Penn GSE’s New AI Lab Puts Human Agency at the Center

For students and families, the most important question about artificial intelligence in school may not be which new tool arrives next. It is who gets to decide how that tool affects learning, privacy, teaching, and opportunity. The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education (Penn GSE) says its newly announced Living Laboratory for Human Agency and AI is intended to make educators and learners active participants in those decisions rather than late adopters of technology designed elsewhere.

According to Penn GSE’s October 6, 2026 announcement, the Living Lab will operate as a network connecting researchers, educators, school systems, and industry partners. Its stated purpose is to develop and examine approaches to AI in real educational settings, with attention to responsible use and to the role people retain in learning. The announcement does not describe a single product or a universal classroom program; instead, it frames the work as a structure for collaboration, research, and testing.

Why human agency is the central issue

Penn GSE says AI is rapidly changing teaching and learning while schools and policymakers are weighing potential benefits alongside questions about safety, trust, and what should remain distinctly human in education. That framing matters because an AI system can influence more than the speed of an assignment: it can shape what feedback a student receives, what information a teacher sees, and how decisions are made about learning.

In the announcement, Penn GSE Dean Katharine O. Strunk argues that education systems are too often asked to respond after technological change has already occurred. The Living Lab’s stated premise is that educators, students, and communities should help shape AI’s development and use before practices become fixed. For families, this is a useful lens for evaluating any AI-based learning experience: ask not only whether it is convenient, but also what role the learner, teacher, and parent have in questioning, correcting, or declining its recommendations.

Penn GSE identifies five priorities for the initiative: putting people first; addressing trust, safety, and ethics; pursuing practice-driven innovation; strengthening AI literacy and pedagogy; and building infrastructure for broader, sustained collaboration. These categories are broad, but together they signal that the initiative is concerned with classroom practice and governance as well as technical capability.

What Penn GSE says the Living Lab will do

According to Penn GSE, the Living Lab will be a hub for rapid, evidence-based innovation rather than a standalone center. Associate Professor Bodong Chen, a founding co-director of the initiative and director of Penn GSE’s Knowledge Building Innovation Network, says educators are already experimenting with AI without clear guidance on what works, for whom, and under what conditions. The organization says the Living Lab will seek to co-design and test tools in authentic educational settings.

That emphasis on conditions is especially relevant for schools. A tool that appears useful in one classroom may require different safeguards, teacher preparation, or accessibility considerations elsewhere. Penn GSE says possible projects could include evaluating AI tutoring tools, creating resources for responsible educator use, studying AI’s effects on teaching and learning, and testing approaches to AI literacy for students and teachers. These are potential projects, not a published set of results or commitments to particular findings.

The organization says the effort has three years of philanthropic support to launch research, deepen school partnerships, and create student opportunities around AI-related questions. Penn GSE also says it plans a Google Public Sector-supported speaker series for Penn GSE students and students across the University of Pennsylvania, bringing together speakers from industry, education, and nonprofit organizations. The announcement does not provide further details about project selection, participating school systems, research methods, or public access to future findings.

Existing work offers clues, not conclusions

Penn GSE says the Living Lab builds on AI-related work already underway across the school. Its examples include CORAL, a project led by Shiyan Jiang that the organization says lets young children design humanoid robots; CraftPad, Chen’s AI-assisted workspace for teacher lesson design; and an algorithm-auditing project led by Yasmin Kafai with Penn Engineering that Penn GSE says teaches high school students to investigate bias in AI systems.

These examples point to a notable distinction in the announcement: AI literacy is presented as more than learning to prompt a chatbot. Penn GSE’s description includes students examining bias and young learners creating with technology, while its description of CraftPad emphasizes teachers’ professional expertise and judgment. For educators, that suggests practical AI literacy can include asking where a system’s output came from, whose perspective may be missing, when an answer needs verification, and when a teacher’s knowledge of a student should outweigh an automated suggestion.

Penn GSE also cites its Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence master’s program and its three-state PASS initiative as part of the foundation for the Living Lab. According to the organization, PASS helps school systems explore AI and emerging technologies while considering governance, equity, and safe deployment. Those stated concerns are relevant to any school conversation about AI, particularly when a proposed tool may handle student work or personal information.

Practical questions for schools and families now

While Penn GSE develops this network, families and educators do not need to wait for a research initiative to begin thoughtful conversations. The announcement’s priorities can be translated into straightforward questions:

• Purpose: What learning problem is the AI tool meant to address, and is it the right tool for that problem?
• Human oversight: When can a student ask a teacher for help, challenge an AI response, or receive feedback from a person?
• Privacy and safety: What information will students enter, who can access it, and what guidance has the school provided?
• Equity: Will all students have meaningful access and support, including those who need accommodations or have limited technology access?
• Learning: Does the activity help students explain their reasoning, practice independently, and recognize errors rather than simply generate finished work?

For individual practice, students can also use support that keeps the learning conversation active. COSMIQ is a free voice-driven AI tutor that is free forever for every K-12 student; used thoughtfully, a conversational tool can prompt learners to explain their thinking and bring remaining questions back to a teacher or caregiver.

What to watch next

The significance of Penn GSE’s announcement will depend on what the network ultimately studies, publishes, and changes in collaboration with schools. According to the organization, founding co-director Seiji Isotani sees potential in combining AI, learning analytics, and learning sciences while addressing the challenges that accompany them. The clearest near-term takeaway is not that AI has solved an educational problem, but that decisions about AI deserve educational evidence and public scrutiny.

Penn GSE’s proposed Living Lab places human agency at the heart of that work. For students, parents, and teachers, its most useful contribution could be a continuing reminder that responsible AI use begins with informed questions, meaningful oversight, and a clear commitment to learning—not simply adoption.