Peter Greene describes here why teachers are way smarter than “artificial intelligence” and why real personalized learning beats depersonalized learning every time.
His bottom line:
“In a real classroom, teachers can gauge student reaction because the teacher is the one the students are reacting to. But if students are busy reacting to algorithm-directed mass customized delivered to their own screen, the teacher is at a disadvantage– particular if the teacher is not an actual teacher, but just a tech there to monitor for student compliance and time on task. Having cut the person out of personalized [sic] learning, the tech wizards have to find ways to put some of the functions of a human back, like, say, paying attention to the student to see how she’s doing.
“The scenario depicted in the video is ridiculous, but then, it’s not the actual goal here. This algorithmic software masquerading as artificial intelligence is just another part of the “solution” to the “problem” of getting rid of teachers without losing some of the utility they provide.
“Intel, like others, insists on repeating a talking point about how great teachers will be aided by tech, not replaced by it, but there is not a single great teacher on the planet who needs what this software claims to provide, let alone what it can actually do. This is some terrible dystopian junk.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Yeah, that did hurt my brain. I have developed a solution to the problem of artificial intelligence creeping out the students. The solution is called Masking. You give the students each a piece of masking tape they can place over the camera. Done. Problem solved. It’s almost as good as the other solution called Paper. You use paper instead of screens. Solved!
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
You also put a piece of tape over the mouth of the Intel CEO so he can’t bother you with all his BS.
LikeLike
Ah, the old tape on the mouth trick. That’s what Michelle Rhee would do if the Intel CEO were seven years old.
LikeLike
Diane One thing that I don’t hear mention in these arguments is the fact that learning
occurs in a context of history. That history is of specific knowledge development,
like math or English (one cannot do addition until they know what numbers mean), but
also of the relationship with the teacher and the other students.
That history may go unnoticed by geeky billionaires, but it contains rich psychological,
social, cultural and other meanings that build, that interrelate with one another, and
that are NEEDED for students’ long road to becoming mature and thoughtful human
beings who are capable of understanding what a good life is and of then setting out
to live it.
We have been in a centuries-long time in education in the U.S. where our quest for
“IT” knowledge has overshadowed and hidden the ongoing but presence of “WE”
knowledge and the deeper threads of human development that are not the focus,
but are so much a part the classroom, and of educating human beings, especially in a
democracy where the need for citizens to be informed, thoughtful, responsible, and
unbiased human beings is essential if we are to maintain a vibrant culture.
This movement to “DE-personalize” the classroom looks to me like a huge hit, made
SYSTEMATIC now, on those fuller and ESSENTIAL aspects of human education.
Students’ history will go on its way as it always has; but it will be a history that is
considerably lacking in the daily challenges that children need to grow into mature
adults. CBK
LikeLike
CBK-
So very very true.
LikeLike
Susan L Osberg A briefer way to say that is to say that personalized learning is anti-social learning. CBK
LikeLike
“. . .or students’ long road to becoming mature and thoughtful human
beings who are capable of understanding what a good life is and of then setting out to live it.”
Sounds like what the fundamental purpose of public education is as gleaned from the states’ constitutions:
“”The purpose of public education is to promote the welfare
of the individual so that each person may savor the right to life,
liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own
industry.”
LikeLike
Duane E Swacker What such de-personalized learning aims at IMPLICITLY is a bunch of grown people who have a lot of mathematical and scientific knowledge, but whose opportunities to development towards a fuller human maturity have been systematically limited in their education:
morally/socially/politically/spiritually undeveloped people with lots of tech skills. I don’t know about you, but that scenario scares the hell out of me. CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
Screen time is harmful to kids-proven by the recently released 10-year study from NIH. Students exposed to screens scored worse in language and thinking tests. Their brain cortexes prematurely thinned. The public has had confirmed that the tech tyrants are delivering toxic materials (via political process) to our kids, which can reasonably be expected to cause long term detrimental effect. The question is whether we can stop it anymore than the citizens in Flint could stop toxic water from destroying the futures of their community’s children.
LikeLike
Parents will hit the brakes on this just like parents hit the brakes on testing.
There are a lot of questions on personalized learning in my district. They’re skeptical, thank goodness. It would be great if someone in power was skeptical BEFORE this gets jammed into thousands of school districts, but that seems to be too much to ask.
LikeLike
If you read Zuckerberg (or whoever he pays to write his education stuff) his org is fairly clear on what the (ultimate) objective is here. They hope to replicate the small classes and individual attention that wealthier students get by using tech tools.
I don’t think he would deny that. So the question then becomes do they plan to increase class sizes – it’s a good question. Everyone knows staff are the most expensive part of a school system.
Absolutely valid question and ed reformers should answer it honestly instead of burying us in this touchy-feely nonsense about “personalization”, when they really mean standardization and cost-cutting by using tech tools to scale an artificial small class size on the cheap.
LikeLike
Knowledgeable teachers do not need an algorithm to alert them to struggling students. Computer companies, eager to sell products, are over selling the capacities of their equipment. They operate under the assumption that students should be wired in order to learn. Students have been learning for centuries without computer assisted instruction. While computers are useful tools, too much computer time for young people may be harmful.
60 Minutes reported on the NIH study cited by Linda. Studying the brains of children born after 1995, they are already seeing concerning changes in the brains of children that spend more than two hours a day in front of a screen. These children also have lower language and problem solving abilities. Adolescents spending too much time in front of a screen have greater rates of depression, although the exact reason for this is unknown at this time. https://www.google.com/search?q=60+minutes+computer+brain+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
LikeLike
retired teacher All of the things that don’t get tested or “graded” are what make for normalizing and growth events in a child’s life, especially in school, and for our broader and long-term human education. Those events are “hiding in plain site” in any classroom and school situation; and as others have said here, it’s what the billionaires instinctively seek for their own children when the want smaller classrooms, hands-on projects, and good teacher-attention.
They are just angry because the “good education for all” idea costs DOLLARS-TAXES without an immediate dollar-return; and because it doesn’t meet with their narrow neo-liberal political ideas about how things should be. “Personalized learning” is the neo-liberalist way of thinking they are doing universal education (education for all) while avoiding the costs, and then turning education into a cash cow for themselves. It’s a FAKE WIN-WIN situation. CBK
LikeLike
The goal is to offer a cheap cyber education instead of human interaction which is far more effective and costly. Only the wealthy should get a more costly education as they can afford it. This is the plan of the elites and wealthy.
LikeLike
“We hope to see a wide range of approaches and ideas; technology is not a primary focus, but we recognize the role it can play in affordable access to high-quality education for all. No personally identifiable student data will be collected in this RFI.”
Affordable access to high quality education.
What they’re promising is they won’t replace teachers- that they’ll retain current class sizes but “extend the reach” of teachers with the tech.
I don’t think they have a good track record on “promises”, ed reform. They also promised they weren’t about privatizing schools and 20 years later it’s all they do. A decade ago they all promised they wouldn’t support vouchers, and now they spend hundreds of millions on voucher campaigns. In fact, I’m old enough to remember when we were told we had to support charters or we would get vouchers. We got vouchers anyway.
So, ask. Make these very slick marketing people answer real questions.
LikeLike
When isn’t it?
LikeLike
Got an email from Ed Elements about conferences. And this was probably an AI based attempt at personalised learning however crappy outcomes may be, the spending is what is actually paramount. Calling all “enterpreuners”. . .
LikeLike
I wonder if a cluster of negating and debilitating factors in the childs can be controlled for and specified so effects of computers on young developing minds can also be specified. I remember feeling like her childs only friend was the smartphone. Got a GED; then off she went; maitre D at the nice restaurant. That story was definitely not over; we put lifelong learning resources in our libraries.
LikeLike
What a great article. Peter has a way to cut through the crap. Like when he dismisses Intel’s “argle-bargle”.
My students regularly draw pictures on their math tests: abstract shapes, perhaps a cartoon, an animal. They seem unrelated to math. I wonder if AI considers those. Usually, students erase those drawings but I tell them, they don’t have to, so most just leave them. They really seem meaningful for them.
When students enter answers into the computer, these pictures cannot appear anywhere, maybe kids don’t even draw them on their scratch papers.
LikeLike