Comments on: These Horrible Adaptive Math Systems

By: â€œAdaptiveâ€ Learning Technologies: Pedagogy Should Drive Platform | edtechdigest.com

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:32:25 +0000

[…] Meyer posted two criticisms of “adaptive” technologies.Â In the first, he drew comparisons to Stanley Erlwanger’s research on the failures of Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI).Â Meyer appropriately lamented the […]

By: A Brief Change Of Mind On Adaptive Learning | Stanford EDF 403X

A Brief Change Of Mind On Adaptive Learning | Stanford EDF 403X — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:15:02 +0000

[…] depress me (more here) and after my conversation in our small group yesterday, they still depress me. But a couple of my […]

By: Dan Meyer

Dan Meyer — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:25:00 +0000

Tim Knight:

Take the traditional classroom lesson.

Let's just pause it there, though. There are enormous swathes of educators who manage not to lecture for half the classroom period, who pose interesting problems and work with small groups of students all the way through the hour. Flipped advocates (how did we get on flipping in this thread?) would like me to believe that everybody is either lecturing for a half hour in the classroom or lecturing for a half hour on video at home. That obscures a lot of other, better alternatives.

By: Tim Knight

Tim Knight — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:25:28 +0000

I think this debate is on the bleeding edge and it is difficult. However, the discussion very quickly becomes didactic and polarized. There is a huge difference between a “blended” or “flipped” environment and a student who only studies with an adaptive math system. The flipping and blending should increase contact time with a teacher and make the math far more interactive and “human”. Why do I see Charlie Brown’s teacher whenever I think about the traditional face to face classroom.

Take the traditional classroom lesson. Once the teacher has finally started interacting with individual students there may only be 30 minutes left in the lesson. Divide that number by 25 and you get less than 90 seconds face time with your teacher. That is an appalling deal. Technology and flipping buys time to work with students individually and in groups on understanding.

I teach online and I can honestly say that my knowledge of the students is as good, and often better, than in a face to face environment. There are numerous reasons for this that I do not have to go into here but one example is how introvert students (traditionally seen as problematic in Western education systems) get a fair chance to ask questions and engage with their teacher. I was shocked by this and the lack of data I had on my interactions with my students. Further to this assessment in a good online environment increases the amount and quality of feedback as a lot of the instructional “heavy lifting” can be leveraged by good content being written ahead of time.

By: cb1601ej

cb1601ej — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:09:50 +0000

Tools are a means not an end, so a critical stance is always needed. This, however, shouldn’t mean we shouldn’t try out anything: a good teacher will remain a good teacher when using tools (like 3 act videos) like adaptive systems, a bad teacher remains a bad teacher. Also, the state if the art is farther then is painted here. It’s less or or and more and and.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:07:22 +0000

It’s interesting to see the Anna Murphy Paul example and to think back on the last instant-computer-grading-for-writing product I was pitched.

By: John Edelson

John Edelson — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:11:54 +0000

I’m pleased to see some realistic criticism of the “adaptive’ learning systems. I’ve been trying to deploy them for awhile and I keep turning off the so- called intelligence and instead, letting the student determine what they need to Lear next. Even if there answer is right.

One of my pet peeves is the lack of sophistication in the granularity of the “helpful lesson” that they dish up. It’s a really hard thing to do right and it’s awful being caught within a software system that feels like a bank’s bad call management system.

By: Tim Hunt

Tim Hunt — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 05:51:34 +0000

@George Bigham – you mean a bit like the Mathpert system that Michael Beeson at San Jose State University started developing in 1985? It is now marketed as MathXpert http://www.helpwithmath.com/about.php?include=stepbystep.html.

By: blaw0013

blaw0013 — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 00:04:13 +0000

Brian makes positive observations in response 9; compelling until recognizing what Paul Gitchos reminds us Seymour Papert observed, the fundamental trouble with allowing education to become training: “computers to program children.”

By: George Bigham

George Bigham — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:23:29 +0000

How about if the kids program the computers instead of the computers programming the kids? Sounds too hard? If its programming in C, java, Matlab, etc. its too hard, but if advanced programs can parse natural language into correlated code (they can do this currently to varying degrees of success), then the students can be assigned make their own set of instructions to a computer and have it do the work of testing their accuracy.
For example, Tyler could write “move the x term to the opposite side as the y term, then … , then..” Susie could write” divide everything by 3…”, Jonnie writes, “get y by itself.” The computer could parse these rules and test them, or respond by asking for more detail like: how to you “get y by itself?” Students would already have to have developed methods on their own the old fashion way, but after they master them they can teach a computer to do the dirty work, such as have it finish a test with 100 problems a 100% correct in 1 min if they taught it correctly.