The historical review was very interesting. On the hook of the article: > In the 1920s, radio was an exciting new mass medium. It was known for providing ente

The historical review was very interesting. On the hook of the article: > In the 1920s, radio was an exciting new mass medium. It was known for providing entertainment, but educators wondered if it could also be used for education. With every new technology, there is a furry of people coming out of the woodwork to tout it as a way to "revolutionize education" or try to guess if it can be used efficiently. Invariably, the dusts settles after a while to restate that: - kids who self-educate will use whatever mean is at their disposition to learn, be it books, radio, VHS, youtube, the metaverse. Better technology is better, but it's mostly on the convenience part. - kids who need guidance on what we want them to learn will need a human teacher follow them, see what works and doesn't, and bring contents/explainations for them to digest the concepts. - mosts kids aren't self-sufficient in all subjects, and will need guidance to go through everything we want them to learn (basically every kid falls on both above categories, it just depends on the subject). Thus whatever the technology at hand, we need a trained human being to help them learn at some point.