
Why Teachers Won't Be Replaced By Software - eah13
http://blog.trinket.io/teachers-wont-be-replaced/
======
wehadfun
This "fire bad teachers" thing is stupid.

You can't compare a teacher that has a class of 15 native english speaking,
upper middle class, 2 parent house holds kids to a teacher with a class of 32
english as a second langurage, poor, hungry, cold, kids that are children of
drug addicts, drunks, refugees especially using test written in English.

Mark said something like poor comunities have a problem with bad teachers.
WTF? How about poor students have a problem learning regardless of who the
teacher is.

software could work for the motivated learner. But so would an abacus or a pen
and paper.

~~~
patmcc
>>>You can't compare a teacher that has a class of 15 native english speaking,
upper middle class, 2 parent house holds kids to a teacher with a class of 32
english as a second langurage, poor, hungry, cold, kids that are children of
drug addicts, drunks, refugees especially using test written in English.

Nor should you, but hopefully no one is seriously suggesting comparing those
two groups directly. What you can do is compare teachers to their peers in
similar schools, and see whose students improve more over a given year. If an
average student in Teacher A's class goes from reading at level x to x+2 in
the course of a year, that's better than going from x to x+1.

~~~
dsk139
This is making the assumption that a sample size of 30 kids in one school year
doesn't have anomalies that will skew the average and that the testing for
reading levels such as the DRAs are foolproof?

~~~
patmcc
To your second point, I wouldn't test only reading levels - I'd test whatever
we want/expect students to improve in. Reading, writing, math, social skills,
happiness, physical fitness, whatever. And sure, we need good solid methods
for testing these things, so let's get started on it.

To your first point...maybe 30 kids isn't a big enough sample. I'm not
suggesting this be implemented tomorrow as the absolute standard on which to
judge teachers. Maybe they need to be observed over 3-5 years, maybe we can
try to control/adjust for other variables. What bothers me is the idea that
because measuring teacher skill/success is difficult, we shouldn't try at all
and just use seniority (or absolute test scores) as the single deciding
factor.

------
Patrick_Devine
If you look at the vast majority of MOOCs, they frankly kind of suck. Usually
they're just a collection of poorly edited videos with maybe a forum where
students can comment. They're on a fixed timeline where assignments need to be
done linearly at set intervals, just the same as you would get if you were
taking the course in person.

Compare that to something more dynamic like Khan Academy, where the subjects
all build on each other like a directed graph. Students learn at their own
pace, and gamification techniques get them to come back for more. Subject
mastery isn't based on tests, but is constantly checked using heuristics which
can determine whether a student needs help in a particular area. Oh, and
grades get thrown out the window since everyone achieves complete mastery in
the subject.

If you think of replacing teachers with a traditional Udacity style MOOC,
yeah, I can't really see it happening. The only benefit they offer is that you
don't have to be at the course in person. Could something like Khan Academy
replace teachers? Clearly not entirely, however there are so many more
benefits to learning this way, that it certainly is in the realm of
possibility.

~~~
jrs99
at the same time, MOOCs haven't even really started yet. Think about the first
video games compared to what we have now.

Now think about the MOOCs we have now, and imagine what the 8th generation of
MOOCs will look like. I can't imagine that. But I can imagine that it will
possibly be more effective than the average teacher out there.

One of the greatest things about a MOOC is that your teacher can be a feynman
caliber instructor. For a student that is willing to put in a lot of effort
and has the desire to learn, what is going to better for you, a year's worth
of pre-recorded feynman, or an average physics teacher? that might be up for
debate, but personally, i'm going with feynman every single time.

~~~
eah13
> Feynman caliber instructor

Feynman was brilliant, and I have a set of both his lectures for freshman and
the ones he did on gravitation. But he was not a gifted teacher. He was a
gifted learner. Those of us who can follow him can see an amazing mind at
work. But gifted teachers will look into students minds and help them build
new understandings.

~~~
jrs99
The feynman lectures were aimed at the smartest students at caltech to keep
them interested in physics. You have to consider who the audience was. If
Feynman made a series of lectures for physics 101 where the majority of
students had no physics experience (or a physics 101 for the general public),
then he would make the material different. You can't look at one set of
materials by Feynman for one group of students and conclude that he isn't a
gifted teacher. There is a reason he is called the "Great Explainer." There is
a reason people called him the Greatest Science Teacher while he was alive.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXtnYnoutKk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXtnYnoutKk)

~~~
eah13
Don't get me wrong; as I mentioned above I've found his lectures on both
introductory physics and gravitation to be extremely enlightening, as did many
of the Caltech students he taught (who were, by the way, just normal intro
physics students, albeit at a selective university). His teaching can be
highly effective when matched to the proper audience.

But that's just my point: there is no 0 to 100 scale of 'goodness' in
teaching. And Feyman, regardless of his brilliance, doesn't sit at the top of
hierarchy of teaching excellence. It's about fit between the student and the
delivery the instructor. The Feynman lectures in video form can not be the
pinnacle of physics instruction because they're fixed, not adaptable to the
needs of different learners.

~~~
jrs99
How am I getting you wrong? You said above that "he was not a gifted teacher."

You said "his teaching can be highly effective when matched to the proper
audience." I disagree. He famously could teach extremely effectively to any
level of audience.

You said Feynman "doesn't sit at the top of hierarchy of teaching excellence."
Many people would disagree. Many people consider him the greatest physics
teacher ever.

In terms of just the Feynman lectures in video form, Yes, I agree that they
are limited. But I brought up Feynman because I believe a feynman caliber
instructor alive today with the existing possibilities in software and video
would definitely be able to make something very adaptable to many learners and
easily more effective than the average teacher.

------
lifeisstillgood
Teachers weren't replaced by books either. Who on earth thinks that they will
be replaced by software?

I learnt from books and was guided by my teachers. I expect my kids will learn
from books, videos and software and still be guided by teachers.

And as someone who has spent a fruitless day googling for how to do a
relatively simple task I can confidently state that mentoring by an
accomplished human beats software any day of the week.

~~~
icebraining
_Teachers weren 't replaced by books either. Who on earth thinks that they
will be replaced by software?_

I don't see how that follows. Horse-drawn vehicles weren't replaced by trains,
but they still were eventually replaced. I don't know if teachers will be
replaced by software, but the fact that they weren't replaced by previous
technologies is hardly strong evidence against it.

 _And as someone who has spent a fruitless day googling for how to do a
relatively simple task I can confidently state that mentoring by an
accomplished human beats software any day of the week._

Well, let's look at the evidence. Since that event, have you stopped using
Google and hired a teacher to follow you around to you can ask her/him stuff?

Assuming you haven't, then clearly Google is a better solution, whether it is
due to cost, breadth of information, availability, etc.

Now, of course, learning a syllabus is hardly the same as searching for
information on random tasks. But then again, so would any software designed to
"replace teachers"; clearly no one will suggest using Google for the task.

Personally, I don't think teachers as a whole will be replaced, but I can see
it allowing teachers to take on bigger classes, allowing administrators to cut
costs by firing a few.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
>>> Personally, I don't think teachers as a whole will be replaced, but I can
see it allowing teachers to take on bigger classes, allowing administrators to
cut costs by firing a few.

So we agree - teachers won't get replaced :-)

but books allowed teachers to take on bigger classes too - and what happened
is more people went to classes and we needed more teachers. Maybe we shall see
something similar just less classrooms?

------
WalterSear
Teachers _are_ being replaced by software.

And the reason we need to fire the bad ones is that, unlike software, you
can't just replicate their product wherever you need and let the bad ones wilt
away through neglect.

~~~
thebooktocome
I've worked with various online homework systems in mathematics for five
years. They have not improved demonstrably in that time.

I've taken a couple MOOCs, and have not been terribly impressed with the
mechanical grading algorithms.

Teachers may be replaced by software, but I don't believe the substitution is
of equal for equal.

~~~
WalterSear
I was thinking of the internet, rather than a specific scholastic tools.

------
ckoglmeier
IMO, this whole discussion is flawed as it assumes that the answer is teachers
OR software. This is not a zero sum game.

The answer, like the answer to most things, is likely in the middle. Software
including but not limited to lecture content from subject matter experts will
enhance and modify the way the classroom interacts allowing local "teachers"
to focus on their students.

------
HeyImAlex
Everything you can learn in an undergraduate cs course (and so much more) has
already been written in a hundred different books all available on amazon for
a considerably lower price and shipped right to your door. If information was
_all_ that teachers (and educational institutions) offered, they would have
been replaced a long time ago.

And I'm saying this as someone who prefers to learn from books. So what else
is there? Individualized attention? Community and networking? Human
interaction? Motivation and structure? Signaling? Probably some combination.

Any _real_ replacement needs to address all of these; video lectures, digital
notes, and online questions are just reinventing what I can already pick up at
the book store.

~~~
brianpmarks
I'd say motivation is a big one. It takes motivation to push yourself to learn
from books. I prefer to learn that way myself. But plenty of students don't
have it or don't see the value. A teacher or mentor can make a huge difference
to students in that situation.

------
lmkg
Apropos of nothing, one internet guy's unjustified personal opinions on the
future of teaching and software: The one-to-many "lecturing" interaction
should be replaced by software, in order to give teachers more free time for
the one-on-one interaction with students. One-on-one personalized feedback on
progress is extremely valuable to students, and more difficult to automate, so
it seems to me the best use of teachers' time.

~~~
eah13
OP here, and I think I agree with what you've written. Lecturing and textbooks
are both means of conveying information. Students can seek out information on
their own time, but the act of teaching is helping someone else construct an
understanding. That's the key thing software can't do.

------
gettingreal
No. Teachers will be replaced with mentors, who will help guide the students
learning. Or teachers will become these mentors.

However, the One to Many lectures WILL be replaced by Software.

Just Watch.

~~~
eah13
Agreed that lectures need to die.

------
vikp
I think the thing that is most often missing from educational software (and
most online course delivery formats) is the most important thing: motivation.

The teachers that I most fondly remember weren't the ones that taught me the
most material, or ensured that I got the highest test scores. They were the
teachers who inspired me; the ones who unlocked a deep curiosity and desire
for learning inside me.

The current system doesn't care that much about motivation (although it is
changing). You take classes largely because you have to. You learn so that you
can pass a test.

Openness in teaching is a big piece of the puzzle, but it isn't the end of the
road. In software, for example, I would argue that by becoming more open,
motivation to improve was increased among developers (I don't want to be the
one with the terrible code on Github). Of course, in software, the target of
openness and the one who needs to be motivated are the same person; you. This
isn't the same in education. Increasing openness among teachers will
undoubtedly have an effect, but the customer for education isn't the teacher.

We are essentially circling the problem by saying "students aren't learning,
let's change things around with the teachers." I think that teachers are very
important, and I definitely don't advocate mass firings. I just really hope
that we find a way to rephrase the goal to something more along the lines of
"students aren't learning, how can we work with the student?" If this is
teaching basic stuff largely through online methods and having teachers spend
more time with students, great. If this is increasing transparency surrounding
schools, great. Personally, I hope that some combination of better software
that automates basic stuff and allows teachers to work one on one with
students more often, more information, and more training will do it.

~~~
eah13
Absolutely- I agree wholeheartedly. Motivation to learn is the raw material
that a good teacher can induce forma student and use to prompt learning.
Software can be a part of increasing how often this process happens.

------
bogs_carut
Teachers won't be replaced by software in environments where human discourse
is necessary or valuable.

But research professors who either can't lecture or don't try to lecture well?
It's almost inevitable. Lectures are a commodity that can be recorded and
broadcast at a massive scale. Individual or small-group instruction isn't a
commodity.

~~~
trhway
>Teachers won't be replaced by software in environments where human discourse
is necessary or valuable.

that's true ... until discourse with AI becomes more valuable and efficient
investment of time.

In the meantime, discourse with a good teacher in China for example may be
more valuable then one with a bad teacher here.

~~~
landryraccoon
If discourse with AIs is more valuable than discourse with human beings,
humanity is on its way out anyway. Why would anyone teach a human being
anything in that case? It would be AIs teaching each other.

------
dsk139
Relevant article:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7030778](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7030778)

I think the author is spot on. I think the idea of firing all teachers to get
the results you want undermines the profession as a whole and I really
appreciate his analogy to firing the "bottom 10%" of programmers. There is
just so much more a teacher has to do to reach "success", especially when
dealing with low-income communities, students with disabilities, or even
different levels of aptitude/learning styles. I don't see teachers replacing
software with the current solutions.

Credentials: I'm a former TFA teacher turned software engineer and I tutor web
development in 1-to-1 sessions on nights/weekends.

~~~
eah13
Author here. Thanks for the kind words. Udacity's pivot is a shot across the
bow for Startups that can't figure out the difference between teaching and
media. Their coaches are a good start- step in the right direction. If they
had perfected that with academics they might not have had to pivot.

------
ergoproxy
It doesn't matter whether robots or humans are teaching your kids, if the
whole approach to education is wrong:

Current model of education: Multidisciplinary, value-free, with an emphasis on
standardized tests.

Compare this to:

Alfred North Whitehead's reform model: Transdisciplinary, values-laden, with
an emphasis on the importance of imagination. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead#Views_on...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead#Views_on_education)

Note that _multidisciplinary_ means teaching small parts of a large number of
disconnected subjects, whereas _transdisciplinarity_ means teaching a few
important ideas that organically link many different subjects and that apply
to real life.

------
dashr
I'm the founder of an edTech where we are using software to _IMPROVE_ teacher
training. Teachers, especially new teachers, need a lot of support, not just
from in school peers, but outside of school. They also need constructive
feedback on their practice (from peer teachers, parents, and students).
Current training is one size fits all and not personalized. Current evaluation
only focuses on test scores.

------
aaron695
Yes they will.

Same incorrect argument people always pull out about with automation. Prove
you need some => then you need all.

Software will make teachers 10%+ better then they'll fire the bottom 10% (or
just 10%)

As it is class size mattering is a myth. A good teacher can teacher quite a
large class. Studies don't show a small class makes a lot of difference.

~~~
eah13
[Citation needed.]

------
joe_the_user
The teaching of a good teacher can't be replaced by software.

Unfortunately, a whole series of public policy decisions have forced teachers
of multiple levels to teach badly.

And there's no reason not to replace someone lecturing to a 200 person class
or someone merely prepping for standardized tests with software.

------
vezzy-fnord
Teachers won't be replaced entirely by software, they will be augmented by it.

However their influence and once revered role in society as educators,
proliferators of knowledge, will be dethroned by a growing increase of digital
information and autodidacticism.

------
joelgrus
I don't know where you work, but at every company I've worked at they _do_
fire bad coders (as well as good coders who are hurting the team for some
other reason).

------
georgemcbay
Every job will be replaced with software (and hardware for jobs with a
physical component).

The only question for each profession is "when?".

~~~
krapp
Not every job... _somebody_ has to make the money from automation otherwise
what's the point?

------
volune
Until they are.

