Would You?

[sr71plt]

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!

Apparently, yes. And the first time someone gets to try out interacting with anyone else is when they are dumped out at the other end and told to go find a job. Yeah, that's going to work wonderfully.

 

[ms.read]

Excellent. Then all we need is a workplace environment that craves a limitless supply of workers who are either completely uneducated or wholly unaccustomed to bothering with anything that doesn't immediately entertain and gratify them. That sounds just like the backbone of a strong economy.

Sounds like contemporary america

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ICONOCLAST

What I notice is colleges graduating people indoctrinated in the current political flavor, and totally incapable of critical analysis. What's more, these same people are stubbornly resistant to critical analysis when their efforts fail. The typical response to failure is to do more of the same.

It starts with the perfessers.

 

[starrkers]

Just caught up with this thread.
On the spelling issue: I have a daughter, a teenager, who has been able to read profoundly well all her school years. She could read at an 8yr old level when 5. Her mother can spell very well (can't type for shit, but I can spell). Daughter has spent her entire life with her nose in a book. She can't spell for toffee.
Somehow I doubt the Internet is going to help kids to spell.

I also doubt the Internet is going to provide the specialised one-on-one teaching to pique curiosity in kids. Another of my children is incredibly smart. He is also incredibly lazy. He does only what he has to to get by. Unless his teacher finds the right link to light the touchpaper.
Yeah, he'll finish school with better than average passes (I hope). But, if he doesn't find something that really interests him, his intelligence will not be tested.
Will internet teaching do that? Will it even recognise he's smart but dogging it? I doubt that too.

Internet teaching will have set methods of getting the information across. Teachers can vary that method to suit the kids. The internet won't.

The internet is an incredibly valuable tool for teaching. And can give isolated kids access to resources they would never otherwise have. But I cannot see it doing a good job of mass teaching.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STARRKERS

Throughout the history of the world whatever is labor intensive gets automated. People are expensive, machines are cheap. In the 18th Century 98% of people were farmers, today 2% of people are farmers. In the 19th Century farriors and blacksmiths and livery-stables were prominent occupations. No more.

Computers will replace teachers. The present paradigm of education is too expensive to maintain.

 

[Iconoclast99]

ICONOCLAST

What I notice is colleges graduating people indoctrinated in the current political flavor, and totally incapable of critical analysis. What's more, these same people are stubbornly resistant to critical analysis when their efforts fail. The typical response to failure is to do more of the same.

It starts with the perfessers.

Sounds familiar. Just like some internet posters.

Iconoclast

 

[sr71plt]

Just caught up with this thread.
On the spelling issue: I have a daughter, a teenager, who has been able to read profoundly well all her school years. She could read at an 8yr old level when 5. Her mother can spell very well (can't type for shit, but I can spell). Daughter has spent her entire life with her nose in a book. She can't spell for toffee.
Somehow I doubt the Internet is going to help kids to spell.

I also doubt the Internet is going to provide the specialised one-on-one teaching to pique curiosity in kids. Another of my children is incredibly smart. He is also incredibly lazy. He does only what he has to to get by. Unless his teacher finds the right link to light the touchpaper.
Yeah, he'll finish school with better than average passes (I hope). But, if he doesn't find something that really interests him, his intelligence will not be tested.
Will internet teaching do that? Will it even recognise he's smart but dogging it? I doubt that too.

Internet teaching will have set methods of getting the information across. Teachers can vary that method to suit the kids. The internet won't.

The internet is an incredibly valuable tool for teaching. And can give isolated kids access to resources they would never otherwise have. But I cannot see it doing a good job of mass teaching.

Not to mention that it completely cops out on the socialization that going to school provides--a whole realm of extremely important education beyond academics. No one seems to want to face that little rub in lionizing isolated Internet-based learning.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SKY PILOT

Oh! Kids find plenty of people to socialize with besides the dummies at school. Scouts, gymnastics, sports, church, neighbors.

 

[Weird Harold]

I also doubt the Internet is going to provide the specialised one-on-one teaching to pique curiosity in kids. ...

Internet teaching will have set methods of getting the information across. Teachers can vary that method to suit the kids. The internet won't.

Actually, Computer Aided Learning is better at adapting to student progress than a classroom environment is.

Consider educational games like Where in the World is Carmen San Diego? -- especially in the later versions -- which adapt the game to fit the user by remembering response times, limiting wrong guesses, and other indicators to (attempt to) maintain a consistent level of difficulty.

The marriage of computer game technology and educational theory isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than those who grew up with game technology on the level of Mario Brothers and Ms. Pacman tend to give it credit for.

That still doesn't help with the non-curriculim considerations like socialisization, self-discipline, etc that make relying entirely on the internet for education a BAD IDEA

 

[R. Richard]

Actually, Computer Aided Learning is better at adapting to student progress than a classroom environment is.

Consider educational games like Where in the World is Carmen San Diego? -- especially in the later versions -- which adapt the game to fit the user by remembering response times, limiting wrong guesses, and other indicators to (attempt to) maintain a consistent level of difficulty.

The marriage of computer game technology and educational theory isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than those who grew up with game technology on the level of Mario Brothers and Ms. Pacman tend to give it credit for.

That still doesn't help with the non-curriculim considerations like socialisization, self-discipline, etc that make relying entirely on the internet for education a BAD IDEA

You have summarized what I have been trying to get across about computer software technology. A computer program can give EACH child the individual attention of a tutor. PLUS, the computer tutor is an impossibly intelligent and knowlegeable specialist in each of the areas that the school thinks to address.

Any faults in the current computer software technology will be quickly addressed and the required improvement will progress at an unbelievably rapid rate as talented programmers will try to offer parents a better learning tool for their children. With computer classes, the future is now and there is no pool of hack teachers who have to be worked through before the most effective new techniques can be applied. Finally, the market for the computer classes software is so vast, that prices can be low.

Self-discipline is not a problem. The computer classes software can provide a day-by-day report card, with weak areas that need to be addressed and the amount of time the student spent goofing off. The problem of a student 'getting lost' in the material is basically a non-problem, since the software will instantly sense that the student is lost/mistaken and direct the student to tutor help.

Socialization could be a problem. However, the student can be directed into any number of public social programs in the areas of sports, hiking, dance, self defense, etc. The child can participate in the social programs with children of his/her/its 'apparent age' and orientation. A brilliant male child who is quite small may be in the 12th grade academically, but in the 6th grade sporting wise. In each activity, the child can fit within his/her/its capabilities. [I use the male example, since I am male. Females will have somewhat different situations.] The negative aspects of socialization will also be largely overcome. The 'heavy duty stud' who can get by current school because he is larger and stronger than most adults as well as schoolmates, can't use his size and strength to overwhelm a computer terminal. The 'hot looking babe doesn't have the built in advantage at school that the face she was born with now gives her.

Finally, students would no longer be forced to attend a physical school with the likes of R. Richard. School attendance should not be an exercise in survival. [I myself never had much trouble with R. Richard, but then, I knew how to interact with him, despite the fact that I was considered to be anti-social to the extreme.] Also, the bullies who attempt to prey on the weaker kids will have much less opportunity.

I must disagree with your statement that exclusive use of computer education [at least for academic classes] is a bad idea.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

All the schools here have computer labs, and many classrooms have computers. In fact, I was in a classroom recently, and a kid was standing on top of the computer.

 

[sr71plt]

Yet another wrinkle the simplistic and blindered won't consider. The U.S. school system is a deeply embedded "the largest portion of the time" child day care service. Something outside of textbook learning needs but well inside socialization needs--and very, very important to the fabric of the U.S. economic system, where both parents have to work to maintain any sense of parity (and "toy" acquisitiveness on the American scale). Who's going to supervise these kids while their parents are working short of exploding the American social structure--not just to make them study/absorb intellectual topic across the Math to English continuum (which I've noted several times they won't naturally do on their own) but also to keep them from harming themselves physically or anyone else? You can't just make a major change to any part of the fabric like this without a significant rework/breakdown of other significant threads in the fabric.

R.Richard's "answers" to the socialization issue in the preceding posting don't make the issue any less cumbersome or costly or more elegant in any sense that I can see (and not all that much different from the norm).

Life is an exercise in survival, R.Richard. The later you start the exercising, the less likely you are to survive.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SKY PILOT

It costs $12,000 to educate each kid in Florida, and they attend school 36 weeks each year. So it will be cheaper to pay for real daycare and let them use a computer at home.

 

[R. Richard]

Life is an exercise in survival, R.Richard. The later you start the exercising, the less likely you are to survive.

Of course, I knew that at a very early age. However, just exercise doesn't get it done. Even when I was shoplifting food to survive, I managed to sang a few dollars to pay a Korean man to teach me the kind of physical skills I neded to survive the South Central. Later, I found the Chinese community and layered new physical skills on top of my basis.

 

[sr71plt]

Of course, I knew that at a very early age. However, just exercise doesn't get it done. Even when I was shoplifting food to survive, I managed to sang a few dollars to pay a Korean man to teach me the kind of physical skills I neded to survive the South Central. Later, I found the Chinese community and layered new physical skills on top of my basis.

The less dramatic complement of that comprises life skills students are learning in the classroom/school environment rather than when they have their noses in a computer screen in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Not an individual tree in perceiving such issues; part of the forest.

 

[R. Richard]

Yet another wrinkle the simplistic and blindered won't consider. The U.S. school system is a deeply embedded "the largest portion of the time" child day care service. Something outside of textbook learning needs but well inside socialization needs--and very, very important to the fabric of the U.S. economic system, where both parents have to work to maintain any sense of parity (and "toy" acquisitiveness on the American scale). Who's going to supervise these kids while their parents are working short of exploding the American social structure--not just to make them study/absorb intellectual topic across the Math to English continuum (which I've noted several times they won't naturally do on their own) but also to keep them from harming themselves physically or anyone else?[\b][\size][\color] You can't just make a major change to any part of the fabric like this without a significant rework/breakdown of other significant threads in the fabric.

I have answered the basis of your question several times here. The computer not only teaches the kid, it also keeps a mico-second-by-micro-second record of the kid's actions. If the kid tries to goof off, the computer knows and so do the kid's parents. Thus, the computer [actually the software] supervises the kid. Not only does the computer supervise the kid, it also insures that the kid spends an appropriate amount of time on each assigned school subject. Best of all, the kid is not forced to waste time when the kid doesn't understand a subject, because there is real-time, on-line tutoring that allows the kid to get the best help available on push/demand.

 

[sr71plt]

I have answered the basis of your question several times here. The computer not only teaches the kid, it also keeps a mico-second-by-micro-second record of the kid's actions. If the kid tries to goof off, the computer knows and so do the kid's parents. Thus, the computer [actually the software] supervises the kid. Not only does the computer supervise the kid, it also insures that the kid spends an appropriate amount of time on each assigned school subject. Best of all, the kid is not forced to waste time when the kid doesn't understand a subject, because there is real-time, on-line tutoring that allows the kid to get the best help available on push/demand.

*sigh* And I've posted several times that the reality is that kids who have parents who would/could do anything about addressing any problems identified this way don't need this and have no problem at all with the current ever-evolving, highly complex education/social systems involved. Many parents aren't equipped/willing to do squat about educating their children. Any "adjustment" such as this doesn't solve underlying problems; it just hardens/widens the existing divide and exacerbates the underlying problems.

Hell, a good third of American families now could no longer even afford the home-based equipment this would required and many more who can will spend the money on a Buick rather than on their kids, given the option.

The school systems exist as they are (although they aren't static; they evolve) to give children some semblance of equal access. Even here, though, the parents who value education see that their children do their homework and those who don't value education (often because it wasn't valued for them) don't help their children compete . . .

. . . And jolly well won't if you send the kid home full time to interact with a computer that he probably will only have because I bought it for him--the same that I pay for his education in the current school system setup.

I see all of this as staring at a single tree, not at the forest.

 

[R. Richard]

*sigh* And I've posted several times that the reality is that kids who have parents who would/could do anything about addressing any problems identified this way don't need this and have no problem at all with the current ever-evolving, highly complex education/social systems involved. Many parents aren't equipped/willing to do squat about educating their children. Any "adjustment" such as this doesn't solve underlying problems; it just hardens/widens the existing divide and exacerbates the underlying problems.

The cost of a decent home computer system that would serve a typical home student would currently be well under $500. The current public schools system could provide, at no cost, the computer that each child would require. Such a computer system culd be easily identfiable as a 'school system' so that there would be little temptation for a parent to try to sell said system. In addition the seeling of said school computer could be made a capital crime. Also the cost of such a system would come down as the volume went up.

As to the parents addressing the problem, there is already in place a system to direct that sort of thing. If a child doesn't attend school, the courts land on the parents. In my proposed world, the child does his assigned work or he/she/it is forced to attend a regular school. The computer knows if the child did the assigned work. [No, the child can't fool the computer by merely sitting in front of it.] It doesn't matter if the parents are willing to have their child acquire learning, society takes care of the 'willing' part.

Yes, my solution does widen existing divides. The 'unlearned and proud of it parents' are not allowed to inflict their lack of learning on their children. The children will learn what the are capable of. Of course, if Riche/Regina van Gotbucks are stupid little assholes, the fact will come out under computer learning and either their parents will have to provide jobs or the rich kids will have to take menial jobs. If Joe/Josie Poorkids have talent, that talent will shine through the raggedy clothes and society may have new businesses started by the best and brightest.

But what happens to the people who don't have it and don't have family money to cushion the hard landing? Not to worry, you can see the jobs that await the girls by cruising the Sunset Strip or the main streets of Washington D.C. As for the boys, the little motherfuckers can just take care of themselves. Not all boys can be well paid pimps, I myself was evaluated for that role and found wanting [too vicious.] The rest of the boys just gonna' have to scuffle for it. I started BELOW the bottom and had to work my way up the hard way. I as nothing of others that I haven't done. [Well, I know NOTHING of the massacre in the alley.]

 

[sr71plt]

This may be a wild guess, R.Richard, but I'm thinking you and James did very, very well in hard maths and sciences and not so well in humanities in school.

I give up. Sure, activate those plans of yours.

 

[Weird Harold]

You have summarized what I have been trying to get across about computer software technology. A computer program can give EACH child the individual attention of a tutor. PLUS, the computer tutor is an impossibly intelligent and knowlegeable specialist in each of the areas that the school thinks to address.

If youactually believe the highlighted assertion, you just might be one of the very few people on earth that a computer really is smarter than.

Educational Games and tutorial software are "Expert Programs" that can adapt and adjust to a users needs, but they are NOT intelligent or specially knowledgeable.

Any faults in the current computer software technology will be quickly addressed and the required improvement will progress at an unbelievably rapid rate as talented programmers will try to offer parents a better learning tool for their children. With computer classes, the future is now and there is no pool of hack teachers who have to be worked through before the most effective new techniques can be applied. Finally, the market for the computer classes software is so vast, that prices can be low.

Why would a programmer making six to eight figures programming commercial games (even with an educational element) want to move down to programming low-cost subsidized tutoring software?

Instead of "hack teachers" education would be in the hands of "commitees of hack programmers" willing to work for "low-bid" wages.

I must disagree with your statement that exclusive use of computer education [at least for academic classes] is a bad idea.

As a sometime programmer, I have a healthy disrespect for the capabilities of computers to do more than they're programmed to do, a healthy disrespect for modern programmer's ability to debug their programs, and serious qualms about letting either take responsibility for wholesale education.

The biggest single drawback to relying on computer education is the need for constant upgrades and corrections -- of data, not programs -- and the unlikelyhood of new information being integrated into the system; especially since the justification is "savings."

Exclusively Computerized Education lends itself to a form of ossification far worse than hide-bound teachers putting in their time to retirement.

 

[Black Tulip]

Ok, I tried to read only. LOL

As a teacher with 25 years of experience I find the computer an extremely valuable tool to give my students the possibility to work through their program in a way that suits their talents and capabilities. (Some finish in six months, others need a year and a half.)

But like others stated, an important part of getting education inside a school is learning social skills. I don't see a computer taking over there.

Perhaps even more important, there are uncountable children who desperately need some positive encouragement to find their talents. Not every parent is loving and nurturing. I know, I work with juvenile delinquents or teens that are headed that way so that could be exceptional. Or perhaps those are only to be found in the Old World?

 

[R. Richard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Richard
You have summarized what I have been trying to get across about computer software technology. A computer program can give EACH child the individual attention of a tutor. PLUS, the computer tutor is an impossibly intelligent and knowlegeable specialist in each of the areas that the school thinks to address.

If youactually believe the highlighted assertion, you just might be one of the very few people on earth that a computer really is smarter than.

Educational Games and tutorial software are "Expert Programs" that can adapt and adjust to a users needs, but they are NOT intelligent or specially knowledgeable.

An educational program, as such, is CURRENTLY not all that intelligent. However an educational program, such as I am describing, will have access to all of human knowledge in a subject area. Data can be retrieved and presented to the student. Examples galore are available. In addition, a strength of computer programs is the ability to recognize patterns in data. Thus a computer program can analyze the interaction with a specific student and determine the proper presentation of subject matter for that student. The analysis is not really done by the computer program but by people who study the interactions between students and subjhect matter presentation.

Let me give you a historical example of why what I am proposing will work. In 1950, a few cars had automatic transmissions and the results were terrible. The automatic would indeed shift gears without human intervention, but the process was clumsy and did not work well. By 1960, a lot of cars had automatic transmisisons and they worked a great deal better than the automatic transmissons of the 1950s. The reason that the 1960s automatics were better than the 1950s was mistakes. Automotive engineers analyzed what was wrong with the 1950s designs and used the analysis to improve the breed. By the 1970s, the automatic transmission had improved to the point where the 'super stock' classes in drag racing no longer were separated into automatic and manual transmission classes, snce there was no difference in performance. The 1970s engineers were not basically that much smarter than the 1950s and 1960s engineers, but they learned from mistakes. The same process continued through the 1980s and 1990s. Late in the 20th century, lessons learned from the 1950s on, resulted in automatics of great sophistication and also in 'automatic manuals,' where the racing driver signaled for a gear change and the transmission was mechanically shifted faster than a human could shift and without [barring mechanical failure] error. The process continues and transmissions continue to improve.

Similarly, automated systems continue to improve, as the designers learn from experience of previous systems. Knowledge systems now work pretty well, wih miniumum data bases. The systems will continue to improve and the data bases will grow.

 

[sr71plt]

Duh, duh, duh. This isn't a machine problem. Yes, a machine can be devised to solve the isoloated machine problem element--and has already been devised, as a matter of fact. This isn't a machine problem, however. Duh, duh, duh.

 

[R. Richard]

This may be a wild guess, R.Richard, but I'm thinking you and James did very, very well in hard maths and sciences and not so well in humanities in school.

It is a wild guess, at least in my case. I did well in school classes where there were answers to be obtained. A case in point is the Shakespearean drama, "The Merchant of Venice." I could see that Antonio and Bassanio were men who made their living because of their, for the times, advanced edcuations. They could read, write and understood at least the basis of simple accounting. Thus, they could trade in foreign goods with enormous markups and become wealthy without working. When it seems that Antonio's ships are wrecked and with them his fortune, Antonio is then to be subjected to the loss of a pound of flesh by the venal Shylock [obviously a stupid jew, as all of them were, at least as portrayed.] The beautiful Portia, who is able to impersonate a law clerk because of her advanced, for the time, education then tricks the stupid Shylock, cheats him out of his money and humiliates him. The basic theme of the play is that aristocrats are well educated people of quality who need not work for a livin and jews are mean, rotten ass holes who get uppity if you spit on them. The entire play is anti-semitic to an almost unbelievable degree.

I was given a F for my incisive analysis of "The Mercant of Venice' by a fat, stupid, ugly bitch who didn't like what I had said, for whatever reason that the bitch would not explain. Objectively, I submit that I deserved a A grade. Alas, subjectively I deserved an F grade. Computers don't grade subjectively.

 

[R. Richard]

Ok, I tried to read only. LOL

As a teacher with 25 years of experience I find the computer an extremely valuable tool to give my students the possibility to work through their program in a way that suits their talents and capabilities. (Some finish in six months, others need a year and a half.)

But like others stated, an important part of getting education inside a school is learning social skills. I don't see a computer taking over there.

Perhaps even more important, there are uncountable children who desperately need some positive encouragement to find their talents. Not every parent is loving and nurturing. I know, I work with juvenile delinquents or teens that are headed that way so that could be exceptional. Or perhaps those are only to be found in the Old World?

As you point out, the computer allows a child to proceed at his/her/its own pace and to work to increase the child's capabilities.

Let me see if I can quantify 'high school social skills.' If you want to have social success as a male, then you need to arrange to be born to people of money and grow up to be a tall, handsome stud with just enough brains that you can see the things that the other social lions/lionesses see. If you want to have social success as a female, then you need to arrange to be born to people of money and grow up to be a very pretty girl, preferably with big tits [not too obvious augmentation OK.] The female also needs just enough brains that she can see the things that the other social lionesses see and also to conceal the fact that she can actually think. [One other thing is the ability to determine exactly the time to use the ubiquitous phrase, "Keep your hands to yourself!"] Alas, only the few will ever develop outstanding high school social skills.

You gotta' be kiddin' me about the positive encouragement thing, right? I grew up in an abandoned building, surrounded by people who wanted to kill me because my skin was the wrong color. I was called a juvenile delinquent, but I reject the label. I was as much a criminal as any adult. I had any number of attempts made on my life, once per attacker. I was encouraged by the people around me to do things that those around me wanted done to further their own ends, to the total disregard of my own welfare. I was not a social lion. However, first the boys realized that, "Doan mess wi' no Whi Boy" was a good plan. Then the girls realized that the further they stayed away from Whi' Boy, the better, The adults slowly gained some sort of dim understanding. Finally, the scumbags came to the same conclusion. At no time was I ever offered positive encouragement, save by a gang leader called Shaka [if you have any understanding of history, you know what his gang was called.] Shaka wanted me to anchor the left side of his line when his gang was involved in confrontations with other gangs. Since the arrangement boosted my 'rep,' I agreed. In the South Cental your rep is not a matter of life and death, it is much more important than that.