Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

afterbabel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 528 posts

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#511

Post by snowfarthing »

consteval wrote: post #220
jppope wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you're listing highly regulated industries not human interaction.

These industries, more or less, need to be highly regulated because we've faced the alternative and it's worse. The quality of education went up SIGNFICANTLY when the state took more control over it.

Did it really improve, though? There's evidence that Colonial/Revolutionary-Era American populace was highly educated, and that education had been gradually going downhill as the United States gradually adopted the Prussian model of education -- an education system designed to produce loyal soldiers and interchangeable worker widgets.

There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure". Yet there is this endless cycle of increasing regulation, where a politician or bureaucrat identifies a problem with the market -- real or imagined -- and then offers a solution. That solution the situation even worse, but politicians and bureaucrats will blame this on "market failure", and then insist on another solution ... and so it goes.

Yes, it's true that some regulation is necessary. But how much effort is put into place to make sure that the regulations put in place do what they are supposed to do? What effort is put into place to identify the nasty side effects of otherwise good regulations? The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed.

And that's even before we get into the fact that regulations have their limits: people can handle only so many rules, particularly if they are onerous, and will start ignoring regulations when it's the only way to get things done. An example of this is a report from the FAA, where they identified around 2,000 pilots who didn't report disqualifying health conditions. Why? Because the conditions were quickly resolved, and their livelihoods depended on flying, so they didn't want to go through the hassle of waiting three months for their license to fly to be cleared again. What's worse, of the 2,000 or so pilots who did this, only 4 or so had serious-enough conditions that they shouldn't have been flying!

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#512

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

tptacek wrote: post #510
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I that case I don't understand what the formal definition of heritability. ( I could some time and understand it but that beside the point) So what term would you use to describe individuals inheriting trait from their parents eg, skin color ? especially the colloquial term. (and again aren't we veering way off topic?) Edit/Addendum - I looked at the colloquial definition of heritability/heritable, I thi…

The technical definition matters because the evidence people supply about the genetics of intelligence is based on that technical definition, not your intuitive definition. You said intelligence has been shown to be heritable. Indeed, it has. But that doesn't mean what you think it meant.

Again, fair enough. ( I'm pretty sure that when I used the word heritable first, the person understood it, although he/she may not have agreed with me.)

And if I may defend myself most terms with a formal definition start out being used colloquially and later if/when adapted scientifically may have a more nuanced definition. And after it is adapted scientifically the word continues being used colloquially. Isn't it generally assumed that when 2 people talk the colloquial is assumed? Unless they both decided to use the formal definition, or they are both experts in the subjects.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#513

Post by tptacek »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #512
tptacek wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technical definition matters because the evidence people supply about the genetics of intelligence is based on that technical definition, not your intuitive definition. You said intelligence has been shown to be heritable. Indeed, it has. But that doesn't mean what you think it meant.

Again, fair enough. ( I'm pretty sure that when I used the word heritable first, the person understood it, although he/she may not have agreed with me.) And if I may defend myself most terms with a formal definition start out being used colloquially and later if/when adapted scientifically may have a more nuanced definition. And after it is adapted scientifically the word continues being used colloquially. Isn't it g…

I don't think you should feel bad for using heritability in its colloquial sense. I'm just saying that you won't be able to support the claim you made with the evidence you had available. That's how discussions work: you make claims, some of them hold up, some of them don't.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#514

Post by snowfarthing »

panzagl wrote: post #53
throw_pm23 wrote: post #20

The teaching method I find best is a teacher explaining and writing with chalk on the blackboard, and the students taking handwritten notes on paper, asking whenever something is not clear. In other words, the most boring classical setup possible. Of course all the nuances and little details make all the difference: board picture, structure, teacher personality, pacing, choice of topic, interaction, motivation, excit…

My wife had one kid scream for 10 minutes yesterday and another throw a chair. Another just sat there and didn't do a thing for 7 hours. The Little House/Christmas Story model hasn't been able to work for a long time.

Your wife teaches in a one-room schoolhouse?

If not, then your wife's experience doesn't say anything about how well the Little House/Christmas Story model works.

Indeed, I would go so far as to suspect that this is likely a failure of the "integrate kids no matter what, and force them to learn at the exact same pace, no matter what" style of schooling that has become so ubiquitous in modern society.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#515

Post by gamblor956 »

leereeves wrote: post #452
gamblor956 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LAUSD has gifted programs. As do the dozen other districts in LA County. NY also still has gifted programs... Yes, some of these were shut down. It wasn't because of "equity". It was because of something called "budget cuts."

That's not the way it was sold by politicians or reported by the media. For example: "NYC to eliminate gifted and talented school program that opponents say segregated students" "this new, equitable model" https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/new-york-gifted-and-talent...

If you had actually read the article you would have learned that NYC did not actually get rid of the gift and talented program. It just changed how the gifted students were identified and actually...expanded...the program. Quite dramatically.

And indeed, the CNN article is the only actual reporting claiming that NYC was eliminating this program.

You would think that something of this magnitude would have been reported in the hometown paper if it were true...But the NYT reports that NYC actually expanded the program by over 1100 seats...(https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/nyregion/nyc-gifted-talen...)

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#516

Post by consteval »

snowfarthing wrote: post #511
consteval wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These industries, more or less, need to be highly regulated because we've faced the alternative and it's worse. The quality of education went up SIGNFICANTLY when the state took more control over it.

Did it really improve, though? There's evidence that Colonial/Revolutionary-Era American populace was highly educated, and that education had been gradually going downhill as the United States gradually adopted the Prussian model of education -- an education system designed to produce loyal soldiers and interchangeable worker widgets. There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is…

> Did it really improve, though?

Yes.

> There's evidence that Colonial/Revolutionary-Era American populace was highly educated

I've never seen this evidence, but to speculate: probably since the colonist were, well, colonists, and literally building every industry from the ground up, they had to be.

After this though, in the 19th century, we knew most people could not read or write.

> an education system designed to produce loyal soldiers and interchangeable worker widgets

True, but worker widgets who can read.

> There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure"

I experience the opposite, but granted I live in Texas. The default mode is regulations are bad, and the less the better.

> The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed

It's not an assumption, it's an observation. When it comes to education and others.

The thing is the free market relies on there being a free market. Not every market can be a free market. That's a problem. I've already explained how education can never be a free market above, but another example is healthcare. I can't compete in healthcare because of the HUGE time investment in schooling. I also have zero choice as a consumer - I just go to the nearest hospital. There's also no visibility in price because you have to diagnose me first, and that can be wrong or things can pop up later.

Healthcare is not, and will never be, a free market. Even now the US has a largely socialized healthcare system, it just so happens to be the worst socialized healthcare system. Primarily because we've handed it off to the private sector, who have incentives to actually make it worse. Meaning, insurance thrives when you receive less care. The inefficiency is built into the profit motive, and you can't get around it.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#517

Post by nutanc »

neochief wrote: post #473
nutanc wrote: post #30

I wouldn't say it has failed completely, but yes, it has not delivered on the promise. Edtech and teaching is close to my heart and I have spent a lot of time analyzing this. My insights are mostly from what I have observed in India. Edtech has failed in India because there is very little tech and even little education in the apps. Mostly edtech in India equates to exam preparation apps. Other approaches like the duo…

Hi! Can you show some of that interactive text book?

https://books.innings2.com/demo

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#518

Post by kranke155 »

pokerface_86 wrote: post #479
kranke155 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment is really weird.

it was more to illustrate the point that montessori isn’t just a brand, it’s a whole different way of teaching and learning

Not your comment is weird. The above comment is weird. I think you're right and they're wrong

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#519

Post by snowfarthing »

pokerface_86 wrote: post #437
marksbrown wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good example in the UK is teaching students the FOIL technique for algebraic expansion. Students typically can expand (ax+b)(cx+d) because they've learnt a recipe but cannot expand say (ax2+bx+c)(dx+e). Many schools here focus on such tricks (nix the tricks was a great book focusing on such things) as schools here are judged on pass/fail rates. In general, exams are an excellent way to assess students en masse at t…

the inability the generalize the foil procedure to an expression with more than 2 variables speaks more to the non mathematically oriented population just sucking at generalizing things. i have found this to be a very “you have it or you don’t” type of thing, not really something that can be taught

Then again, it may be because FOIL is stupid.

I've always had a difficult time wrapping my head around this acronym. What counts as "outer"? What counts as "inner"? And yes, when there are more than two items (not necessarily variables!) to be multiplied, you suddenly have to ignore this little trick, because now it's confusing to know what to do about the middle stuff -- and it doesn't take into account non-commutativity either.

And yes, some of the problem may be due to my (very recently diagnosed! at least, formally) autistic mind. But I cannot help but think that if someone with a PhD in math struggles with and largely ignores "FOIL", then the problem may be with the technique, and not with the people who don't understand it.

Re: The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

#520

Post by pokerface_86 »

snowfarthing wrote: post #519
pokerface_86 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the inability the generalize the foil procedure to an expression with more than 2 variables speaks more to the non mathematically oriented population just sucking at generalizing things. i have found this to be a very “you have it or you don’t” type of thing, not really something that can be taught

Then again, it may be because FOIL is stupid. I've always had a difficult time wrapping my head around this acronym. What counts as "outer"? What counts as "inner"? And yes, when there are more than two items (not necessarily variables!) to be multiplied, you suddenly have to ignore this little trick, because now it's confusing to know what to do about the middle stuff -- and it doesn't take into account non-commutat…

i never found foil stupid, but i also only have a bachelors in math. maybe this was because i had already been exposed to multiplying polynomial expressions, beyond just a 2 term * 2 term by the time i had learned it in school, but i never found it particularly complicated to grasp. foil was never taught to me as the only way to multiply polynomials, rather, an easy algorithm to apply in a certain case. the goal is for you to make the connection that oh, in a 3x2 case, u have to multiply each term in the 3 with each term in the 2, etc.

i think your problems with foil can be extended to the general way math is taught. at least for me, it was always full of tricks, little rules that can be broken sometimes, and i was constantly learning new things that made me realize my old teachers had taught us tricks to shortcut solutions.

Post reply on HN