Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Professionals · code 2351

Education methods specialists

AI can document the course. Watching a lesson and judging it is still an inspector.

Writing up and evaluating new courses is the one task AI could take a fair chunk of. Sitting in on lessons to watch teachers teach it barely touches.

What they actually do (and what else they get called)

Education methods specialists conduct research and develop or advise on teaching methods, courses and aids. They review and examine teachers’ work, the functioning of educational institutions and the results achieved and recommend changes and improvements. Tasks include - (a) researching into current developments in curricula, teaching methods and other educational practices, and advising on necessary changes and possible improvements; (b) evaluating and advising on contents of courses and methods of examination; (c) researching into audiovisual and other teaching aids and advising on, planning and organizing their introduction in educational establishments; (d) documenting subjects and courses developed, and evaluating new courses; (e) providing ongoing professional development, training and consultative services to teachers; (f) organizing and conducting workshops and conferences to train teachers in new programmes and methods; (g) developing the structure, content and objectives of new educational courses and programmes; (h) visiting schools periodically and conferring with administrative and teaching staff on questions relating to curricula, teaching methods, equipment and other matters; (i) visiting classrooms to observe teaching techniques and to evaluate teachers’ performance and scholastic results obtained; (j) preparing reports and making recommendations to educational authorities concerning possible changes and improvements in curricula, teaching methods, and other matters. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Curriculum coordinator - Curriculum developer - Education methods specialist - Schools inspector - Teaching aids specialist Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - School counsellor - 2359 - Student adviser - 2359 - Educational psychologist - 2634

  • educational researcher
  • curriculum administrator
  • education inspector
  • special educational needs coordinator

Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.

61 / 100

Mostly holds up against AI

AI can take a few chores off your plate, but most of the day is still yours.

Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.

← Robot's turf Human's turf →

The ILO's official verdict: Exposed: Gradient 1

325 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 10 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 39.3 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 39.3 = 60.7.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Exposed: Gradient 1”: The mildest of the ILO’s four “exposed” groups.

This job rates 21 out of 100 for how hands-on it is. The score above only looks at AI tools, not robots, but for work this far from the physical that matters less.

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Education methods specialists 61

v

Go on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.

Man v Bot

Where the bot helps, and where the human wins

Bot

What AI takes

The routine stuff. You may not miss it.

  • Course documentation.
  • Curriculum design and materials.
  • Research summaries and reports.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Observing and evaluating teaching.
  • Training and supporting teachers.
  • Working with schools.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • AI in the curriculum.
  • Assessment redesign.
  • Special educational needs support tools.

Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.

Meet your two rivals

They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.

The AI

Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.

Threat level: Medium

39 could do without you

It could take over some of the work, and help with more. It could help with 71 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Lower

21 how hands-on

Not much of this job needs hands, so the robot can sit this one out.

So could a robot do the physical part?

Less than half of this job is hands-on. Robots still matter, but for a smaller part of the work, so we don't sort it any further.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 9 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

21 How
hands-on
9 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Less than half hands-on

The small print

They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.

From O*NET, matched to one US job .

finger skill 21.4 · hand skill 3.6 · cramped spaces 1.5 · averaged · rule: hands-on under 50

estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

The job, task by task

Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.

AI's favourite task here scores 60, against an average of 39. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 60

    Documenting subjects and courses developed, and evaluating new courses

    Medium
  2. 50

    Developing the structure, content and objectives of new educational courses and programmes

    Low
  3. 49

    Evaluating and advising on contents of courses and methods of examination

    Low
  4. 44

    Preparing reports and making recommendations to educational authorities concerning possible changes and improvements in curricula, teaching methods, and other matters.

    Low
  5. 42

    Researching into current developments in curricula, teaching methods and other educational practices, and advising on necessary changes and possible improvements

    Low
  6. 36

    Researching into audiovisual and other teaching aids and advising on, planning and organizing their introduction in educational establishments

    Low
  7. 34

    Providing ongoing professional development, training and consultative services to teachers

    Low
  8. 30

    Organizing and conducting workshops and conferences to train teachers in new programmes and methods

    Low
  9. 27

    Visiting schools periodically and conferring with administrative and teaching staff on questions relating to curricula, teaching methods, equipment and other matters

    Low
  10. 24

    Visiting classrooms to observe teaching techniques and to evaluate teachers performance, and scholastic results obtained

    Very Low

10 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Sidekick or replacement?

A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.

AI helps you
71
AI does it for you
39

Sidekick wins, by 32 points.

How good a match is this?

One Australian job matches, but only partly: not everyone in it does this job. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 2491

Meanwhile, in real life…

Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?

Out of every 100 conversations

53
47

worked through it together handed it over

The small print

Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job. This job makes up 1.01% of the conversations.

These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.

observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product

So, should education advisers and inspectors be worried?

Short answer: not much. Some of the chores will change, and good riddance.

Parts of it are changing. Documenting and evaluating courses is rated Medium; course design, exams, reports, research, teaching aids, teacher training and school visits are Low; observing classrooms rates Very Low. AI helps with curriculum and documents; judging teaching stays human.

Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.

Where this job could lead

How are the neighbours doing?

There are 92 jobs in the “Professionals” family, averaging 61. This one is below the family average.

Pit this against any other job →