Educating Philosophers of Technology
An Interview with Sepehr Vakil, Associate Professor of Learning Sciences at Northwestern University
For this edition of Unlocking Potential, Center for Talent Development (CTD) director Susan Corwith spoke with Sepehr Vakil, associate professor of learning sciences at Northwestern University. Vakil’s research interests are varied, but coalesce around AI in education, particularly the design of technology learning and the role of policy. He is faculty director of the Center for Technology, Policy, and Opportunity, and the MS program in Technology, People, and Policy (MTePP). Vakil also serves as Senior Advisor to the Spencer Foundation on their Artificial Intelligence (AI) initiative and serves on the National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine committee on Developing Competencies for the Future of Data and Computing: The Role of K-12.
Corwith: CTD studies talent development and career pathways, so tell me about your professional and educational pathways. What interests and choices got you to Northwestern and your current work?
Vakil: My undergraduate degree was in electrical engineering and so was my masters. I worked for a few years as an engineer at an engineering startup in the Bay Area, at an aerospace company in Los Angeles, and at Intel. While I was a practicing engineer, I was always really interested in social issues and then the interest narrowed to education. While in one of my engineering roles, I was also working at the Boys and Girls Club of Oakland. I started to get familiar with the public education system and engage in some cool projects. I ran a STEM after school program, for example. That was a very grounding and transformative experience. It led me to graduate school at University of California, Berkeley to do research.
I enrolled in graduate school with a desire to think about civil rights, social inequalities, and the political dimensions of education and STEM education, in particular. I had an acute awareness of the dramatic opportunity gaps that exist in this country. That awareness combined with a personal reflection and set of experiences. My family came here from Iran to pursue educational opportunities. From that experience I came to understand just how out of reach many of the opportunities that are supposed to exist in abundance in America are for many communities. That realization became an important driving force for me.
I completed my doctorate at Berkeley focusing on STEM education through the Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology program, and my first position was at the University of Texas, Austin where I began my work researching the connection between education and opportunity with a focus on STEM. I later came to Northwestern as an associate professor in Learning Sciences.
Corwith: Thank you for sharing your pathway. In talent development, we study how interests, opportunities, and decision points shape individuals’ trajectories. In a recent podcast, you discussed STEM pathways and the ongoing debate around the “right way” to identify and nurture STEM abilities. Based on your research and practice, what have you learned about fostering interest and talent in STEM?
Vakil: That’s a broad question, but I’ll begin with my work—and that of several colleagues at SESP—on identity. We know that children, particularly adolescents, develop more than just academic knowledge in school. They are also exploring questions about who they are and who they are understood to be. This process of “becoming” is deeply connected to learning.
Most people might not consider a math classroom a place where identity construction is happening, but there is a wealth of excellent research—in math education as one example—that demonstrates otherwise. As students are learning algebra, they are also developing ideas about who they are in relation to the subject matter and to their peers. These identity cues can be explicit, but often they are subtle and implicit. This is an important insight gained from the learning sciences: Identity development is always happening.
A common example is hearing someone say “Oh, I am not a math person.” That's an identity statement. It implies, “Mathematics is a wide body of knowledge, but I am not that person. I don't do that.” That's a powerful statement. There are cultural, racial, and gender layers to all these identity questions too. Educators and learning providers—whether in higher education, K-12, or out-of-school programs—have a critical responsibility to be attentive to how students are being positioned, to listen to what students are telling us, and to invest in the work of nurturing healthy learning identities that are respectful of where people come from and their backgrounds. Thinking about learning as more than content delivery is an important anchor in this work.
Corwith: What opportunities are there for educators and school leaders to help more young people pursue STEM long term?
Vakil: One priority is ensuring that STEM education remains current, rigorous, and of high quality. As science and technology continue to evolve at a rapid page—particularly with the transformative developments we’re experiencing in artificial intelligence—it is essential that educational systems keep pace. However, the changes extend beyond AI; the broader STEM landscape is advancing in many different directions and education must respond to that.
Equally important is the relevance of learning opportunities to local communities. This is part of what makes education so complex. It is not only about delivering a body of knowledge, but also about applying that knowledge in context—getting to people where they are, understanding the specific needs and goals of communities, and making content meaningful and coherent within those local environments.
"Technology is impacting all of us. It is in our daily lives, and schools have traditionally focused education about technology on how we make it and how it works...Teaching these pieces is important, but the idea of being a philosopher of technology means that it is also important to teach young people how to think about the ethical and moral dimensions of technology..."
Corwith: In your work you talk about the importance of children being “philosophers of technology”. Can you describe what that means?
Vakil: I can give you an example from an exchange with my own child. We were at the drive-thru and he heard the voice from the speaker and asked if someone was in the box. I explained the concept of a microphone and speaker, and how the system worked. It was a great conversation about current technology. But we are in a time when the voice really could be a computer, AI. This question of sentience, and how children are making sense of technology naturally lends itself to a lot of questions and ethical issues. Children are using tools like Siri on their phones and at home, and they have a sense of intelligence ascribed to these tools.
Technology is impacting all of us. It is in our daily lives, and schools have traditionally focused education about technology on how we make it and how it works. That is what computer science and coding courses have largely been about. Teaching these pieces is important, but the idea of being a philosopher of technology means that it is also important to teach young people how to think about the ethical and moral dimensions of technology, for example its impact on relationships, its impact on society, and how it is operating on social and cultural levels. It is a foundational competency that we should consider just as important as understanding the way a software system might operate.
Think about the kinds of literacies that teenagers need to navigate the world of social media and all its complexity and affordances. There are a lot of pitfalls and traps, so creating space for students, teachers, and families to grapple with the bigger ethical and moral dilemmas that technology has become is a critical part of a modern education. We live in an era where technology has a massive impact on our lives from how we do business, to how we consume entertainment, to how we interact with our friend and loved ones. This ubiquitousness has consequences, so we need to create opportunities for people to think about and respond to those impacts.
Corwith: Are educators ready? What ecosystems are necessary to help prepare educators for this work?
Vakil: Computer science remains a relatively new addition to the K-12 educational landscape. The reality is that many people who are teaching in K-12 don’t have computer science backgrounds, and that is a challenge in the education field. It may be a math teacher or a technical education teacher, or someone with a minor in engineering who has acquired the skills to teach computer science through professional development or self-study.
There are still relatively few preservice teacher preparation programs that lead to credentials in teaching computer science. The same challenge exists with new literacies like AI. As AI becomes increasingly relevant, it presents an opportunity for schools of education and school districts to really collaborate and iterate—developing and testing innovative, rapid-cycle learning models that can adapt to this evolving field. The pipeline isn’t there yet, but researchers and schools of education are beginning to work on addressing the challenge.
"There is a recognition that it is not enough for someone to be “super smart” in science, technology and coding. They also have to social awareness, a level of cultural competency, concern for their fellow humans and the environment."
Corwith: You are a lead faculty member for the new Master of Science in Technology, People, and Policy program at Northwestern which “explores how emerging technologies influence important aspects of society.” You and I have discussed making students philosophers of technology. How does this graduate curriculum align with the goals of K-12?
Vakil: The program actually grew out of the K-12 system and the need to prepare future technology policymakers. The technology workforce is changing, for example, technology policy jobs. We also see these new jobs showing up in philanthropy, research and other fields where people need to understand technology and policy. In these roles, technical literacy is vital, but so is a deep understanding of people and human development. This intersection is connected to the idea of youth as philosophers of technology. To be an effective policymaker you must have thought deeply about the moral and ethical dimensions of technology and its impacts. But the policymaker also has to be thinking pragmatically about issues, like the policy around banning phones in schools, for example. There must be time for thinking deeply and time to put the philosophy into practice. There is movement in the K-12 space to prepare students and teachers to deeply think about and analyze the moral, ethical, and environmental dimensions and implications of technology.
New work from the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) on Standards for Computer Science is leveraging research about how to prepare future computer scientists and engineers. There is a recognition that it is not enough for someone to be “super smart” in science, technology and coding. They also have to social awareness, a level of cultural competency, concern for their fellow humans and the environment. So, we are asking questions about what that means for how we educate and prepare students. This is happening in K-12 and the master’s program is an extension of that work, focusing on how to prepare the next generation of tech workers. It is a fascinating, growing field of study and one that has implications from early childhood through adulthood.
As we all navigate this rapidly changing technological landscape, the work of nurturing STEM talent must go beyond content mastery. It requires a holistic, lifespan approach that recognizes the importance of factors like identity, community, individual strengths, and relevance. Whether in classrooms, after-school programs, or emerging professional fields, we must prepare young people not only to engage with technology, but to question it, shape it, and lead with insight, empathy, and integrity.