41–50 of 392 posts
Nope. Human contact is the future of education. Rent-seeking scumbags trying to shove technology into education where it isn’t needed can find another industry to ruin.
> 1. The things you learn by yourself stick; the things that are “taught” to you do not stick.
Yes, but no. That you teach others sticks, and that's where human contact comes in, and it's something sorely lacking in the institutional education system.
Video games style learning are great. But I don't know if a classroom of children systematically playing video games on a time based limit to learn a subject will be the same experience. Freedom and pace is what makes them a great medium. That's the opposite of our education system.
My kids go to a fairly highly-rated public elementary school in the midwest U.S., and in addition to live math instruction, they also have time allotted within their class to play www.prodigygame.com This is basically a turn-based RPG, but to make each turn successful, you solve a math problem whose difficulty has been selected based on your past performance. They also play it at home, and I believe it has strengthen…
> 1. The things you learn by yourself stick; the things that are “taught” to you do not stick. This is called Active Learning and there are decades of work that have gone into demonstrating it's effectiveness. Also see: Constructivism. Although the majority of k-12 education still emphasizes passive learning, constructivist approaches to learning are being taught around the world and in the U.S. (Papert's work is a g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My view is that technology can deliver education of equal quality to each child, and this baseline should constantly improve over time. A small fraction of children has access to high quality educators, and they might end up being highly motivated, encouraged and empowered. What about the rest?
Pay teachers more. If you are a smart person and could have a great career in industry, why would you ever go teach unless you come from a financial background that can support you (aka wealthy parents) or are extremely altruistic. If you pay teachers competitive wages that are in line with their contributions to society, you'd see better teachers overall.
Fuck yeah, I feel like I'm a better driver thanks to video game, and got a shit ton of culture from the pink panther game as well[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZkX544i8RA
I always feel like I'm a worse driver after playing games a lot, usually it encourages speeding and "fun" behaviours rather than good, sensible, law-abiding driving. What games have you played to improve driving abilities.
Poor driving (speeding, running red lights, passing unsafely) is very quickly and sometimes harshly punished.
With that said, we need to when and how to apply it. I would conjecture that education can't be the byproduct, it has to be the goal. And that educational and fun are difficult in the product of each. Given that I have only given three examples and others would be hard pressed to add more, that (STEM) educational games are less .1% of the games market. I would argue that many of nextgen indie games are educational in how they help the player handle feelings and life changing events.
The most effective educational games will probably have to be funded by the state and implemented by interdisciplinary teams of academics and game developers.
If that were true, we'd have at least a few really great educational games by now. Any examples?
The author claims “where games mostly fall short is that they’re not that transferable to the real world. The skills you learn are highly specific to that game,” but “this will change,” because the cost of game development is decreasing. But his conclusion doesn’t follow; we might get more educational games, but not necessarily ones with skills that are more generalisable. As someone who’s spent the last 15 years mak…
> "where games mostly fall short is that they’re not that transferable to the real world." I'd argue that this will change because the "real world" will begin to more and more resemble games. Sports are a good analogy for this. There are entire cultures and subcultures, people's entire lives based around sports.
Especially as the kids whose brains grew up on videogames are already becoming decision makers and shaping society in their own image. Not saying that's a bad thing, either - the world is probably better off resembling a video game than a bad trip.
It ended in a non-sequitur. Today, GPT-3 can be used to do smart autocomplete of a paragraph, but in the future, a model might autocomplete an entire book. Where is the symbiosis there? Gaming to aquire knowledge has nothing at all to do with AI replacing humans at various tasks.
I think you missed the point, because it was right there: AI tools will lower the cost of producing (educational) games, by enabling creators to rapidly generate a diverse selection of dialogues, landscapes, textures, music, [...], which the creators can then choose from or use as inspiration. This lowers the barrier for independent developers to design educational games. This isn’t hypothetical—I have aspirations to…
With collaboration I can't see how is possible there aren't already enough problem-solution sets for pottery much all subjects.
This way the publisher can own copyright on a massive set of problem-solution pairs and only employ one person for a short time? Seems to be financial optimisation rather than educational improvement.
Duolingo (language learning app) has generated materials and so often they're just slightly weird until they've been used, tested live by students, reported 100-times (or whatever), and finally corrected by the app operators.
It's good eventually, but if I were paying I'd be annoyed that there's not a bit more human effort put in.
With Open course materials it seems we'd already have enough materials to go around.