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
The youtubers at Extra Credits -- game design vblog -- noticed that education officials ubiquitously assumed that "games in education" would be "games that schools made you play", and that this was completely foreign to normal game-designers.
1
1
Replying to
It's delightful to see that your thoughts on the subject are so handily produced and accessibly structured.
1
Jonathan Blow gave a talk on Games and the Future of Education; reading what you linked, he seems to respect the constraints you name, and chart a way in that you'd see as possible-in-principle. I wonder, if you've seen it, what you thought.
