[OPINION] Thinking like ChatGPT: What artificial intelligence reveals about our reading classrooms

For those unfamiliar, PISA is a global benchmarking test carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

It assesses how well fifteen-year-old students around the world can apply what they have learned in reading, mathematics, and science to real-life situations.

In the 2022 cycle, Malaysia’s results were far from encouraging. Our students did not just perform poorly in basic reading tasks.

They also struggled with deeper comprehension, particularly in evaluating, interpreting, and thinking critically about what they read.

This is not a new problem. But it is becoming harder to ignore.

It is convenient to blame students for poor performance. It is easy to assume that they are lazy, distracted, or uninterested in reading. But how often do we ask what kind of reading we have actually been teaching?

In many classrooms, reading is reduced to locating answers for examinations. Students are rarely encouraged to question, to reflect, or to argue. Reading becomes an exercise in obedience, not in thought.

At the same time, we warn students about the dangers of artificial intelligence. We tell them not to rely on tools like ChatGPT. Yet ironically, it is this very tool that may be teaching the thinking we have long neglected.

What ChatGPT Can Teach Us About Reading

ChatGPT is a form of artificial intelligence that responds to prompts using patterns learned from vast amounts of text.

When asked a question, it does not merely retrieve an answer. It considers context, weighs meanings, makes inferences, and offers a reasoned response.

This is what reading ought to look like.

When students read a passage, they should be thinking, “What is the writer trying to say?” “What is left unsaid?” “Can I trust this information?”

These are the very questions ChatGPT attempts to answer when responding to complex prompts.

If a machine can be programmed to do this, what excuse do we have for not training our students to do the same?

From Passive Reading to Active Thinking

Let us be honest. In many classrooms, comprehension exercises involve finding specific answers. Students underline keywords, copy sentences, and move on. There is little room for interpretation or discussion.

Teachers, often constrained by time and syllabus demands, may feel they have no choice. But this approach trains students to read passively. It teaches them to look, not to think.

Imagine if we tried something different.

Before reading, ask students: “If you were ChatGPT, what would you want to know about this title?”

During reading: “How might ChatGPT make sense of this paragraph?”

After reading: “What questions would ChatGPT ask in return?”

This is not about turning our classrooms into machines. It is about turning our students into thinkers.

Much has been said about the risks of artificial intelligence. But perhaps the greater danger is human complacency.

If we continue teaching reading as memorisation, we are preparing our students for a world that no longer exists. Information is everywhere. What matters now is what one does with it.

ChatGPT, despite its limitations, demonstrates a process of critical engagement. It checks for tone. It considers bias.

It generates possibilities. If students can learn to do the same, they will not only be better readers but also better citizens.

A Call for Rethinking, Not Blame

Malaysia has no shortage of intelligent students. What they lack is a system that trusts them enough to think.

It is time to move beyond surface-level reforms. We must question what kind of reading we are teaching. Are we producing students who can recite, or students who can reason?

ChatGPT is not the solution to our education crisis. But it does hold up a mirror. It reminds us that reading is not simply about knowing the answer. It is about asking the right questions.

And that is something we have ignored for far too long.

---

Dr Satirah Hj Ahmad is Pensyarah Cemerlang Gred Khas C at IPGM Kampus Sultan Abdul Halim.