Interesting that the default is "10th grade", which puts it out of cognitive reach for 90% of the students that the union supports (k-12) and likely speaks more to the demographics of the highest use case (college)
Great observation. Part of the challenge of building a "do anything for anyone at anytime" product is that it's just about the opposite of what people learning need.
Do teachers use the science of learning? Would it not be a great research project to observe and annotate teachers' interactions with students vis-à-vis this tool? What if teachers used the tool on a whiteboard with their class and talked about it as they created something together? What could we/they all learn from this? Does the current teacher shortage make this more appealing than it should be? But, most importantly, are we already forgetting that computer labs, once ubiquitous, are now gone...A pilot might be in order, not a rush to adopt everywhere, led by those with a profitable interest. Thanks, Ben, for the scenario that should be a caution to all of us who care about kids and the future.
I'm reminded of the question of ten or so years ago, "If I can google it, why learn it?" Now, it's "If I can get AI to create it, why do it?" We seem to forget, again, that the basis for creativity and innovation is a deep and broad platform of knowledge, resident in our brains. Creative people reassemble or combine old knowledge into new things. Creating curiosity to learn might be our number one priority right now. I think I'll take my grandkids fishing and see what they can learn from experiencing and observing. Then we can talk about how that compares to using AI....
I wish we were taking the research-based approach to AI in education that you outline here, Christine! But we're doing the opposite of that -- look how proudly Belsky boasts about the student use of ChatGPT. It amazes me that they are excited to harm the learning of so many kids.
Interesting that the default is "10th grade", which puts it out of cognitive reach for 90% of the students that the union supports (k-12) and likely speaks more to the demographics of the highest use case (college)
Great observation. Part of the challenge of building a "do anything for anyone at anytime" product is that it's just about the opposite of what people learning need.
Do teachers use the science of learning? Would it not be a great research project to observe and annotate teachers' interactions with students vis-à-vis this tool? What if teachers used the tool on a whiteboard with their class and talked about it as they created something together? What could we/they all learn from this? Does the current teacher shortage make this more appealing than it should be? But, most importantly, are we already forgetting that computer labs, once ubiquitous, are now gone...A pilot might be in order, not a rush to adopt everywhere, led by those with a profitable interest. Thanks, Ben, for the scenario that should be a caution to all of us who care about kids and the future.
I'm reminded of the question of ten or so years ago, "If I can google it, why learn it?" Now, it's "If I can get AI to create it, why do it?" We seem to forget, again, that the basis for creativity and innovation is a deep and broad platform of knowledge, resident in our brains. Creative people reassemble or combine old knowledge into new things. Creating curiosity to learn might be our number one priority right now. I think I'll take my grandkids fishing and see what they can learn from experiencing and observing. Then we can talk about how that compares to using AI....
I wish we were taking the research-based approach to AI in education that you outline here, Christine! But we're doing the opposite of that -- look how proudly Belsky boasts about the student use of ChatGPT. It amazes me that they are excited to harm the learning of so many kids.