Respectfully, I disagree with this take very much - I think it’s a lack of awareness that there’s work being done or a community who takes that burden on, rather than intentional shirking.
I agree that when all the kids take an observation of the same organism, that’s totally useless for everyone. That’s why I like the idea of requiring educators to set clearer guidelines that each student should find something unique to post, separate from their classmates. But @danaleeling’s circumstances are a great example of information that could be incredibly useful and would be lost to the datasets if students just used Seek (which probably would also fail to ID well).
But I’m pretty certain that in most cases the kids aren’t being required to ID, just to observe. Likewise, the teachers won’t be seeing the posting of observations as part of their grading or supervision burden. The supervision burden from their perspective is much more likely to be watching the kids as they run around taking observations and making sure no one is roughhousing, sneaking off, vandalizing, etc. The work that people do IDing on iNat isn’t reducing their grading burden because they’ll still be personally assessing that students have posted observations etc. and using this as part of a broader curriculum unit that problem includes written work/assessments. That’s why I think the best intervention point is helping everyone, teacher and student, understand that there is a real scientific impact to careless IDs and observations so the teachers involved realize that using iNaturalist adds additional supervision needs beyond the obvious ones and is creating work for volunteers, many of whom seem to lose patience quickly.
I think a lot of this stems from the extreme push to incorporate more tech in the classroom - there are so many mini-grants right now for tech devices, and a lot of teachers see kids constantly absorbed on their smartphones and think “maybe I can harness that energy and attention if there’s an app related to my unit.”
At first glance, there’s little to suggest that IDs would be “work” for others - rather, I think the layperson’s assumption is “there are people/nerds out there who will enjoy seeing and IDing these things, if they want to, and if they don’t want to they won’t.” I like @kimssight’s approach for this, although I recognize that increases the level of required engagement. But any reminders that there are real people involved and potential negative effects can offset careless behavior. As @paloma mentioned, it’s a more effective intervention to create changes on the iNat side than to just appeal/hope for different behavior.