Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I suspect if they can make a machine play GO then it could play videos explaining math and then give problems associated with that video and analyze the answers. Then play videos explaining the most probably causes of any detected errors.
A computer could absolutely do that... But evidence suggests children don't actually learn that way. This software already exists and we have experimented with using it in the district where I work and the data indicates it was mostly unsuccessful for the majority of students. Keep in mind that arithmetic is probably the subject most simple for computers to teach and that problem solving, writing, or even other forms of math such as statistical analysis do not lend themselves as well to the systems you describe.
There is a HUGE gulf between what we know about what works best and what folks are willing to do shove into schools...
Quote:
Originally Posted by history nerd
A computer could absolutely do that... But evidence suggests children don't actually learn that way. This software already exists and we have experimented with using it in the district where I work and the data indicates it was mostly unsuccessful for the majority of students. Keep in mind that arithmetic is probably the subject most simple for computers to teach and that problem solving, writing, or even other forms of math such as statistical analysis do not lend themselves as well to the systems you describe.
I am a former teacher and as such I really enjoyed learning as much as I could about what has become the "neuro-psychology of learning". I still try to keep up to date about the evolving knowledge of what sorts of things work best. Researchers have found that there are a very wide range of strategies that have good results as well as a whole bunch of things that seem not to work very well at all. One of the best sources of information regarding best approaches to teaching STEM is https://circle.wustl.edu/ I'd urge folks who truly care about such things to review the findings.
A computer could absolutely do that... But evidence suggests children don't actually learn that way. This software already exists and we have experimented with using it in the district where I work and the data indicates it was mostly unsuccessful for the majority of students. Keep in mind that arithmetic is probably the subject most simple for computers to teach and that problem solving, writing, or even other forms of math such as statistical analysis do not lend themselves as well to the systems you describe.
Are you sure that children who actually like math could not learn that way? I found it strange that other kids complained about word problems, I thought they were fun. The nitwit nuns could not teach it worth a squat.
Isn't math Problem Solving? I considered it the only subject that involved thinking.
Our concept of education is geared toward the "average". The above average might be less work if they were not forced to be 'Normal'. And history was mostly boring propaganda, I didn't even try to get more than a C in it.
But I suspect if they can make a machine play GO then it could play videos explaining math and then give problems associated with that video and analyze the answers. Then play videos explaining the most probably causes of any detected errors.
Have you even had the experience of being able to do something but not able to explain how you do it? Most people have. Humans struggle with teaching things they can actual do and do well, now you "suspect" that a computer can manage this for highly abstract, multiple higher orders of thinking, and can "analyze answers".
Are you sure that children who actually like math could not learn that way? I found it strange that other kids complained about word problems, I thought they were fun. The nitwit nuns could not teach it worth a squat.
Isn't math Problem Solving? I considered it the only subject that involved thinking.
Our concept of education is geared toward the "average". The above average might be less work if they were not forced to be 'Normal'. And history was mostly boring propaganda, I didn't even try to get more than a C in it.
Math is not arithmetic. He said arithmetic. Computers could likely be useful teaching arithmetic, but actual math? Not likely.
Are you sure that children who actually like math could not learn that way? I found it strange that other kids complained about word problems, I thought they were fun. The nitwit nuns could not teach it worth a squat.
Isn't math Problem Solving? I considered it the only subject that involved thinking.
Our concept of education is geared toward the "average". The above average might be less work if they were not forced to be 'Normal'. And history was mostly boring propaganda, I didn't even try to get more than a C in it.
It sounds to me like you didn't have very good teachers... I'm afraid you might not know what a good school actually looks like.
Math is not the only subject that should involve problem solving. Not all problems deal with numerical issues.
Higher level math is quite complicated and while some take to it quick like you did most simply don't. I am completely on board with adding some computer based learning to schools but it is not a cure all.
I'm sorry you didn't like history. I imagine I teach it a bit different than Catholic school.
I think that is called a subset. How much math is used in the real world that doesn't involve some degree of arithmetic in the process. That is the annoying thing about "education". Educators making a big deal about trivial distinctions.
Higher level math is quite complicated and while some take to it quick like you did most simply don't. I am completely on board with adding some computer based learning to schools but it is not a cure all.
I doubt that there is any single thing that qualifies as a "cure all". But so many kids are in bad or less than optimal situations and powerful computers are so cheap I am sure cybernetic technology is under-utilized.
I do not think most people comprehend how much more powerful tablets and smartphones are than Mainframes produced before 1980. We are talking about a factor of 100 or more, but apparently we can't come up with great educational software. I suspect making money has a higher priority, so the objective is to sell to the educational industry that does not want good educational software.
Last edited by psikeyhackr; 07-19-2018 at 07:42 PM..
I doubt that there is any single thing that qualifies as a "cure all". But so many kids are in bad or less than optimal situations and powerful computers are so cheap I am sure cybernetic technology is under-utilized.
It may or may not be under utilized. What I can tell you as someone who works in education is that we use a TON of computer programs and technologies. Some seem to have a strong impact on learning, some don't really improve outcomes, and some are actively harmful to student achievement.
No one is disputing whether or not these programs exist... The question is related to their efficiency. There are some programs that we have had a lot of success with such as Edpuzzle that allows you to create interactive videos, our data has strongly suggested that Edpuzzle increases retention 30-40% over traditional video content.
On the other hand we have also used CPM based computerized mathematics instruction and it was a complete disaster, students preformed significantly worse with 30% falling behind our prior outcomes using traditional instruction.
Of course both of these anecdotes have a small sample size of one high school but my point is that when evaluating specific "cybernetic solutions" we need to look carefully at the efficacy of specific programs. If you have any statistical data on PLATO or other educational technology I would love to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
I do not think most people comprehend how much more powerful tablets and smartphones are than Mainframes produced before 1980. We are talking about a factor of 100 or more, but apparently we can't come up with great educational software.
I don't think computing power is the most important part of creating good educational software it doesn't matter that every student in my class has the computing power of 1980s supercomputers in their pocket because the people who are programming educational apps have no idea how learning is actually accomplished. In this very thread you have, for example, demonstrated a great deal of knowledge on computers but complete ignorance of pedagogy. If great educational technology is to be created it will require collaboration between the best traditional educators and the computer scientist "reformers."
Quote:
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
I suspect making money has a higher priority, so the objective is to sell to the educational industry that does not want good educational software.
Why would this be the case? This sounds a bit conspiratorial to me.
Why would this be the case? This sounds a bit conspiratorial to me.
Once upon a time I worked for a company called IBM.
They introduced a machine called a Datamaster 23. This was a replacement for the 5100. For me at the time the obvious question was: "How much faster is it?" The way this is usually determined is by running benchmarks. I never saw the word 'benchmark' on any IBM documentation.
While working the nigh shift I had access to a demonstration table with a 5100 on the left and a Datamaster 23 on the right. Since the night shift could be completely dead some nights when I didn't have to run around like a chicken with his head cut off, I wrote two benchmark programs. One was a 'Bubble Sort' and the other was a Prime Numbers program using division and square roots.
The old machine was almost twice as fast as the new one. This is not to say that the Dm23 did not have some advantages. It had a bigger screen and floppy disk drives instead of a tape drive, so on a database program it could be much faster. But when the obvious information somehow does not even get mentioned like it does not exist then I have to wonder. I told my field manager. He changed the subject.
When you understand technology then you know when other people who understand technology are not saying or doing certain things that should not be difficult then it is reasonable to wonder why.
I remember the PR about PLATO back in the day and know how powerful tablets are by comparison to mainframes back then. What is not being done seems interesting and peculiar.
This was not possible when I was taking electrical engineering:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a HUGE gulf between what we know about what works best and what folks are willing to do shove into schools...
