One common criticism of automated "Skinner-box"-like teaching machines (e.g. in Watters's book) is that they're fascistic, inhumane, etc. In the context of K-12, that's definitely true, but I think the stronger criticism is that they don't really *work*, even on their own terms!
Conversation
That is, even if a student mechanically does exactly what the Skinner box (or Khan Academy exercises) asks them to do, the resulting understanding is usually brittle, shallow, and short-lived. *Also* the experience is often awful, but that seems unimportant if it doesn't work!
2
15
It's funny—when I was working on K12 edu, what really bothered me about teaching machines was the fascistic, anti-creative bit.
Now that I'm working on expert learning, I have a different perspective: if such a machine truly worked, I'd *love* to use one for topics I care about.
2
1
21
The voluntarism makes all the difference for me. In the context of a coercive learning environment, the *affect* of the teaching machines really bother me; but if I'm just trying to efficiently learn topics I need for projects that matter to me, then sure—whatever works best!
4
20
Questions I'd like to understand better:
Intelligent tutoring systems seem to produce more flexible, durable understanding. Is this true? If so, what differences from a Skinner-style machine make it so?
3
8
I can't get my head around Direct Instruction. The Follow Through studies are hard to argue with, but it sure seems like a teaching machine to me. Does it produce more flexible, durable understanding than? If so, why? The teacher's human involvement, even if scripted?
6
1
8
Am I actually just wrong about such classic "computer aided instruction"-type systems? My conclusion's based mostly on interactions with and small-scale studies of students using Khan Academy. I'm wary of a lot of the empirical work here.
Replying to
Another twist on the K12-vs-adult-learning context switch: maybe the reason these teaching machines don't seem to work in K12 *is* the coercion? That is, to learn things, you must earnestly think about them, and a coerced CAI user will not. But maybe a voluntary one would?
1
1
14
I suspect even most eager students would struggle to build strong understanding from these rote teaching machines. The emotional connection is just too flat. Readwise sends me highlights of things I cared about, and after a few weeks my eye just skids off them.
2
9
See also the discussion of emotional connection in the "mnemonic video" section of this essay with , on how MOOCs struggle to leverage the emotional range of video while also supporting detail: numinous.productions/ttft/#mnemonic
2
17
Replying to
If Seymour Papert would have had his way, kids would form understandings of things by exploring and interacting with computerized representations, but that doesn't produce enough metrics or keep all kids on the same track so no wonder the world of Mindstorms has not born fruit.
1
I'm a huge Mindstorms fan of course, but implicit instruction does seem to have some pretty serious limitations, particularly among novice students; see e.g. expertise reversal effect.
1
Show replies
Replying to
PLATO is a great example of CAI going sideways - they designed/funded it on a Skinner premise, and it wouldn’t’ve lasted for 20+ yrs if not for its laissez-faire director (Bitzer) and end user programmability (led to underground “lessons” that resembled MUDs, chats, …)
1