←back to thread

The EdTech Revolution Has Failed

(www.afterbabel.com)
346 points obscurette | 2 comments | 12 Nov 24 14:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.408s | source
Show context
brainwipe ◴[12 Nov 24 15:54 UTC] No.42116539[source]▶
IMO education is still built around Victorian structures and needs to be reworked from examinations downwards. Examinations are an exercise in being good at examinations, not proficiency in the subject. Once you strip that away the you wind back all the structures that feed it. You can see this working at schools designed for the neuro diverse. Those students simply can't sit and listen to a teacher all day, so each student learns in their own way and are better of for it.

Arguing about the effectiveness of edtech is like complaining there wasn't a viola on the Titanic's band.

replies(5): >>42116594 #>>42116766 #>>42117374 #>>42118655 #>>42133393 #
LargeWu ◴[12 Nov 24 15:58 UTC] No.42116594[source]▶
What, specifically, is an example of an exam not measuring proficiency? If an exam is well designed, the student will need to figure out what is being asked and use their mastery to provide an answer.
replies(5): >>42116684 #>>42116832 #>>42116935 #>>42117077 #>>42117535 #
marksbrown ◴[12 Nov 24 16:06 UTC] No.42116684[source]▶
A good example in the UK is teaching students the FOIL technique for algebraic expansion. Students typically can expand (ax+b)(cx+d) because they've learnt a recipe but cannot expand say (ax2+bx+c)(dx+e).

Many schools here focus on such tricks (nix the tricks was a great book focusing on such things) as schools here are judged on pass/fail rates.

In general, exams are an excellent way to assess students en masse at their ability to remember similar problems but not inherent problem solving techniques. The latter I've found is possible to teach 1to1 but far harder with a class of varying abilities.

replies(2): >>42116840 #>>42120404 #
pokerface_86 ◴[12 Nov 24 22:20 UTC] No.42120404[source]▶
the inability the generalize the foil procedure to an expression with more than 2 variables speaks more to the non mathematically oriented population just sucking at generalizing things. i have found this to be a very “you have it or you don’t” type of thing, not really something that can be taught
replies(1): >>42150013 #
1. snowfarthing ◴[15 Nov 24 19:26 UTC] No.42150013[source]▶
Then again, it may be because FOIL is stupid.

I've always had a difficult time wrapping my head around this acronym. What counts as "outer"? What counts as "inner"? And yes, when there are more than two items (not necessarily variables!) to be multiplied, you suddenly have to ignore this little trick, because now it's confusing to know what to do about the middle stuff -- and it doesn't take into account non-commutativity either.

And yes, some of the problem may be due to my (very recently diagnosed! at least, formally) autistic mind. But I cannot help but think that if someone with a PhD in math struggles with and largely ignores "FOIL", then the problem may be with the technique, and not with the people who don't understand it.

replies(1): >>42151184 #
2. pokerface_86 ◴[15 Nov 24 21:16 UTC] No.42151184[source]▶
i never found foil stupid, but i also only have a bachelors in math. maybe this was because i had already been exposed to multiplying polynomial expressions, beyond just a 2 term * 2 term by the time i had learned it in school, but i never found it particularly complicated to grasp. foil was never taught to me as the only way to multiply polynomials, rather, an easy algorithm to apply in a certain case. the goal is for you to make the connection that oh, in a 3x2 case, u have to multiply each term in the 3 with each term in the 2, etc.

i think your problems with foil can be extended to the general way math is taught. at least for me, it was always full of tricks, little rules that can be broken sometimes, and i was constantly learning new things that made me realize my old teachers had taught us tricks to shortcut solutions.