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
Kids spend their whole day at school. I think this leads to a misunderstanding (or missed opportunity) on "teaching machines." [Like you, stipulating a teaching machine that works]
Are we imagining kids spending their whole day inside of a teaching machine? Horrifying
1
1
But what about a machine (or just an instructional mode) that works well and without taking too much time? Each day 1 hour inside the teaching machine, 6 hours of recess?
1
1
Replying to
In fact, something like that is not far from what KA often used to propose as an adoption strategy.