למידה, אינטרנט ... ומה שביניהם

Any teacher that can be replaced by a computer deserves to be.

Will machines replace teachers? On the contrary, they are capital equipment to be used by teachers to save time and labor. In assigning certain mechanizable functions to machines, the teacher emerges in his proper role as an indispensable human being. He may teach more students than heretofore — this is probably inevitable if the world-wide demand for education is to be satisfied — but he will do so in fewer hours and with fewer burdensome chores. (The Technology of Teaching, p. 69-70)

In a report published in February, Pearson suggests that AI could make learning “more personalised, flexible, inclusive and engaging”. Such systems do not replace teachers, but allow them to act as mentors rather than lecturers.

The job of teachers will definitely change with the digitization. Studies have already shown that algorithms used to customize leaning to individual pupils based on their progress and understanding can be more effective than a human teacher. While this may be a boon to school districts desperate to find qualified individuals to teach, it may also eventually reduce the role of classroom teacher to that of proctor or babysitter — or eliminate it altogether.

Even outside the AI community, there is a broad consensus that technological progress, and artificial intelligence in particular, will require big changes in the way education is delivered, just as the Industrial Revolution did in the 19th century.

His sole example of MOOCs, in which college professors (more likely adjunct staff are doing the actual work) assemble a collection of readings and videos for students to consume in a specific order, is certainly all about presenting data for the invisible student on the other side to absorb.

But is that “teaching”?

Maybe I’m just a traditionalist but I’d like to think that all of those professions, especially the art of teaching, will always require a human touch to do well.

This wearable uses translation technology to allow two people to speak different languages but still clearly understand each other. It's the dream, you know?

More important than speaking a foreign language is being understood. That’s getting easier and easier.

At the event, Pichai demonstrated the assistant’s ability to parse context by asking it what movies were playing tonight, specifying that he wanted to bring the kids, and then buying tickets, all without leaving the app and more or less in the way you’d speak to a human. … Google, Pichai said, sees the future of computing as an "ambient experience that extends beyond devices."

The idea that a student could soon be sitting at home and simply ask their Google Home device “How do I solve this problem?” and instead of the device giving the answer, it talks the student through how to solve the problem. It will ask the student questions, respond to those questions and actually teach the student. Now….yes….this is what parents do (and should do) and I’m not saying I want students talking to computers all the time. But it does open up some interesting possibilities for the future.

Any teacher that can be replaced by a computer deserves to be.

If We (Profs, Teachers) Can Be Replaced by a Computer Screen, We Should Be!

What I mean is that, given how sophisticated online technologies are becoming, given how many people around the world are clamoring for quality and low-cost education, given how seriously people in the online educational business (like Kahn Academy) are studying how people learn and what kind of help and interaction they need to learn, given all that, then, if we profs are adding no other value to our teaching but that which could be replicated on line, then, well, turn on the computers and get the over-priced profs out of the classrooms now.

Since the "tech" won’t require the extensive education and training of today’s teachers, the teacher’s union will fall apart, and that "tech" will earn about $15 an hour to facilitate a class of what could include over 50 students. This new progressive system will be justified and supported by the American public for several reasons: Each lesson will be among the most interesting and efficient lessons in the world; millions of dollars will be saved in reduced teacher salaries; the "techs" can specialize in classroom management; performance data will be standardized and immediately produced (and therefore "individualized"); and the country will finally achieve equity in its public school system.

One of the main reasons many students drop out is because they don’t receive enough teaching support. We created Jill as a way to provide faster answers and feedback.

One of the secrets of online classes is that the number of questions increases if you have more students, but the number of different questions doesn’t really go up.... Students tend to ask the same questions over and over again.

“I didn’t see personality in any of the posts,” he recalls. “But it’s what you’d expect from a TA, somewhat serious and all about giving you the answer.”

Indeed, most of the other TAs were equally deadpan, helping to keep up the charade.

We would first want to see what good teachers do when presented with problems students are having. The Georgia Tech program apparently was focused on answering student questions about due dates or assignments. That probably is what TA’s actually do which makes the AI TA question a very uninteresting question. Of course, a TA can be simulated if the TA’s job is basically robotic in the first place.

Graduate students (PhDs) typically are required to be a TA not only to be assessed by their quality as a future professor, but a learning experience for them to know their teaching style, etc. If we start replacing TAs, I am curious what type of future professors we will create? It is unacceptable that the role of a TA is being replaced by a robot to create "efficiency" or to "Save money." Learning in a classroom is a two-way street and I feel as though the introduction of robotic TAs makes it's a one-way lane.