You've probably noticed the flood of AI tools promising to "transform" language teaching. Some claim they'll automate lesson planning entirely. Others suggest AI tutors can replace human interaction. It's enough to make any teacher wonder: where do I fit in this picture?
Preply just answered that question. In February 2026, the language learning platform launched three new AI features with an explicit "Anti-Duolingo" campaign. But this isn't just marketing posturing. It's a signal of where the entire EdTech industry is heading, and what it means for language teachers evaluating their tech stack. The shift is clear: after years of AI-replaces-teacher hype, EdTech companies are realizing that teacher agency isn't just nice to have. It's essential for learning that actually works.
When Preply calls itself "Anti-Duolingo," they're making a specific philosophical statement. Duolingo recently shifted toward an AI-first model that reduced human involvement in favor of automated content. Preply is betting on the opposite: AI tools that work for teachers, not around them. Their three new features demonstrate this approach:
Lesson Insights generates personalized summaries of each lesson, giving tutors AI-powered feedback to support learner development. The AI observes, but the teacher decides what to do with the information.
Daily Exercises creates self-paced practice activities between sessions, connecting to what the teacher covered in class. The AI extends the lesson, but the teacher sets the curriculum.
Scenario Practice offers tutor-assisted speaking exercises where educators align practice with their lesson objectives. The AI provides the structure, but the teacher guides the learning.
Notice the pattern? In each case, the teacher remains the decision-maker. The AI assists, observes, and extends, but never replaces the human judgment about what a learner needs. As Preply CEO Kirill Bigai puts it: "Together, humans and AI can make learning more personalized, more motivating, and more effective than ever before."
To understand why this matters, look at how AI can be positioned in language education. There are three distinct models, and only one puts teachers in the driver's seat.
This is the Duolingo approach: a fully automated learning experience where algorithms decide what learners see, when they see it, and how they progress. The content is generic, the path is predetermined, and there's no human in the loop making judgment calls.
This model works for casual learners who want basic vocabulary practice on their commute. It doesn't work for serious language acquisition, professional development, or learners with specific goals. Why? Because it assumes every learner needs the same thing, in the same order, delivered the same way.
This is the traditional model: teachers create everything from scratch, track progress manually, and spend hours on prep work that could be automated. It works, but it's exhausting and doesn't scale well for independent tutors managing multiple learners and needing time to actually have lessons with each learner.
The limitation isn't philosophical, it's practical. Teachers who spend five hours creating materials for a one-hour lesson aren't sustainable. They burn out, raise prices, or reduce the personalization that makes their teaching valuable in the first place.
This is the emerging standard, and it's where Preply, Edumo, and other teacher-first platforms are heading. AI handles the time-consuming parts: generating customized content, tracking learner responses, identifying patterns in progress. Teachers handle the parts that require human judgment: deciding what a learner needs, adapting when something isn't working, providing motivation and cultural context.
EdTech predictions for 2026 describe this shift explicitly: "Technology only works when it amplifies human judgment, not replaces it." The industry is moving toward models where educators retain agency over AI implementation rather than being displaced by automation.
So how do you know if a tool respects your expertise or tries to bypass it? Ask these three questions before adopting any AI teaching tool.
Does the tool generate generic content for all users, or does it create materials based on your specifications?
AI that creates the same vocabulary list for every B1 learner isn't respecting teacher agency. AI that generates a vocabulary list about pharmaceutical sales for your learner who's a medical rep is different. One treats you as unnecessary. The other treats you as the expert who knows what your learner needs.
When evaluating tools, look for customization options. Can you specify the topic, profession, and interests? Can you review and edit before sharing with learners? If the tool just outputs generic content and expects you to use it as-is, that's a red flag.
Does the platform dictate the learning path, or do you control the sequence and focus?
Some AI tools use algorithms to decide what learners practice next, based on performance data. That might sound convenient, but it removes your judgment from the equation. You know your learner is struggling with confidence more than grammar accuracy. You know they have a business presentation next week and need role-play practice, not another grammar drill.
Teacher-first AI gives you progress data and suggestions, then lets you decide what happens next. AI-replaces-teacher tools make those decisions for you without allowing you to influence the decisions.
Does the tool position you as the expert, or as a facilitator of someone else's curriculum?
This is subtle but important. Platforms that brand themselves as "the teacher" (with you as the assistant) are signaling their philosophy. Platforms that position you as the professional using smart tools are signaling something different.
Look at how the tool describes itself to learners. If it says "Our AI will teach you," that's one model. If it says "Your teacher uses AI-powered tools to personalize your learning," that's another. The first diminishes your role. The second acknowledges it.
The EdTech industry's shift toward teacher-first AI isn't just philosophical. It has practical implications for how you choose and use tools.
First, don't feel pressured to adopt AI that reduces your agency. Tools that promise to "fully automate" your teaching aren't empowering you. They're replacing you. The growing demand for human teachers demonstrates that learners still value what only humans can provide: cultural expertise, authentic mentorship, and emotional intelligence.
Second, look for AI that saves time without removing judgment. The best tools handle repetitive tasks (generating reading materials, creating vocabulary exercises, tracking who completed what) while leaving pedagogical decisions to you. If a tool claims it will "decide what your learners need," that's a warning sign.
Third, expect a full workflow, not just content generation. ChatGPT can create a dialog, but you still need to distribute it, track responses, and organize it into a curriculum. Teacher-first platforms handle the entire workflow: create, distribute, track, and iterate.
Platforms like Preply report over 70% learner satisfaction and growing engagement precisely because they combine AI efficiency with human expertise. The data is clear: learners thrive when real human instruction is supported by technology, not replaced by it.
The "Anti-Duolingo" movement isn't about rejecting AI. It's about rejecting the assumption that AI should work without teachers.
What's emerging instead is a partnership model where AI handles what it does well and teachers handle what they do well. This model doesn't just preserve the teacher's role. It amplifies it. Think about what you can do when AI removes the busy work. Instead of spending hours creating customized materials for each learner, you generate them in minutes and spend your time on what matters: understanding what each learner struggles with, adapting when approaches aren't working, and building the confidence that comes from human encouragement.
Teachers who embrace AI as an assistant rather than a replacement will thrive. You'll create more personalized materials in less time. You'll track progress more effectively. You'll spend your energy on teaching instead of administration. And you'll differentiate yourself from tutors still creating everything manually or those who've ceded control to automated platforms.
If you're curious to see how this works in practice, give Edumo a try.