Since posting the survey, I have heard interesting comments from AI boosters, like:
> What are our goals for teaching and learning and how might we have better goals :)
And:
> This was a good idea, but it’s hard to gauge these because all the answers depend on the level the teacher prepared for that. If the teacher built a solid foundation for AI literacy, then the AI chatbot lessons could work really well.
With both of these comments, you could swap out “AI” for “magic beans.” My magic beans aren’t revolutionizing student learning, but they COULD if our goals for education were aligned more around the capacities of my magic beans, capacities which at the moment you can only imagine. They could revolutionize learning if teachers just had more training in the use of my magic beans.
My free advice to AI boosters is to imagine an approach to product design beyond blaming your users and the system in which they work.
You won this one on message, data, tone, humor, connection, style, facts, reason, logic, consistency, knowledge for teaching ( 6 kids in a group...HA) and almost every other imaginable category ( well, except "mean"). Couldn't love this more. I'm pushing for a debate between Bill gates and you. Thank you.
loved this. putting a kid in front of a chatbot and saying "learn!" is functionally the same as ending direct instruction with "any questions?" Maybe worse, because at least a human teacher can realize what a bad question that was and actively start prompting and pushing students.
one of the many underlying assumptions for the chatbot-tutor heralds is that students will learn from these products *as long as they use the products in exactly the right way*. but if the usefulness of your tool depends on users contorting themselves to accommodate the idiosyncrasies and deficiencies of your tool... it's not *actually* useful.
fascinating to also see the co-opting of the idea that we (or, Americans, at least) should re-evaluate the goals and structures that make up what we call "school": sure, we should, but that shouldn't mean "re-evaluate so that school is better aligned with AI capabilities".
I say this all as someone in the thick of trying to figure out if there are any *actually* useful ways to wield AI in school. verdict so far: maybe 🤷🏽♂️
Bonus content for the comments.
Since posting the survey, I have heard interesting comments from AI boosters, like:
> What are our goals for teaching and learning and how might we have better goals :)
And:
> This was a good idea, but it’s hard to gauge these because all the answers depend on the level the teacher prepared for that. If the teacher built a solid foundation for AI literacy, then the AI chatbot lessons could work really well.
With both of these comments, you could swap out “AI” for “magic beans.” My magic beans aren’t revolutionizing student learning, but they COULD if our goals for education were aligned more around the capacities of my magic beans, capacities which at the moment you can only imagine. They could revolutionize learning if teachers just had more training in the use of my magic beans.
My free advice to AI boosters is to imagine an approach to product design beyond blaming your users and the system in which they work.
You won this one on message, data, tone, humor, connection, style, facts, reason, logic, consistency, knowledge for teaching ( 6 kids in a group...HA) and almost every other imaginable category ( well, except "mean"). Couldn't love this more. I'm pushing for a debate between Bill gates and you. Thank you.
loved this. putting a kid in front of a chatbot and saying "learn!" is functionally the same as ending direct instruction with "any questions?" Maybe worse, because at least a human teacher can realize what a bad question that was and actively start prompting and pushing students.
one of the many underlying assumptions for the chatbot-tutor heralds is that students will learn from these products *as long as they use the products in exactly the right way*. but if the usefulness of your tool depends on users contorting themselves to accommodate the idiosyncrasies and deficiencies of your tool... it's not *actually* useful.
fascinating to also see the co-opting of the idea that we (or, Americans, at least) should re-evaluate the goals and structures that make up what we call "school": sure, we should, but that shouldn't mean "re-evaluate so that school is better aligned with AI capabilities".
I say this all as someone in the thick of trying to figure out if there are any *actually* useful ways to wield AI in school. verdict so far: maybe 🤷🏽♂️
Another brilliant and refreshing analysis of the current state of edtech. Thank you.
Spot on, and from an edtech person.
The goal of no child left behind will never be solved by technology alone, as many dream it will bem
The “Out of Touch” index is so smart, I am stealing this one.
This was helpful to read through. Thanks!