Tag: teacher

Bot protype – The cheatBot

s1690803/ / Weekly task

As you read in my last post I was debating myself about what kind of bot would “build”. After some thoughts, I have decided to go for the grammar helper  – The cheatBot. I have to confess that I would like to have had a much better idea, more original, but this is what I have :).

I am currently not teaching, and my last job was as a Spanish teacher as a second language, so I used this experience to get inspired and thinking about what I would have liked to have at my disposal when I was teaching. The context then is a bot that would be used by adults, particularly professional adults that are studying Spanish for their personal life or to work. All of them feel comfortable using technology and have smartphones. Class is small, no more than 15 students and all of them are quite motivated to learn (ideal class!), however, classes are late in the day, after their work and the class needs to be dynamic, useful and playful in order to get their attention.

The bot I am imaging would solve small questions about Spanish grammar. For example, when a student gets stuck expressing (oral or writing) a sentence because doesn’t know if a verb is regular or irregular. Or maybe the student wants to check the conjugation of a specific verb. Maybe wants some examples of how the conjugation is being used or wants a quick evaluation of a sentence that they have produced. The bot will give a quick answer and the student will not have the need to ask the question to the general class. Obviously, the chatbot can be used when the student is by themself.

The impact in the role’s teacher is that the class can be focused on general matters, and not specific and individual questions. That way, the teacher can spend the time in class in group activities that involve conversations or listenings. The teacher is able to invest time answering a more complex question. Solving problems that require a further explanation that just a grammar check. (I am imagining explaining the different cases of irregular verbs, or why in Spanish we have to verbs to express “to be”).  That way, the student can solve easy/quick questions with the bot and prioritise the class to solve difficult challenges.

I understand that the student can get this piece of information from different resources, a grammar book, or asking Google directly. However, by using the specific bot that teacher has created (or at least helped to design and create) students and teacher are also having contact. By using this bot the teacher guaranteed the veracity and reliability of the resource that student is checking, and if there is an error/mistake we could say that is “teacher’s fault”. As a student, sometimes, we get lost in the vastness of the internet. There is so much information and resources to check that one can get lost. having this chatbot a student can feel secure that the answer is verified and curated by the teacher and they can rely on it. Teacher and students must trust in it and probably here is where we see the ethical implications. It is necessary to establishing transparency in the bot’s purpose.

Thoughts about my bot

s1690803/ / Ideas and thoughts, Trying tools, Weekly task

I have spent too much time deciding what kind of bot I would like to prototype. As I mentioned in a previous post, I was considering different ideas (FQA, math problems, grammar helper…). I realized that I was considering two types of bots, based on two different approaches.

One scenario would be “building” ca bot similar to the ones we have checked on Twitter. These kinds of bots don’t have a real bidirectional interaction. These bots are based on a code that tweets something every X time. For example, the one I talked about in the other post from the museum. We can see how this kind of bots are exposing a topic, publishing tweets with a concrete topic and there is no interaction with people that reads it. The majority of bots we have found as a class are in that direction, probably because the Twitter platform stimulates this particular use of bots.

Considering this approach, I liked the idea of having a bot that tweets problems that students would solve. Maybe instead of mathematical problems itself, the bot would tweet riddles where the knowledge of mathematics is needed, to make it more playful and nicer than a typical mathematical problem. Students could check the message – riddle and use a hashtag to expose their ideas and possible solutions.

 

A second scenario I have been thinking is a more interactive bot, where students can ask and get answers. Maybe this bot is more sophisticated and would need more code knowledge behind, but also are probably richer and can be really considerate a teacher bot*, as we see in the article of Bayne S. (2015). Teacherbot: interventions in automated teaching, and their “botty”. In these bots we see how a student or, the bot itself, can start a short conversation tha will trigger a level of learning.

In my idea of having a grammar helper bot (to support the learning of a second language), we can imagine how a student would ask a question related to a grammar doubt,  for example: Tell me what is the conjugation of past simple for the verb to sign. The chatbot will understand the query and will give a correct answer. Therefore, the bot we could offer a sentence as an example of the use of this conjugation. Also, we can be more ambitious and the student would ask the bot to check the grammar of a short sentence.

 

Considering these two broad types of chatbots I wonder if there is (or it will helpful to have) a categorization that defines the complixity of the bot, how is the interaction between student-teacher-bot, and how this has a real impact o enhanceing the role’s teacher.

 

 

Many questions, no answers

s1690803/ / Ideas and thoughts, Is that the future?

With the level of technology we have nowadays, a reality where teachers are replaced by robots or an AI  seems very close. In the article of Neil Selwyn: Robots in the Classroom? Preparing for the automation of teaching he opens the debate to see if classrooms are ready to incorporate robots.

However, my question is: do teachers need to be replaced? Are teachers actually needed any more? I mean, do we want to use the new technology and automated artificial intelligence to replace the traditional teacher’s role? What is the point of that?

In my opinion, the traditional teacher figure that focuses on delivering content, which is sadly the most common kind of teacher we find, is not actually offering anything interesting in the teaching-learning process. I would say that the teachers that enter into a class and spend their time only explaining a bunch of details, dates, or concepts, are not the “good ones”. We all could agree that this kind of teachers can actually be replaced by books and readings, there is no need for robots or high-level AI. So, what do we want to automate exactly?

In my opinion, the elements that describe a good teacher cannot be replaced by any machine. I think that a good educator is the one that guides the process of learning, not the one who actually delivers anything. I believe that teachers are facilitators. They are responsible for creating an environment where the learning process can be developed, respecting the pace and motivations of each student. Can this be done by a robot?

Also, why would we use AI to teach something in particular? Let’s say, history for example. Why do we want to use the latest technology to explain when an important event happened? This information is already available for the students in seconds, in their hands. Are we actually using the new resources to improve and make a change in the way we learn and what we learn?

Trying to answer these questions, I was happy to read Selwyn’s article (2017) and how he explores the differents Models of how teachers can integrate technology. The first pages of the article helped me to know and organise concepts and ideas.

“ While some teachers are clearly able to effortlessly ‘assimilate’ and incorporate digital technologies into their teaching, others achieve only a  pragmatic ‘accommodation’ of technology into their established modes of working”

As Selwyn’s points out there are some teachers who assimilate tech very well, while others are just using the basics. I guess we should avoid creating the idea that using tech “correctly” makes you a better teacher. After last week readings where we focused on understanding the necessity to have a constructivist and critique view, I think this should not be about if the teachers use it or not and if they are “better” teachers if they do it correctly. As usual, this is a much complex debate about the role of teachers. Then, what is the teacher’s role?

When I visualise a good teacher I see a person willing to improve their practise. Taking time to learn, observe and develop their skills. In that sense getting familiar with technology that will enhance their job, it is necessary, as well as learning new estrategies of communciation, engangement, it is part of the pack. A good teacher will understand that the use of technology will not make their class better or more interesting perse, but it will give them the opportunity to subtitute or transform what is needed in order to improve their job, and help the with the learning process of their students.

“In this sense, technology ‘integration’ is perhaps something that teachers achieve through experience and increased mindfulness.”

“As Mishra and Koehler put it, it is not enough to be either a good teacher, or a  subject specialist or a  skilled user of technology –  ‘merely knowing how to use a technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with it’ (p. 1033).”

Considering all of this, as I said in one of my privious posts, if a teacher can be replaced by a robot (or video, AI, book, etc.) it should be.

Online teaching should not be downgraded into ‘facilitation’

s1690803/ / Weekly task

No? why? That was my first reaction when reading this fourth statement. What is wrong with “facilitation”?

When I started checking this point of the Manifesto I quickly linked it with an old debate and discussions I had my last year in uni when I heard about Sugata Mitra and his project of The Hole in the Wall. He has been trying to prove why teachers are necessary in the learning process, and if they can actually be replaced, or eliminated. I have to say, that Sugata Mitra doesn’t focus his studies on high education, actually that project for example is with children. And this is very relevant when reading the Manifesto.

While I was reading the manifesto I went to re-watch an old tedTalk of Sugata Mitra about the child-driven education concept. Actually child led learning process is something I am being very obsessed lately. This is something always had my attention, but now as a mother I am more invested on learning more and I have taken some short online courses to learn more. This is something and I truly believe, that the child should be the protagonist of their learning process and has control of the activity and the adult can adapt their language to gain learning and further the child’s development. (1) I basically think (though) that the adult is a facilitator of the process of learning, but the child/student is in control.

Considering previous thoughts about the process of teaching/learning, I would said:

  • Children (and I would say, everyone) learn what they are interested about.
  • If a teacher can be replaced by a machine, then they must be replaced. (Note: this is considering the theories and studies of Mitra)
  • Learning happens when there is interest.
  • If information is on the Internet, why do I want it in my head? (Do we understand learning as a process to get knowledge or to get skills and abilities, both?)
  • Motivation, encourage, support and love as the fundamental elements of the learning process.
  • We can learn by ourselves, but the information is retained when we discuss and interact with other people. We need others, but do we need that those others are experts (meaning teachers)?

Because all of that, my reaction to this 4th statement of the Manifesto, was like:

“The assumption that the individual student is an autonomous learner with a pre-existing, fully developed sense of individual agency and purpose leads to a shift in the perceived role of the teacher, who in ‘learnified’ discourses is often demoted from professional, expert provider to supporter and conduit for the self-determining inividual learner. Learners are assumed to be competent to navigate the complexities of learning in ways which best suit their ‘needs’, and can be best supported by making subject and discipline knowledge-objects available as efficiently as possible.”

What is really wrong with that? and why we believe that being a facilitator is a “demoted” of our profession as teachers? Is this a problem of perception of the language? is this, again a issue of not being English native speaker?  I was reading and I asking all this question! why, really why is a problem with learnification (Biesta 2012)?

Actually, I was convinced, I thought that good educator is the one that guides the process of learning, not the one who actually delivers. I believe that teachers are facilitators. They are responsible of creating the environment where the learning process can be developed, respecting the pace and motivations of each student. Can this be done if you are not a good expert on the subject? Because for me, only a good expert can become a good facilitator. I mean, a good teacher that knows a lot, is motivated and cares about the subject is the one that knows how to guide and create the environment where the learning happens.

I want to think that students know how to detect their needs. I still thinking that they are the ones who should take control of their learning process and be responsible with it. They should be “autonomous learner with a pre-existing, fully developed sense of individual agency and purpose leads “, and I think that if we don’t have these kind of students on higher education is because we haven’t allow them to take that responsibility during their previous educational years. Maybe everything has been regulated, and scheduled and students don’t know how to manage their own learning process? Maybe this is another story and it deserves another post, maybe in the future!…

After reading the arguments in the Manifesto and I have changed (a little) my mind. For me still very clear that facilitation role is not a problem on primary education, but is it the same on higher education? I am not that sure any more.Probably the level of expertise is more required when we are talking about higher education. Probably it is essential that the teacher is involved in constant research about the topic and can answer all the question the students have, not only being able to point where to find answers….

I guess for me it is not about using “teacher”, “expert”, “instructional designer” or “facilitator, is going backwards and asking ourselves what is the role of the person who will accompany the students in their learning process. But I agree that as the Manifesto pointed, is really important that the “teacher” role is not des-professionalised. And it is important that the role is not undervalued or perceived as something that is easy to automated or replaced.

“Movements in digital education which emphasise automation, scale and on-demand access often contribute to this de-professionalisation, making the delegation of the ‘teacher function’ to automated systems or an under paid,under-valued academic precariat seem supportable or even inevitable.”