factors that makes the program expected is the ability of AI to track the learning process in real time, then provide appropriate exercises for each student, to suit each student's level.
In the plan promoted for more than a year and a half, about 12 publishers were selected to develop AI textbooks. They are required to develop digital content for math, English and IT subjects, integrating an automatic assessment system. At the same time, schools across the country are equipped with tablets, classroom management systems and high-speed internet connection. The government spends more than 1,200 billion won on equipment and teacher training, while publishers invest 800 billion won to develop textbooks.
That great expectation made many students like Ko Ho-dam, who are studying on Jeju Island, feel curious and excited. He believes that AI textbooks will make learning easier and more fun. But when the school year began, the things Ko imagined did not happen. Lessons were delayed due to technical errors and difficult interfaces, causing students to lose concentration. Ko said that studying with a laptop makes him easily distracted and AI does not give him a lesson that suits his level.
Not only students were disappointed. Teachers and parents began complaining about the book containing many errors, increasing screen time and increasing workload. Factors that were once promoted as advantages have now become a burden. Teachers said they have to monitor many systems at the same time, handling a series of problems arising during class. Monitoring the progress of each student through AI does not help teachers feel more secure, but makes them do more work.
The tensions increased as social organizations and teachers' unions spoke out against, saying that AI textbooks pose a potential risk of student data leakage and reduce children's communication skills. A group of parents even filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Education, opposing the mandatory use of AI textbooks in classrooms.
Faced with increasing pressure, the Government was forced to change the plan. The program is no longer mandatory, converted to voluntary testing. But damage has occurred. After only 4 months of implementation, AI textbooks have had their title of "teschool book" revoked and are only considered supplementary documents. The rate of schools registering to use the site decreased from more than 37% to 19,9% in the following semester. Many schools have left the program because they do not want to become testing sites.
Lessons from Korea's failure
The failure of AI textbooks comes not from the nature of technology, but from the way it is implemented. Korea possesses ideal conditions to apply technology in education: Strong infrastructure, students are familiar with digital devices, teachers have been exposed to technology. However, the desire to create achievements has caused the implementation process to miss many important steps.
One of the biggest reasons is the hastily implemented. For traditional books, the development process can take more than 2 years, including content writing, criticism, editing and assessment. Meanwhile, AI textbooks were developed in just a few months. The application of unprocessed technology in the classroom quickly makes small errors a big problem. In front of an ongoing class, every minute that students and teachers have problems is an unacceptable interruption.
Another factor is that the Government imposes programs instead of letting teachers choose for themselves. In class, teachers are the ones who understand students best, know what is suitable and what is not. When forced to apply technology that they do not have time to get used to, teachers become people under heavy pressure. Instead of focusing on teaching, they have to handle system errors and support students in using technology.
Some teachers admit that AI textbooks help save time in grading and supporting disadvantaged students. But that is not enough to make up for the limitations when technology is still unstable. Not all students are suitable for continuous screen learning. Many parents are concerned that their children will be addicted to digital devices, reducing their ability to communicate and reason.
The program is also affected by political factors. The change of the head of the Government led to a change in policy, making the program from compulsory to voluntary, and then almost eliminated. Companies that have invested hundreds of billions of won to develop AI textbooks have suddenly lost market, forced to face the risk of cutting staff. Some units have filed lawsuits against the Government for financial losses.
The most important lesson from the program is that education is not a place to impose. AI is only meaningful when it plays a supporting role for teachers, not replacing them. Technology needs time to be tested, adjusted and integrated into the learning environment. If implemented at too fast and with pressure to achieve results, the consequences will be greater than the benefits.
Korea's ambition is not wrong: Personalizing AI learning is an inevitable direction in the future. However, the haste made the show a costly failure. Technology in education is not only a story about devices and algorithms, but also about human understanding. Only when students, parents and teachers are listened to, will AI truly become a tool to improve education instead of creating a failed experiment.
