Coaching educators through AI starts with student thinking

coaching educators – A conversation with Melinda Glowacki, a supervisor at the UCI School of Education, breaks down how to coach teachers on AI integration without shutting them down—by anchoring guidance in the kind of thinking students should do, inviting reflective dialogue, an
The discussion doesn’t begin with rules. It begins with thought.
In a recent episode of the Easy EdTech Podcast. Melinda Glowacki—identified as a supervisor at the UCI School of Education—talks about leading coaching conversations with educators who are trying to integrate AI into teaching. Her central message is practical and pointed: if educators walk into an AI conversation expecting compliance talk. the room can quickly turn defensive. If they walk in expecting to explore the thinking students should be doing, the conversation has room to move.
Glowacki describes a way to draft AI guidance that centers critical thinking rather than simply enforcing behavior. The goal, she says through her coaching approach, is to shift the focus away from “what not to do” and toward the cognitive work students are supposed to produce.
One coaching move she emphasizes is permission coaching—an approach that starts by asking whether someone is open to coaching before the conversation pivots into instruction. In her framing, it’s not a small courtesy; it’s a pressure release. It invites educators into the dialogue instead of locking them into a one-way lecture.
Her episode also returns to the day-to-day problem educators face: finding authentic ways to use AI without treating it as a generic tool applied to every lesson. Glowacki’s guidance is to connect AI integration to content teachers already know well. When teachers can anchor AI tasks in familiar material, she argues, the conversation stops feeling abstract—and starts feeling workable.
There’s another step that runs through her approach: sandboxing and play. Glowacki encourages educators to experiment with AI platforms themselves. starting from personal expertise rather than from fear of getting it wrong. The idea is to move from “AI as a threat” to “AI as something you can test and understand. ” with coaching that supports exploration instead of shutting down curiosity.
The episode lays out these coaching strategies as an integrated method: begin with the kind of thinking students should do; ask for openness before coaching; tie AI to existing content knowledge; and create space for educators to sandbox and play with AI platforms.
For teachers and school leaders trying to build AI guidance that families will hear and students can actually benefit from, the conversation also points toward communication beyond the staff room—so the broader community isn’t left guessing.
The episode is presented through the Easy EdTech Podcast platform, and it is described as sponsored by an Amazon Storefront, with a link provided as ClassTechTips.com/amazon. The show also includes on-platform listening prompts and encourages follow-and-review actions on Apple Podcasts.
AI education coaching educators UCI School of Education critical thinking AI guidance teacher training classroom AI family communication reflective dialogue
So basically teach kids how to think? Sounds good I guess.
I didn’t even know UCI was doing education stuff like this. But “permission coaching” sounds like letting teachers do whatever they want with AI? Like… are they really gonna stop the cheating part or is that just gone now.
Permission coaching is funny to me because half the teachers I know are already exhausted and now we gotta ask if they’re open to coaching first lol. Also “sandboxing and play” sounds like they’re just letting students mess around with chatbots without any guardrails. Like what if they feed it the wrong info? Then it’s our fault? Not sure.
This whole article feels like it’s saying “don’t enforce rules, just talk about thinking.” But schools already don’t have time for extra conversations. And connecting AI to familiar content sounds nice, but I feel like that’s still just a workaround to get around policy. Also, students doing the “cognitive work” thing… okay but half of them won’t. Then teachers are supposed to coach their brains? Kinda seems backwards to me.