I love this under-point: “technology that would let teachers see student thinking in something close to its *raw* form”
Because I think when we talk about “making thinking visible,” we need to differentiate between *more or less cooked thinking.* Like Gardner argues in Disciplined Mind, what we’re really aiming at is to educate our students’ common sense, which they actually use to navigate the ordinary world (not how they answer questions in schoolworld).
Heck, I’d love an AI solution that captured my students’ raw “explain your thinking” responses, clustered them in interesting ways on-the-fly, and projected them to me/the class so we could do something brilliant with them (e.g., along the lines of Eric Mazur’s misunderstanding encounters.)
“I tried not to be toomuch of a downer here” - please do be a downer when dealing with well meaning Ed tech peeps; as we (but not them) know, Ed tech will not solve all.
“lots of edtech companies, in spite of their renown, are not helping 95% of students.” - and they never have.
“You either bet on teachers or you bet on software” - years ago, when Ed Tech companies introduced what they called integrated learning systems, many marketed them as “teacher proof.” Enough said.
If you don't understand what people do - or don't care what they do - it's natural to assume they don't do much at all. And then, thinking that, you might do something really stupid like offer a fake "buyout" to millions of federal employees on the assumption that nothing any of them do is very important.
You could argue (fairly easily) that the cynicism undergirding the executive branch actions is much more insidious than the Ed tech folks trying to build a teacher. But the lessons of the dangers and the folly in wholesale replacement or attempts thereof are germane in both instances.
On a similar note, across all disciplines where everyone is trying to inject AI, when will the consequences of outsourcing the easy or labourous thinking affect the ability to do advanced thinking? Level 3-4 autonomy is dangerous in transportation b/c it will inevitably lull the operator into distraction yet requires their full attention in the moments of most peril - what will it be for learning?
I definitely don't mind seeing a company led by people with real classroom experience in a real district. I don't have a ton of experience with PBL, and the website isn't descriptive enough for me to offer an informed opinion here, though.
Thanks for the reply. I’ve been working with them a bit to help develop the tool so it is appropriate for teachers not only in PBL settings, but those that also draw upon a variety of different curriculum development, frameworks and approaches. They seem very responsive and interested in making sure that the toolsupports the creativity of educators and development of meaningful curriculum. I think it’s definitely worth a try if you have some unit planning or curriculum development work to do in are interested in using AI as a thought partner.
It is not so much the type of bet. Khan Academy's tool is an outdated LMS with an AI layer. Desmo and Geogebra are interactive math environments with AI.
I love this under-point: “technology that would let teachers see student thinking in something close to its *raw* form”
Because I think when we talk about “making thinking visible,” we need to differentiate between *more or less cooked thinking.* Like Gardner argues in Disciplined Mind, what we’re really aiming at is to educate our students’ common sense, which they actually use to navigate the ordinary world (not how they answer questions in schoolworld).
Heck, I’d love an AI solution that captured my students’ raw “explain your thinking” responses, clustered them in interesting ways on-the-fly, and projected them to me/the class so we could do something brilliant with them (e.g., along the lines of Eric Mazur’s misunderstanding encounters.)
Happy to hear that, Dan – we are very much interested in the same :)
“I tried not to be toomuch of a downer here” - please do be a downer when dealing with well meaning Ed tech peeps; as we (but not them) know, Ed tech will not solve all.
“lots of edtech companies, in spite of their renown, are not helping 95% of students.” - and they never have.
“You either bet on teachers or you bet on software” - years ago, when Ed Tech companies introduced what they called integrated learning systems, many marketed them as “teacher proof.” Enough said.
I'm betting on teachers...like you.
If you don't understand what people do - or don't care what they do - it's natural to assume they don't do much at all. And then, thinking that, you might do something really stupid like offer a fake "buyout" to millions of federal employees on the assumption that nothing any of them do is very important.
You could argue (fairly easily) that the cynicism undergirding the executive branch actions is much more insidious than the Ed tech folks trying to build a teacher. But the lessons of the dangers and the folly in wholesale replacement or attempts thereof are germane in both instances.
Bet on the teacher is a great way to put it.
On a similar note, across all disciplines where everyone is trying to inject AI, when will the consequences of outsourcing the easy or labourous thinking affect the ability to do advanced thinking? Level 3-4 autonomy is dangerous in transportation b/c it will inevitably lull the operator into distraction yet requires their full attention in the moments of most peril - what will it be for learning?
Curious about what you might think of an AI tool called Inkwire.co
I definitely don't mind seeing a company led by people with real classroom experience in a real district. I don't have a ton of experience with PBL, and the website isn't descriptive enough for me to offer an informed opinion here, though.
Thanks for the reply. I’ve been working with them a bit to help develop the tool so it is appropriate for teachers not only in PBL settings, but those that also draw upon a variety of different curriculum development, frameworks and approaches. They seem very responsive and interested in making sure that the toolsupports the creativity of educators and development of meaningful curriculum. I think it’s definitely worth a try if you have some unit planning or curriculum development work to do in are interested in using AI as a thought partner.
It is not so much the type of bet. Khan Academy's tool is an outdated LMS with an AI layer. Desmo and Geogebra are interactive math environments with AI.
Wonderful writing here, thank you for posting it.
Great to read as an EdTech founder.