You are clearly not a programmer (or an engineer, for that matter). When working in a large system or suite of interlocking systems, these are the things that creep up naturally. Nobody is likely to literally type
if student.gender is girl then
praise(student)
else
chastize(student)
What will happen is that general biases, from simple algorithm choices, to the type of probabilistic sampling they like can lead to wildly different results in execution. A programmer that likes Monte Carlo sampling methods for populating their distributions may, inadvertently, through a string of tiny seemingly insignificant decisions (or, more likely, through several programmer’s choices combined) can cause a computer to exhibit what could be construed as “bias” since, even if it happens completely randomly (“emergent behavior”), tiny things add up. Since no method is perfect, this is likely to happen EVEN IF the programmers in question are completely careful and cognizant of the danger and its potential consequences.
This is, of course, unless the teacher computers utilize some degree of generalized Machine Learning algorithms, in which case the same problems may apply, but it will likely inherit biases from its learning pool; though this isn’t really worth talking about since it’s the exact same as with a human teacher. Why replace a human teacher with one you have to build, but with the exact same learning requirements and flaws?
I agree with this. If we are able to develop a robot that can respond to a classroom in the same way as a human - well, at that stage they should be able to replace just about anyone. Even therapists.
JoelUpchurch, I am amused by the idea that you are accusing both Manda JO and I of being unrealistic, since we are both teachers (although she’s been one far longer than me).
I think Jragon made some good points up thread. Robots may be able to retain much more information than their human counterparts, but even among humans, the smartest ones aren’t necessarily the best teachers.
I should also add that some things just inherently involve bias. School isn’t just learning rote facts*, but processes and critical thinking as well. Even in a poor school you’re GENERALLY required to analyze poems and essays at some point, though the teacher may be more biased than average, or just terrible at teaching it. Without bias, you eliminate the ability to figure out how to interpret the things a set of words might MEAN, depending on circumstances. We don’t have a Unified Theory of English, there’s not algorithm for determining whether a given paper or paragraph means X or Y, or whether or not it symbolizes the Gay Rights Movement. Now sometimes English gets silly in this regard, but these same bias-inherent reasoning skills are incredibly important in everything from deciphering laws as a lawyer to interpreting scientific papers for physics.
Hell, on this very board we’ve had arguments about PEMDAS, a simple algorithm in itself. We generally agreed it’s not complete, and that “Juxtaposition” is simply treated differently, even by math professionals, calculators and depending on any number of contextual cues. Even something like math is simply not teachable (not with any degree of thoroughness, at least) without taking into account biases and descriptivism. And if there’s one thing computers will fail at until we get them true human intelligence, it’s descriptivism.
In Western education, at least. I hear East Asian schools are a bit different in that regard.
Even if they had the same flaws in that aspect, you don’t have to pay them. They don’t need benefits or sick days. They would be cheaper than regular teachers. Also, they would be more knowledgable than a regular teacher. I still think the pros would outweight the cons if they became feasiable. Flaws in the programs could be fixed.
In machine learning, they wouldn’t be smarter, they’d be the same as their learning pool, which would likely be close to equal to a real human. And if you can get a computer to be that good, it likely will inherit other quirks of human mentality and learning, even responding to triggers by getting “sad” or getting “stressed.” But this is getting into AI philosophy, we’re in extremely-hypothetical land now.
If you changed the learning algorithm to “fix” it, you’d have to RETRAIN the computer, which may be faster than a human in some cases (they’d likely be quicker at reading, for instance), but it’s still rather unwieldy. Also bear in mind that pretty much all learning models nowadays are probabilistic; that means that you’re going to get duds and errors due to sheer random chance no matter what you do, no matter how you rewrite it, and no matter who trains it.
Kindergarten, in some ways, would be even more of a travesty than higher level classes. A lot of Kindergarten is focused on interpersonal skills such as sharing. I’d love to see a computer run Show and Tell. Even if we assume they’re only teaching academics, writing itself, and I mean that as the action, not the art, is rather subjective in how to judge penmanship, correct spacing, or whether or not the students’ grammar is acceptable, especially since the computer needs to know what level of error (and what TYPES of error) are acceptable for certain age groups and times of the year.
There seems to be a disconnect between what you think you are doing and the actuality of the semi-literate morons that you are actually producing. I assume such rationalizations are necessary, otherwise you would probably go home and blow your brains out, but don’t expect me to share your delusions of competence.
Just because you are close to the problem doesn’t mean you understand the problem. It probably means you are part of the problem.
The reason I didn’t respond to Manda JO is when she starts talking about certificates and professional development conferences that she has spent her life accumulating pieces of paper saying about how many hours she has spent in rooms having people talk at her. She has substituting paper achievements for real achievements. An English teacher should talk about students who have gone on to become successful writers, not about conferences she has gone to.
If you wish to impress me, don’t talk your credentials, tell me about students who applied what you taught them to succeed in the real world and not in academe.
I don’t know what your beef is with educators, but since it’s clear that you intend to be hostile, I don’t think I want to engage any further with you. You know nothing about me as a teacher or my students (who would be amused to hear themselves being described as “semi-literate”), and I don’t see the point of talking to someone who has already made up their minds on the issue.
I don’t deny that there is a problem with the education system as it is (I’m assuming you are talking about the US education system - for the record, I teach in Korea) but it’s oversimplifying to say that the issue would be resolved by replacing all the teachers with robots. One might as well say that the parents should be replaced with robots as well.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that the South Korean educational system is as screwed up as the American one.
But the idea that a teacher says that, “I’m a teacher, I have credentials, I go to conferences. I shouldn’t be judged by my results but my credentials.” tends to upset me.
I’m a software developer. Coming up with excellent courseware for a K-12 curriculum would be an enormous project costing billions of dollars, but it isn’t impossible. Teachers making judgments based on the crap that passes for educational software today don’t really understand what is possible. I frankly don’t see what magic there is to having a warm body in front of you, instead of having a world class teacher recording the lecture and watching it in high definition.
I will freely admit that video lectures of a good teacher can be more effective than having a mediocre teacher in front of you - depending on the subject. I had plenty of professors in college that I considered superfluous to the class - I learned more by reading the textbook on my own. But teaching isn’t just about lecturing.
Most of my classes are heavily discussion based. I don’t think that existing technology can create a robot capable of holding discussions with students.
Sometimes students come to me with personal problems. How is a robot going to counsel a student that’s asking advice on how to help a friend that’s been raped?
Will you be able to program a robot to keep discipline in a class? (Granted, this is a problem that many human teachers struggle with as well, but I don’t see how a robot is going to do any better unless you program it with a taser or something.)
I’m all for integrating technology with education, but I still think the idea that robots can completely replace teachers is silly.
I also do not understand your animosity towards teachers. Why do you think they are unaware of the limitations of the current system? I’m not denying that there are incompetent teachers who don’t give a shit whether or not their students can tell an apostrophe from a comma before they graduate high school (I’ve taught community college in Chicago). But you can’t simply lay all the blame on these teachers. There are plenty of other problems, like overcrowded and underfunded schools, or certain cultures where education is not considered a high priority. Let’s say an inner city school fires all its teachers and installs computers with educational software, including video lectures. Do you think this is magically going to get the students to sit down and apply themselves?
Also, Manda JO never claimed that she should be judged by her credentials. She simply mentioned that attending conferences is one of the things that she’s done. What do you want her to do, give you a list of her students’ SAT scores? Or a list of their incomes ten years after graduation? Do you think the only way an English teacher can claim to be successful is if they produce a “successful writer” like Toni Morrison or Raymond Carver?
I brought up my experience as a teacher only as a direct response to the claim that I didn’t know anything about the reality of education. You seem to feel you have a better, more comprehensive understanding of what it “real world” of education is like. I suspect you are basing this on a fairly small set of personal experiences.
Do you really think the American Education system is producing nothing but illiterate morons? Seriously? We are still functioning pretty well as a a society.
Even if we did replace the teachers with robots and the robots did a fantastic job we would still have to pay people to be in the classrooms. Someone has to make sure that Sally doesn’t hit Susie and that Billy doesn’t Steal Bobby’s scissors. Someone has to make sure that the computer systems are up and running and that the children didn’t walk into an error message and decide that meant that they get a free day instead of reporting it to an administrator. Someone has to make sure that the kids aren’t sick, hurt, abused, etc. Why spend billions of dollars on developing software that will need constant updating and billions more creating teacher-bots that will need regular maintenance when you are going to have to have at least 1 adult in every classroom anyway?
A young James T. Kirk will ask the robot teacher to calculate Pi to the last decimal and the whole class will go out for a day long recess. When the principal robot shows up it will be sucked into the same problem. Chaos will ensue.
It is pretty easy to judge the educational system in the United States by it’s results. We have nearly the most most expensive educational system in the world when judged in per capita student expenditures, but our results are consistently below par for developed countries.
Do you really want to go with argument that our educational system hasn’t caused a total collapse of our society yet? Most jobs in America are forced to hire college graduates because high school graduates can’t be assumed to have mastered skills they should have mastered before they left grammar school. When I use the term moron, I am not referring to biological brain damage. I am talking people who haven’t learned to use their brains at all for any productive purpose. They are not only illiterate but innumerate.