A lot of students have difficulties with math even though they have a human teacher who can explain things to them in a number of different ways. Why would a dumb computer program be any better?
Sure, arithmetics could probably be trained using computers, but I don't think a game would be the most effective way to learn new concepts, like polynoms, probability theory, etc.
Also, you couldn't ask the computer if you had problems understanding some concept or if you have forgotten something. Teachers sometimes have problems catching systematic errors that students do, and explaining why they are wrong. You'd be surprised by what students can come up with, it would be completely impossible to make a program (with our current technology) which could point out the flaws in their reasoning.
Wow. This has got to be the worst comment I have seen today. But don't take it personally, I guess you're just not very well informed about educational research.
Students have problems sitting in class for 8h/day. Do you really think they will be able to sit infront of a computer screen 8h/day? Without any interactivity? No asking questions? No developing social skills? Who would make sure they actually watch the videos? Would you have the selfcontrol to watch 8h/videos if no one watched over you? I know I wouldn't, and I'm almost a teacher myself!
People learn in different ways, so you simply couldn't show the same video to everyone, even if it was made by some of the greatest educators. Some people learn best by just listening, other by discussing. Some people need more time to learn math than others. Some people learn best by constructivist thinking. etc. A good teacher constantly adapts to the class, mixing all of the above as appropriate.
Studies show that people learn more easily if you can tie the material being studied to the students own experiences. How would a teacher do that, if they have never had any contact at all with their pupils?
Also, do you really think that lecturing in class is the only thing teachers do? How about planning future education? Research about teaching and learning? Writing textbooks? Would you want someone who has never been in contact with any student to plan your future?
Studies (like e.g Pisa) show that students in countries that rely heavily on standardised testing learn less then those in countries that do not. Usually this is because less freedom is given to the teachers if standard tests are used.
So please, don't think of teachers as just babysitters. They actually do a very important job.
Source Code != ingredients Source Code = recipe (At least to some degree)
As you may have noticed, very few cake-makers put their recipes on the box. I have some shocking news for you, the recipe for Coca Cola is also secret! Does that mean that you shouldn't drink it? Don't get me wrong, Open Source is great, but most analogies comparing open and closed source are so flawed it's downright scary... As a matter of fact my own analogy(code=recipe) is also flawed, since you need more than just the recipe to make good food(cooking skills,actual ingredients,etc). If a 5 star restaurant gave away all its recipies people would still visit, but if Microsoft gave away the Windows source code, no one would buy their product.
So what you're REALLY saying is this: Appeals with judges and jurors are bad, but it's perfectly acceptable to convict someone on BS charges, if the public agrees with it? Why not skip the initial trial altogether and let the mob decide who's guilty and who's not?
Slashdot Mirror
Because teaching math is actually hard?
A lot of students have difficulties with math even though they have a human teacher who can explain things to them in a number of different ways. Why would a dumb computer program be any better?
Sure, arithmetics could probably be trained using computers, but I don't think a game would be the most effective way to learn new concepts, like polynoms, probability theory, etc.
Also, you couldn't ask the computer if you had problems understanding some concept or if you have forgotten something. Teachers sometimes have problems catching systematic errors that students do, and explaining why they are wrong. You'd be surprised by what students can come up with, it would be completely impossible to make a program (with our current technology) which could point out the flaws in their reasoning.
Wow. This has got to be the worst comment I have seen today. But don't take it personally, I guess you're just not very well informed about educational research.
Students have problems sitting in class for 8h/day. Do you really think they will be able to sit infront of a computer screen 8h/day? Without any interactivity? No asking questions? No developing social skills? Who would make sure they actually watch the videos? Would you have the selfcontrol to watch 8h/videos if no one watched over you? I know I wouldn't, and I'm almost a teacher myself!
People learn in different ways, so you simply couldn't show the same video to everyone, even if it was made by some of the greatest educators. Some people learn best by just listening, other by discussing. Some people need more time to learn math than others. Some people learn best by constructivist thinking. etc. A good teacher constantly adapts to the class, mixing all of the above as appropriate.
Studies show that people learn more easily if you can tie the material being studied to the students own experiences. How would a teacher do that, if they have never had any contact at all with their pupils?
Also, do you really think that lecturing in class is the only thing teachers do? How about planning future education? Research about teaching and learning? Writing textbooks? Would you want someone who has never been in contact with any student to plan your future?
Studies (like e.g Pisa) show that students in countries that rely heavily on standardised testing learn less then those in countries that do not. Usually this is because less freedom is given to the teachers if standard tests are used.
So please, don't think of teachers as just babysitters. They actually do a very important job.
Source Code != ingredients
Source Code = recipe (At least to some degree)
As you may have noticed, very few cake-makers put their recipes on the box.
I have some shocking news for you, the recipe for Coca Cola is also secret! Does that mean that you shouldn't drink it?
Don't get me wrong, Open Source is great, but most analogies comparing open and closed source are so flawed it's downright scary...
As a matter of fact my own analogy(code=recipe) is also flawed, since you need more than just the recipe to make good food(cooking skills,actual ingredients,etc).
If a 5 star restaurant gave away all its recipies people would still visit, but if Microsoft gave away the Windows source code, no one would buy their product.
Bodily harm is a tort anywhere. The idea of "consent" is not recognized No it's not. Haven't you ever watched (kick)boxing or ultimate fighting?
So what you're REALLY saying is this: Appeals with judges and jurors are bad, but it's perfectly acceptable to convict someone on BS charges, if the public agrees with it? Why not skip the initial trial altogether and let the mob decide who's guilty and who's not?