Would You?

[CeriseNoire]

Hm, timely topic for me. In the recent months, I've had a few people recommend that I look into flvs (florida virtual school). Actually, I've even gotten a couple recruitment emails from them.

I have to say, in some ways, it's pretty tempting. I have classes from Honors to (unlabeled) remedial, and the middle classes are often an interesting mix. Sometimes with the wide learning differences in there, i do feel I could be more effective if I did not have to teach them all in the same class. Not to mention the pay is a bit better, and I would have a certain amount of flexibility.

On the other hand, I do love interacting with the kids, being able to take them outside, make them move, or simply seeing that look on their faces when they finally "get" it. And of course, how would I know the child (and not Mom or Dad) is actually the one taking the course?

In any case, I'm still young (sort of) so I might consider doing it as an adjunct for a while if I decide to do grad school full-time.

 

[R. Richard]

What, by whom, based on what authority, on what schedule? You are right back into red tape, administrative overhead, and maintenance costs.

The problem continues to be on the receiving end, not the delivery end.

The compromise would be to engage Internet capabilities inside the classroom (NEWSFLASH: this is already being done--and if it's not working well, this pretty much points out how much more of a disaster it would be to try to get kids/parents to get it done in the home instead).

If a child doesn't do the work assigned by him/her/itself, then after a specified number of failing tests, the child needs to be put into an environment where the child can be at least forced to sit in front of a computer screen while being montitored by a paid public school employee. The precise number of failing grades can be easily established by simply monitoring typcial student performance and would not be a problem. You will also not that the paid public school employee would not be required to know the subjects, just to insure that the student actually sat at the terminal and at least pretended to try to do the work. Aside from the paid public school employee and the classroom/restroom facilities, there would be no extra costs. The computer system would do the work of teaching.

The problem that occurs wtih computer assisted learning is the educational problem. You can teach a student math via the Internet. You can teach a student real history via the Internet. [If you try the memorization of dates business, the kids will effetively hook up one computer to provide the dates to the other computer that, theoretically, is trying to force the kid to memorize.] The problem comes with the educational process. When you try to teach a kid art appreciation via the Internet, the subject disappears and it is practically impossible to test the kid's learning.

It is not difficult to get a kid to do things, if the kid knows that it is easy to determine if the kid actually did the work. The computer based learning system insures that the kid is actually doing the work, via a sequence of daily quizzes. Of course, there also needs to be public tests, to make sure that it is the kid who is doing the work and not a paid substitute.

 

[CeriseNoire]

It is not difficult to get a kid to do things, if the kid knows that it is easy to determine if the kid actually did the work. The computer based learning system insures that the kid is actually doing the work, via a sequence of daily quizzes. Of course, there also needs to be public tests, to make sure that it is the kid who is doing the work and not a paid substitute.

Sometimes I wonder about that. For example, I tell my students that I don't often assign multiple choice tests, and that when I do, they are designed so I know they didn't copy off someone. Still, every year I get a handful who, when we go over the answers post test, come up to my desk outraged because they "have all the same answer as Little Johnny, but he got an A and they failed, and it's not fair!".

Of course, my whole "design trick" is that once I create the test, I use the software to scramble the order of questions and choices. It just seems some of them are always willing to test it.

 

[Weird Harold]

The thought occurs to me that the other recent news about the Internet will cancel out any possible ineraction between students and their virtual schools -- if dumb questions and chronic misspelling are going to be filtered out as the hallmark of "idiocy" then students who most need help are going to ge their requests for help censored.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

I read something the other day, by Mencken. It's about the issue of failing tests. In the Old Days, he sez, they cured failure with a hickory stick. If you failed a test the teacher walloped you with a board, then gave you the test again. If you failed it twice, you got beat twice. And beat until you made a passing mark.

 

[sr71plt]

RICHARD

I read something the other day, by Mencken. It's about the issue of failing tests. In the Old Days, he sez, they cured failure with a hickory stick. If you failed a test the teacher walloped you with a board, then gave you the test again. If you failed it twice, you got beat twice. And beat until you made a passing mark.

I hope there was some remedial work provided between tests/beatings, or the teachers/beaters were as stupid as the students.

Although, this being Mencken, he was most likely just jerking chains too.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SKY PILOT

He didnt say, and it's too late to ask him.

 

[R. Richard]

Sometimes I wonder about that. For example, I tell my students that I don't often assign multiple choice tests, and that when I do, they are designed so I know they didn't copy off someone. Still, every year I get a handful who, when we go over the answers post test, come up to my desk outraged because they "have all the same answer as Little Johnny, but he got an A and they failed, and it's not fair!".

Of course, my whole "design trick" is that once I create the test, I use the software to scramble the order of questions and choices. It just seems some of them are always willing to test it.

However, you notice that the kids do care. I also suspect that, once a kid realizes that copying another student's answer is not going to work, the kid actually tries to learn the material.

I will note that scrambling the questions is more work for you. You actually have to read the question and then grade the answer [good work here!] The simple use of an overlay is not practical. Many of the 'teachers' I had back in school were probably near the limits of their abilities just to use an overlay.

 

[sr71plt]

SKY PILOT

He didnt say, and it's too late to ask him.

It's not too late to ask; it's a bit late to expect him to answer, though.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

Based on my own history I never learned that cheating was a bad idea. I worked at a nuclear facility on one occasion, and took the certification test for many people who would have failed. Everyone was pleased with my generosity...the plant, the union, my colleagues.

 

[R. Richard]

RICHARD

I read something the other day, by Mencken. It's about the issue of failing tests. In the Old Days, he sez, they cured failure with a hickory stick. If you failed a test the teacher walloped you with a board, then gave you the test again. If you failed it twice, you got beat twice. And beat until you made a passing mark.

I talked to an old man, some years back. He went to a tiny school in an immigrant community. Not all of his family's children were able to go to school. He was the smartest and he did get to go to school. If he screwed up, the old man walloped him. Then, his siblings walloped him, bacause they were doing the chores that he would have been doing if he were not in school.

Back in those days, they had competitions between schools, things like spelling bees. The schools in the area could never figure why the immigrant school almost always won.

They didn't spare the rod and, apparently didn't spoil the child.

 

[R. Richard]

RICHARD

Based on my own history I never learned that cheating was a bad idea. I worked at a nuclear facility on one occasion, and took the certification test for many people who would have failed. Everyone was pleased with my generosity...the plant, the union, my colleagues.

The plant wasn't, by any chance Three Mile Island, was it?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

Children are brain damaged, according to Bill Cosby. They cannot reason. But they do understand a beating. So you link the beating to the lesson.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

Crystal River.

 

[R. Richard]

RICHARD

Children are brain damaged, according to Bill Cosby. They cannot reason. But they do understand a beating. So you link the beating to the lesson.

I have found that there are three basic things that are needed to teach a child. First, you must provide the child a structure to contain the knowledge [the public schools pretty much ignore this step.] Second, you must give the child facts to populate the structure [the public schools do provide facts.] Third, you must provide the child with techniques to manipulate and check the data inside the structure [the public schools do this only to a very limited degree and pretty much only in classes like math. The rest of the subjects are taught pretty much as rote memorization.]

In general, I dislike the idea of corporal punishment as a teaching tool for use in academic classes. I did succeed in using corporal [or capital] punishment, in order to drive home a key lesson: "Don't be messin' with the Whi' Boy."

 

[R. Richard]

The thought occurs to me that the other recent news about the Internet will cancel out any possible ineraction between students and their virtual schools -- if dumb questions and chronic misspelling are going to be filtered out as the hallmark of "idiocy" then students who most need help are going to ge their requests for help censored.

Truly, the younger generation has a problem with misspelling. However, the constant, low level exposure to correct spelling in an Internet environment can clear that up.

As to the dumb questions. I have found that even the dullest can get smarter when there is some connection between what they are supposed to learn and the problems they face in the real world.

 

[CeriseNoire]

However, you notice that the kids do care. I also suspect that, once a kid realizes that copying another student's answer is not going to work, the kid actually tries to learn the material.

I will note that scrambling the questions is more work for you. You actually have to read the question and then grade the answer [good work here!] The simple use of an overlay is not practical. Many of the 'teachers' I had back in school were probably near the limits of their abilities just to use an overlay.

They do get to care eventually, maybe because I care, who knows.

As for scrambling, it's not extra work. I only do it for multiple choice, and I use the software included with the textbook (it also allows me to insert questions I create). Then before I print my originals, I just have to select the options to scramble, and it automatically prints an answer key for each version.

When I return it, I'll read off the answer key for each version so kids can check that I didn't grade anything wrong and ask for clarification on what they didn't get.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If a student doesn't sit down at the computer and work, then the student is found out very rapidly because of the student's failure to properly answer the very frequent quizes practical within a computer based learning system. Corrective action can then be taken in a timely fashion.

By whom? There's no one there.

If the student hires someone to take the classes for the student, then the student can get away with the sham, right up to the required public tests. Then the sham falls apart and the student can be forced to attend public classes.

So the solution to the problem of cheating via Internet classes is ... traditional public classes. Is there a reason we're going to try the model that doesn't work first?

[By the way, I am aware that school teachers fight standardized tests like fury, because the standardized tests measure not only the failure of the students, but also the failure of the teacher. The situation is a matter of checks and balances. I taught programming classes and my students were required to pass standardized tests. I didn't fear standardized tests, because my students were actually learning the material and could do the work required of them after they graduated.]

I don't doubt that some do. Others fear that their students might evolve into adults incapable of reading and comprehending, say, a clearly written post explaining what skills standardized multiple-choice tests fail to measure.

You might note that there exists an on-line chat feature in the Internet. Via on-line chat, the student asks a question and receives some sort of answer in very rapid fashion. If the rapid answers don't solve a problem, then the problem can be referred to higher authority, via e-mail. The answers that the child receives are correct answers, because they are in print and available for review. If an incompetent is furnishing false answers, the incompetent will be found out very quickly.

So ... essentially we'll have a teacher working full-time every class period to answer questions, and a teacher working full-time to grade and assess students' progress. In fact, we'll be paying teachers to do all of the tasks they already do, so we'll need just as many of them. Is there something magical about doing this online instead of in person that will result in a downpour of educational savings?

A student who learns at a computer terminal has the benefit of talented teachers.

No, that student has the benefit of well-written materials. In the traditional classroom, these are called "textbooks." They've been noticably poor at doing the job all by themselves. But I see that here as with teaching hours, you have faith that placing the information into an electronic medium will magically allow it to succeed in ways that to date it never has. It's true that one could make some excellent lectures available to students via video online, but then what's that thing that students keep complaining about with poor teachers? It seems to me that it's ... "too much lecture"? I could swear I've heard the phrase. Repeatedly.

The problem of lack of student interest proves not to be a problem with computer based learning, since the student is being tested on an ongoing basis. Unless the student flat-out refuses to do the work, the student will do the work. [I understand the public education has some problem with students who flat-out refuse to do the work.]

Yes, it does. And interestingly, one finds that when one removes all possibility of immediate correction (of the "stop watching Youtube and get your math homework out" variety) and all possible personal interaction, the amount of time applied to the task ... oh dear. It diminishes. I'm sure that generations of parents will be shocked to learn that students tend to focus on their material more strongly when someone is actually noticing whether they do or don't.

A computer can 'give individual attention' to many, many students at the same time. I have never found a live teacher who can do the same thing for a large number of classroom students.

No, a computer can give the same amount of attention and the same type of attention to many students at the same time. It cannot give individual attention to any of them. The best it can do, as you have pointed out, is to offer them a range of different ways to fail at the same task without being able to identify what the actual problem is and thereby guide them to the most useful solution.

But I see that we're back to that real/imaginary student problem again. You see, I find that real actual students have considerable difficulty with motivation when presented with a situation in which they sit through several different ways of presenting the same information, none of which make any sense to them, and are told to be of good cheer - sooner or later they'll stumble on the one that works.

 

[R. Richard]

By whom? There's no one there.

Actually, there is someone there. Not only is there someone there, the 'someone' is better than any teacher at answering questions, since the someone is the best of several teachers, after the non-optimal answers are scraped away. I hope that you will pardon me, but your attitude appears to be that it is necessary to have an actual human presence to interact with underage children. You might just find that an anonymous, 'no-tell' presence might be more efficient.

QUOTE=BlackShanglan;25430467]So the solution to the problem of cheating via Internet classes is ... traditional public classes. Is there a reason we're going to try the model that doesn't work first? [/quote]
If you think on the matter a bit, the assignment of a student to a human monitored class is in the nature of punishment. The student will arguably learn better from a proven, outstanding teacher in the Internet, rather than from some hack in person. I think that you will find that, if it is tried in reasonable environment, that the Internet teaching will work and will work even better when the student is forced to deal with a local hack for a while. [If you think that the local hack approach will work, find me a local footie side that will take on Manchester United and win.]


QUOTE=BlackShanglan;25430467]I don't doubt that some do. Others fear that their students might evolve into adults incapable of reading and comprehending, say, a clearly written post explaining what skills standardized multiple-choice tests fail to measure./quote]
'A clearly written post,' aye, there's the rub! If you have checked lately, the average, [hell, above average] adult is not capable of writing a clearly written post [check your tax forms if you are in denial.] I am not aware of the inability of standardized multiple-choice tests to measure intellectual skills. In fact, such standardized multiple-choice tests, at properly broken down levels can not only measure a child's knowledge of a subject, they can be a guide as to how future problems might be analyzed. I can write a standardized multiple-choice test that will mearsure a student's ability to comprehend properly written [and identify improperly written] material. What I can't do is design a standardized multiple-choice test to determine if some hack thinks the child has a proper 'attitude.'

QUOTE=BlackShanglan;25430467]So ... essentially we'll have a teacher working full-time every class period to answer questions, and a teacher working full-time to grade and assess students' progress. In fact, we'll be paying teachers to do all of the tasks they already do, so we'll need just as many of them. Is there something magical about doing this online instead of in person that will result in a downpour of educational savings?[/quote]
NO! What 'we' will have is an automated facility that will answer the very large majority of student questions without the need of human intervention and a few, very skilled human operators to handle the rest. [This is not theory, it is in operation everyday in the 'Net.] The computerized lesson can teach the student, grade the student, with frequent quizzes and direct the student to automated help, all with a very minimum of human intervention. Computers work cheap.

QUOTE=BlackShanglan;25430467]No, that student has the benefit of well-written materials. In the traditional classroom, these are called "textbooks." They've been noticably poor at doing the job all by themselves. But I see that here as with teaching hours, you have faith that placing the information into an electronic medium will magically allow it to succeed in ways that to date it never has. It's true that one could make some excellent lectures available to students via video online, but then what's that thing that students keep complaining about with poor teachers? It seems to me that it's ... "too much lecture"? I could swear I've heard the phrase. Repeatedly.[/quote]
A textbook offer's information, as does a lecture. A computerized textbook can offer informtion, test the comprehension fo the offed information, guide the student through alternate information when the initial information is misunderstood, re-test the student and offer still more alternate paths until the student does understand. Each student gets just as much 'lecture' as is necessary for that student to understand the material. It is, in essence, offering each student a personal tutor to guide the student through the difficult-for-that-student parts of a course. A computer based teaching sustem can do that and still offer low cost. Computers work cheap.

QUOTE=BlackShanglan;25430467]Yes, it does. And interesting, one finds that when one removes all possibility of immediate correction (of the "stop watching Youtube and get your math homework out" variety) and all possible personal interaction, the amount of time applied to the task ... oh dear. It diminishes. I'm sure that generations of parents will be shocked to learn that students tend to focus on their material more strongly when someone is actually noticing whether they do or don't. [/quote]
The computer actually notices if the student is working on learning on at least a minute-by-minute basis. The computer is even more attuned to the child's perfomance than a human personal tutor, since the computer can use individual past perfomance to monitor individual present performance, again on a minute-by-minute basis.

QUOTE=BlackShanglan;25430467]No, a computer can give the same amount of attention and the same type of attention to many students at the same time. It cannot give individual attention to any of them. The best it can do, as you have pointed out, is to offer them a range of different ways to fail at the same task without being able to identify what the actual problem is and thereby guide them to the most useful solution.[/quote]
A computer can give individual attention to many, many students at the same time. You see, computers work at pico-second speeds. Students work at best at second speeds and often a minute speeds. A single computer can monitor a large number of children on what amounts to a continuing bases, identify individual problems and direct the child to not only alternate explanations, but also present the child with new, alternate original text best suited to that child's learning method. [If you doubt weaht I am saying, consider a typical web site such as YouTube. Youtube supports a large number of people, with each person doing highly individualized tasks. Each person is essentially unaware of the other people who are doing their own, highly individualized tasks. This is not theory, but actual, day by day operation. [You are obviously still stuck in the dark ages of computing, say the 1960s.]

QUOTE=BlackShanglan;25430467]But I see that we're back to that real/imaginary student problem again. You see, I find that real actual students have considerable difficulty with motivation when presented with a situation in which they sit through several different ways of presenting the same information, none of which make any sense to them, and are told to be of good cheer - sooner or later they'll stumble on the one that works.[/QUOTE]
I have explained the error of your arguments. You are not only wrong, but your ideas are based upon limitations that no longer exist. You are the middle ages blacksmith calmly explaining to the modern factory manager why it is impossible to turn out more than one hinge a day, and that only if the blacksmith is very skilled.

I tried your methods. I didn't do it willingly and I didn't do it gladly. I was the National Merit Scholar, so I did it bettter than my contemporaries. You aren't even willing to try my methods. WHY NOT?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I tried your methods. I didn't do it willingly and I didn't do it gladly. I was the National Merit Scholar, so I did it bettter than my contemporaries. You aren't even willing to try my methods. WHY NOT?

Because, unlike you, I don't consider your personal experience of life to be the reality of the entire world. We do seem to end up at that point every time we talk about education. I posit that I've seen a thing done successfully and that that therefore suggests it can be done successfully; you posit that it you've seen a thing done unsuccessfully and therefore it will always fail and is inherently worthless.

Notice which side logic tends to?

 

[Weird Harold]

However, the constant, low level exposure to correct spelling in an Internet environment can clear that up.

You mean like exposure to amateur fiction by authors who can't spell and woudn't recognise a homonym if it bit thm on the ass?

Even conventional books can't be relied on as a source for "learning spelling by osmosis" because human proofreaders have all been replaced by Smelling and Grandma Chuckers.

 

[sr71plt]

You mean like exposure to amateur fiction by authors who can't spell and woudn't recognise a homonym if it bit thm on the ass?

Even conventional books can't be relied on as a source for "learning spelling by osmosis" because human proofreaders have all been replaced by Smelling and Grandma Chuckers.

Actually, I thought Richard's reference to "correct spelling on the Internet" was an amusing non sequitur.

 

[Iconoclast99]

There seems to be an argument here based partly on cost and partly on efficiency (that is human suboptimal teachers versus bright and shiny optimal computer programmes). There has been very little if any talk about the love of learning or difference between learning something by rote and learning to think.

Now, I believe in rote learning for some things (the multiplication tables come to mind) but for real learning it doesn't cut the mustard, and multiple-choice tests show just one thing - that the student has learned how to do multiple-choice tests.

This is fine if you want to have the outcome where you graduate a whole bunch of students who can do well at Trivial Pursuit, but it's a disaster if you want to graduate students who do well as knowledge workers, for want of a better term. In the corporate world it is a constant complaint that young hirees know a whole lot of "stuff" but don't know how to think and properly apply that knowledge.

I have a friend who refuses to hire MBAs because they know all the technical tricks but can't think of problems and solutions and/or can't write a logical and coherent precis or proposal. Admittedly he based this on one Harvard MBA that he hired years ago, but I have seen the same thing in many situations at lower levels.

I would much rather hire a youngster who has a broad grounding in various soft and hard sciences and liberal arts. If they have learned how to think rather than just regurgitate facts then they can easily learn any technical stuff they need to know. The student who receives an online education either in high school or college would definitely go to the bottom of my list when hiring.

On second thought I retract that. If I were looking for someone to do a low-paid repetitive job unthinkingly then the online learner would be a good choice.

Iconoclast

 

[sr71plt]

There seems to be an argument here based partly on cost and partly on efficiency (that is human suboptimal teachers versus bright and shiny optimal computer programmes). There has been very little if any talk about the love of learning or difference between learning something by rote and learning to think.

Well, no, neither, in my case. My argument is that the only students who would study well at home on the Internet are the same students who will study well in a classroom (and will do their homework)--because they have motivated families that establish and enforce their study patterns. My assertion is that closing the classrooms (where someone is at least making an attempt to provide an equal and standard level of instruction across the student population regardless of family support) and assuming that students will belly up to the computer at home for Internet-based studies will just widen the gap between those who will see that their children study and the probably much larger group who won't--resulting of dummies I've got to support down the road.

 

[elsol]

So let me see if i get this right-- we're going to replace the present vacuum we like to call an educational system... by a system that sticks every individual student in his/her own little vacuum.

I like that!