←back to thread

359 points FromTheArchives | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.718s | source
Show context
cjs_ac ◴[] No.45293534[source]
I'm a former physics teacher, and while I'm impressed by the technology, I think this is a low efficacy innovation.

The real challenge in teaching Newton's laws of motion to teenagers is that they struggle to deal with the idea that friction isn't always there. When students enter the classroom, they arrive with an understanding of motion that they've intuited from watching things move all their lives, and that understanding is the theory of impetus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_impetus

An AI system that can interrogate individual students' understanding of the ideas presented and pose questions that challenge the theory of impetus would be really useful, because 'unteaching' impetus theory to thirty students at once is extremely difficult. However, what Google has presented here, with slides and multiple guess quizzes, is just a variation on the 'chalk and talk' theme.

The final straw that made me leave teaching was the head of languages telling me that a good teacher can teach any subject. Discussions about 'the best pedagogy' never make any consideration of what is being taught; there's an implicit assumption that every idea and subject should be taught the same way. School systems have improved markedly since they were introduced in the nineteenth century, but I think we've got everything we can out of the subject-agnostic approach to improvement, and we need to start engaging with the detail of what's being taught to further improve.

replies(9): >>45294003 #>>45294211 #>>45294245 #>>45294249 #>>45294416 #>>45294671 #>>45294721 #>>45297478 #>>45298395 #
1. 0xWTF ◴[] No.45294003[source]
My general experience with things like this from Google is to assume that this is at least one big step behind what they're doing now internally. Taking a position on how useful one finds this today effectively insulates from thinking more seriously about what could be done. If taken from a perspective of "what hints are laying around in this blog post or scientific articles about what's possible?" it's probably more effective use of time if you're going to invest time in reading it.

As an example, as you're reading it, try posing a few relevant counterfactuals.

replies(1): >>45294124 #
2. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.45294124[source]
>My general experience with things like this from Google is to assume that this is at least one big step behind what they're doing now internally

What they are doing internally after launching something like this is patting themselves on the back, updating their resumes, and promptly forgetting it exists.

replies(1): >>45294227 #
3. BoorishBears ◴[] No.45294227[source]
*leaving, raising a round because they worked on this, promptly not doing anything without Google's distribution behind them

(see NotebookLM)