4 ms·

I agree with everything except 5. I don't see why you can't replace the majority of teaching with automation. There's the aspect of learning social interaction,

I agree with everything except 5. I don't see why you can't replace the majority of teaching with automation. There's the aspect of learning social interaction, but that's among the kids themselves to figure out. The teacher doesn't have to be a literal person.

Barrin92 5y ago
It's a pretty big claim to state that social interaction is 'for kids to figure out'. Social interaction, one of the most important facets of life, requires teaching and guidance as much as anything else. In fact proper socialization if anything requires more guidance by responsible adults than some technical subject. Given that the manifesto takes a decidedly humanist stance on technology its not surprising. Education isn't just about 'learning stuff' its about having institutions that form citizens and instill some sense of virtue and values, and that can't be done in front of a screen, or replaced by technology. Very relevant today with the amount of covid-related lack of socialization outside of the home.
- lawrenceyan 5y ago
  I think I should clarify. Kids have to figure out social interaction, but generally like you say, the adults make sure that it’s in a relatively controlled environment with supervision. A mostly hands-off approach with some guidance/nudging is probably the best way of teaching (in my opinion). Sure, we live in a society. I think we all understand that. Technology is there to facilitate the transmission of teaching. There will always be a group that creates the curriculum, but students don’t necessarily need to have an actual person at the intake point. So while I agree that you can’t rely solely on technology, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t invest in it, which I fear is what’s being implied by your statement. As a purely practical example, right now the average current ratio between teachers and students is still somewhere around 30:1 or 20:1, which pretty much makes it impossible for consistent individualized attention. Ideally we could get to a 1:1 ratio, but that’s unrealistic. Effective use of technology though can be used to dramatically improve the leverage and reach of a teacher such that a lower ratio could be simulated in some sense. Not perfect, but it sure would help a lot.
masswerk 5y ago
Lets translate knowledge to "integrated affirmed information, which is recognisable as such". (In other words, a concept of resonance.) This can't be accomplished by a lone kid, since it's a social artefact.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
It’s utopian, but the tools exist today and can and are utilized. The problem is complexity, of computers can teach it won’t be as in depth as a tutor, but can be better than teachers. You can also do this online. In chess you don’t have complexity so the best bots can beat the best experts. You can learn languages with tapes and digital materials. In an increased complex environment, this is not realistic until/if they catch up which is possible.

Barrin92 5y ago

It's a pretty big claim to state that social interaction is 'for kids to figure out'. Social interaction, one of the most important facets of life, requires teaching and guidance as much as anything else. In fact proper socialization if anything requires more guidance by responsible adults than some technical subject. Given that the manifesto takes a decidedly humanist stance on technology its not surprising. Education isn't just about 'learning stuff' its about having institutions that form citizens and instill some sense of virtue and values, and that can't be done in front of a screen, or replaced by technology. Very relevant today with the amount of covid-related lack of socialization outside of the home.

lawrenceyan 5y ago
I think I should clarify. Kids have to figure out social interaction, but generally like you say, the adults make sure that it’s in a relatively controlled environment with supervision. A mostly hands-off approach with some guidance/nudging is probably the best way of teaching (in my opinion). Sure, we live in a society. I think we all understand that. Technology is there to facilitate the transmission of teaching. There will always be a group that creates the curriculum, but students don’t necessarily need to have an actual person at the intake point. So while I agree that you can’t rely solely on technology, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t invest in it, which I fear is what’s being implied by your statement. As a purely practical example, right now the average current ratio between teachers and students is still somewhere around 30:1 or 20:1, which pretty much makes it impossible for consistent individualized attention. Ideally we could get to a 1:1 ratio, but that’s unrealistic. Effective use of technology though can be used to dramatically improve the leverage and reach of a teacher such that a lower ratio could be simulated in some sense. Not perfect, but it sure would help a lot.

masswerk 5y ago

Lets translate knowledge to "integrated affirmed information, which is recognisable as such". (In other words, a concept of resonance.) This can't be accomplished by a lone kid, since it's a social artefact.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

It’s utopian, but the tools exist today and can and are utilized. The problem is complexity, of computers can teach it won’t be as in depth as a tutor, but can be better than teachers. You can also do this online. In chess you don’t have complexity so the best bots can beat the best experts. You can learn languages with tapes and digital materials. In an increased complex environment, this is not realistic until/if they catch up which is possible.