What We Learn When We Ask English Teachers Rather Than Biased Algorithms

The conversation about education vs. intelligence has become inseparable from artificial intelligence. Parents hear daily that AI will adapt learning, accelerate progress, and maybe even make teachers optional. At the same time, biased algorithms are already shaping which tools families choose, often without anyone fully understanding how those tools affect a learning experience.

In the middle of this noise, one question keeps resurfacing: can AI replace teachers? The idea of AI replacing teachers is no longer speculative—it is actively marketed. Yet when you step away from promises and ask the people who work with children every day, a very different story emerges.

That’s what Novakid did. The platform surveyed over 100 active teachers from its global network—educators who collectively teach thousands of children across cultures, ages, and levels. Their views are not theoretical. They come from daily classroom experiences, real reactions, and long-term observation of how children actually learn English, especially when they are non-native English speakers.

When algorithm education meets reality

In theory, algorithm education offers perfect personalisation: adaptive exercises, instant corrections, and endless practice. In practice, teachers see clear limits. In the survey, around 64% preferred mostly individual lessons, while about 34% chose a blended format. The reason was consistent across continents: progress depends on teacher-student interaction, not just on optimised content delivery.

Teachers emphasised that education is not about processing speed, but about building confidence. For non-native English speakers, speaking up is an emotional challenge on its own. One teacher described progress as the moment children “start using words and phrases on their own,” something algorithms cannot replicate.

What teachers see that algorithms miss

Across dozens of open responses, teachers described the same risk: excessive dependence on AI makes students passive. 32% of the teachers explicitly warned that children become “lazy and less independent” when apps lead the process. Instead of experimenting, they wait for answers. Instead of speaking, they observe. This pattern likewise reinforces bad social skills, especially in shy children who are already hesitant to communicate.

Human teachers respond to things algorithms cannot measure: tone, hesitation, mood, and fear of mistakes. They adjust in real time, rephrase questions, slow down, or gently push forward. This is where teacher-student interaction becomes the core of learning, not a bonus.

What research says when classrooms meet AI

What teachers observe daily is mirrored in current research on artificial intelligence and language learning. Multiple recent studies show that AI tools can support vocabulary practice, pronunciation, and repetition, particularly for short-term engagement. But they also highlight the same limitation teachers describe: without guidance, motivation drops, and learning becomes shallow.

A large-scale analysis published in Frontiers in Psychology showed that AI-supported tools can improve test performance and self-regulated learning, but only when teachers structure and monitor their use. Another review indexed in PubMed reached a similar conclusion: generative AI helps informal practice, but sustained fluency depends on feedback, emotional support, and adaptive scaffolding—elements tied directly to teacher-student interaction.

Research and classroom reality agree on the same conclusion: technology amplifies learning only when human teaching is already present.

What a real learning experience looks like

When teachers talk about progress, they don’t talk about scores. Most of the survey responses pointed to increased speaking confidence as the clearest sign. Others mentioned children forming full sentences independently, self-correcting, or volunteering ideas in conversation. These changes are gradual, although unmistakable.

Teachers also agreed on the structure. The most effective format was 20–30 minute lessons, 2–4 times per week, paired with short daily practice. Free tools help exposure, but around 70% of respondents said formal courses are still necessary for steady progress. This is where education vs. intelligence becomes visible: learning is not speed, but continuity.

For many non-native English-speaking families, this structure makes the difference between understanding English and actually using it.

Can AI replace teachers, though? 

Regarding the question of whether AI can replace English teachers, the response was clear. More than 64% of teachers said no—AI can only support teachers, not replace them. They pointed to the moments when human teaching matters most: calming anxiety, encouraging risk-taking, adapting to a child’s energy, and turning mistakes into curiosity.

AI tools were seen as useful for generating exercises or songs, and about 40% of teachers viewed this positively. But many also reported spotting AI use in homework immediately, due to unnatural phrasing or a mismatched level. While opinions varied on whether this counts as cheating, the consensus was clear: reliance on AI weakens learning.

This is the real risk behind the idea of AI replacing teachers—not that AI is too strong, but that children stop engaging. And a study published in ScienceDirect agrees: teachers and students said that generative AI cannot replace the human qualities that are essential for competency development and personal growth in education. 

Why are educators important in a global network?

The strength of Novakid’s survey lies in its scale and diversity. Teachers work with children aged 4–12+, from diverse cultures and learning styles, and offer their understanding with unusual depth. They openly discussed weaknesses for a teacher, such as adapting to multiple learning speeds, but additionally emphasised that this flexibility is exactly what algorithms lack.

These are not opinions—they are repeated classroom observations. And they explain clearly why educators are important in any serious learning environment. Their patterns were consistent:

• 85% of respondents said fluency in 3 months means foundations, not mastery
• 60% said grammar continues to be necessary for accuracy
• 60–70% said progress without homework is possible, but it helps to review and remember better

Human connection in the age of AI

Again and again, teachers described the same moment: when a child stops being afraid to speak. That shift—from silence to participation—is driven by relationship, not software. It is the result of teacher student interaction, encouragement, and trust.

In a context increasingly determined by algorithm education, the message from both research and teachers is the same: artificial intelligence can support learning, but it cannot replace the human bond that transforms information into understanding. A learning experience for real is built between people, not systems.

Parents, trust wisdom over hype. See how Novakid brings together top teachers and smart technology for your child’s growth. Ready for real results? Book a trial lesson today.

Sources:

Will generative AI replace teachers in higher education? – Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan, Louisa H.Y. Tsi, 2024

Artificial intelligence in language instruction: impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning –  Ling Wei, 2023

Artificial intelligence-based language learning – Hongliang Qiao, Aruna Zhao, 2023