I understand that dependency trees get fuzzy outside of things like math. My thinking behind it was basically that whenever I’m failing to learn something, the things preventing me are prerequisite pieces of information; doing a better job making sure the learner has the prerequisites would make learning more effective.
I think that the approach I mentioned of tagging resources with skill prerequisites effectively does this, but rather it ends up creating several different branching dependency trees, rather than just one. Consider that if your goal was to “create a nuclear reactor”, and you didn’t know basic math, the system would have to be smart enough to suggest a learning resource that teaches addition before suggesting a learning resource that teaches advanced nuclear physics.
My point really is that instruction always happens in a certain order, and that we could do a better job of choosing the order (when you teach what) by coming up with a useful dependency tree.
The issue of finding the most efficient/useful dependency true is a separate, but important one. I think it’s probably best left to machine learning rather than human intuition. There are actually few organizations out there doing quite a bit of work on this already, Knewton is the one that first springs to mind.
My loose intuition is that there should be much less requirements than there currently are, but still enough where you’d explore all the basic subject fields. What do you think the tradeoffs are, and why do you think they’re in favor of not standardizing? (I agree with what you said about having credentials for more specific skills, but there’s still the question of whether or not to require students to have certain skills.)
I suspect my tendency to go towards no standards is a values/emotions based decision. I dislike the idea of one institution choosing the standards for everyone, as there’s too much opportunity to use that power to push a particular individual’s or group’s agenda.
However, the real answer here is that this needs to be tested in a lean manner, using randomized controlled trials. I have write ups for several systems of incentive’s or requiring liberal arts education, which I plan to test with Docademy, using different groups.
I sense that most projects are unlikely to generate profit. Especially K-12. Maybe teachers would be more motivated if they had more time. Like right now they have to spend so much time on lessons and lectures and stuff, but if this was essentially done for them already, they’d have more time to help students with projects, and maybe that’d motivate them more.
I think you’re right, that when the children are younger, they’re less likely to be skilled enough to generate profit. However, if you’re tracking exactly from whom they learn, and exactly what prerequisites they needed to learn their subjects, it’s possible to create a trickle down effect, so that the teacher who taught you addition when you were 4 gets a small stake in your project to build a nuclear reactor when you’re 24.
I also agree that less planning would motivate teachers more. I’ve volunteered and worked in schools for years, and this is a common complaint.
I ultimately think that you need to both raise the economic incentives, and lower the disincentives. The adherence rate for teachers after 5 years is 54%, and to raise that number to where it needs to be will require several large changes in how the teaching profession operates.
I ultimately think that you need to both raise the economic incentives, and lower the disincentives.
Hmm. I’m not sure that this is such a good idea, given that the motivation that one has for teaching seems to be strongly based on social rather than market motives, and introducing market incentives to a situation governed by social incentives has been known to just screw things up.
For example, my best friend has a daughter, and I’ve been giving her various books and games that either I used to enjoy, or which feel like they might be fun and useful for learning a mathematical mindset. I do this out of a general desire for her to have fun with them, learn useful things, and come to love science. Now if you told me that I’d get a cut out of her future earnings, it seems quite possible that that notion would start dominating my thoughts whenever I thought of giving something to her, and I’d start thinking stuff like “well, I could buy her this board game, but it’s kinda expensive and any individual game is unlikely to have a big impact by itself, so would it be a good investment? Probably not.” And she’d be worse off as a result.
It seems easy to imagine similar failure modes that would start cropping up once you encouraged teachers to, in effect, start thinking in terms of “how could I profit from this kid” rather than “what would be the best for this kid”. For instance, they might focus all of their efforts on the kids who showed the most talent and were already the most likely to succeed. They could even actively try to encourage the low-talent kids to drop out, so that they’d have more time to focus on the more promising ones. Or they could encourage their students towards careers that generally cause people to be unhappy but pay well, or teach the students attitudes towards life that promoted a focus on money above all else. Or, like those Israeli parents who started being more late once a fine was introduced and they could thus pay off their guilt for being late, some of the teachers might start thinking, “well if this kid doesn’t do well in life later on, I’m already paying the cost in the form of getting less money from them, so I don’t need to feel guilty about giving them a bad education”. Et cetera.
Intuitively at least, it would feel like a better idea to raise the social incentives, not the financial ones. Part of the reason why I’m happy to give my friend’s daughter stuff is that she’s not just any random child who I’ll never see again: she’s my best friend’s kid, which means that I should be hearing about how she’s doing for as long as I live. Maybe she’ll some day become fantastically successful at something, and then credit part of her success to the role I played in her life. Attempts to replicate this effect could involve making individual teachers responsible for their students for a longer time (so more “you’ll have this teacher for the next six years”, less “you’ll have six different teachers over the next six years”), or even just providing a means for the teachers to stay in some kind of contact with their students even when the teacher’s no longer teaching them.
I think this is true, and it’s something I have a lot about. What behaviors would this reward system actually incentivize?
I figured there would be two strategies teachers could use to maximize profit. One would involve as you said, focusing on the top students and taking them under your wing, making sure YOU are the one who teaches them as much as possible.
The other would be to instead focus on motivating and effectively teaching as many kids as humanly possible, regardless of their perceived potential, and simply playing the odds.
Other possible strategies would involve apprenticeship, in which your apprentice’s work would effectively pay for your retirement, or company training, in which even if an employee was not loyal, you could still make money from them after they left you.
I figured that these strategies were close enough to how I would desire teaching to work anyway, that it was worth a shot.
One downside would be that it would cause teachers to compete to teach kids, instead of working together to get the best learning outcome.
That being said,, there’s a lot being taken for granted above, not the least of which is that people won’t figure out some way to game the system. I’m open to split testing this approach, like I am with everything in Docademy. Do you( or any other commenter) know of any ideas to substantially increase the social incentives for teaching such that it could measurably change the turnover rate? I haven’t hit upon any yet, but I’m open to any suggestions thrown my way.
Do you( or any other commenter) know of any ideas to substantially increase the social incentives for teaching such that it could measurably change the turnover rate?
I would guess that being a teacher is a lot more fun if you don’t have to give students grades. Especially for someone who tries to be really fair grading seems to produce a lot of unnecessary work.
As far as the system goes in Germany, I think we just pay our teachers a higher salary and we have a low turnover rate. It might be that simply paying every teacher a decent salary is the way to go.
I think that the approach I mentioned of tagging resources with skill prerequisites effectively does this, but rather it ends up creating several different branching dependency trees, rather than just one. Consider that if your goal was to “create a nuclear reactor”, and you didn’t know basic math, the system would have to be smart enough to suggest a learning resource that teaches addition before suggesting a learning resource that teaches advanced nuclear physics.
The issue of finding the most efficient/useful dependency true is a separate, but important one. I think it’s probably best left to machine learning rather than human intuition. There are actually few organizations out there doing quite a bit of work on this already, Knewton is the one that first springs to mind.
I suspect my tendency to go towards no standards is a values/emotions based decision. I dislike the idea of one institution choosing the standards for everyone, as there’s too much opportunity to use that power to push a particular individual’s or group’s agenda.
However, the real answer here is that this needs to be tested in a lean manner, using randomized controlled trials. I have write ups for several systems of incentive’s or requiring liberal arts education, which I plan to test with Docademy, using different groups.
I think you’re right, that when the children are younger, they’re less likely to be skilled enough to generate profit. However, if you’re tracking exactly from whom they learn, and exactly what prerequisites they needed to learn their subjects, it’s possible to create a trickle down effect, so that the teacher who taught you addition when you were 4 gets a small stake in your project to build a nuclear reactor when you’re 24.
I also agree that less planning would motivate teachers more. I’ve volunteered and worked in schools for years, and this is a common complaint.
I ultimately think that you need to both raise the economic incentives, and lower the disincentives. The adherence rate for teachers after 5 years is 54%, and to raise that number to where it needs to be will require several large changes in how the teaching profession operates.
Hmm. I’m not sure that this is such a good idea, given that the motivation that one has for teaching seems to be strongly based on social rather than market motives, and introducing market incentives to a situation governed by social incentives has been known to just screw things up.
For example, my best friend has a daughter, and I’ve been giving her various books and games that either I used to enjoy, or which feel like they might be fun and useful for learning a mathematical mindset. I do this out of a general desire for her to have fun with them, learn useful things, and come to love science. Now if you told me that I’d get a cut out of her future earnings, it seems quite possible that that notion would start dominating my thoughts whenever I thought of giving something to her, and I’d start thinking stuff like “well, I could buy her this board game, but it’s kinda expensive and any individual game is unlikely to have a big impact by itself, so would it be a good investment? Probably not.” And she’d be worse off as a result.
It seems easy to imagine similar failure modes that would start cropping up once you encouraged teachers to, in effect, start thinking in terms of “how could I profit from this kid” rather than “what would be the best for this kid”. For instance, they might focus all of their efforts on the kids who showed the most talent and were already the most likely to succeed. They could even actively try to encourage the low-talent kids to drop out, so that they’d have more time to focus on the more promising ones. Or they could encourage their students towards careers that generally cause people to be unhappy but pay well, or teach the students attitudes towards life that promoted a focus on money above all else. Or, like those Israeli parents who started being more late once a fine was introduced and they could thus pay off their guilt for being late, some of the teachers might start thinking, “well if this kid doesn’t do well in life later on, I’m already paying the cost in the form of getting less money from them, so I don’t need to feel guilty about giving them a bad education”. Et cetera.
Intuitively at least, it would feel like a better idea to raise the social incentives, not the financial ones. Part of the reason why I’m happy to give my friend’s daughter stuff is that she’s not just any random child who I’ll never see again: she’s my best friend’s kid, which means that I should be hearing about how she’s doing for as long as I live. Maybe she’ll some day become fantastically successful at something, and then credit part of her success to the role I played in her life. Attempts to replicate this effect could involve making individual teachers responsible for their students for a longer time (so more “you’ll have this teacher for the next six years”, less “you’ll have six different teachers over the next six years”), or even just providing a means for the teachers to stay in some kind of contact with their students even when the teacher’s no longer teaching them.
I think this is true, and it’s something I have a lot about. What behaviors would this reward system actually incentivize?
I figured there would be two strategies teachers could use to maximize profit. One would involve as you said, focusing on the top students and taking them under your wing, making sure YOU are the one who teaches them as much as possible.
The other would be to instead focus on motivating and effectively teaching as many kids as humanly possible, regardless of their perceived potential, and simply playing the odds.
Other possible strategies would involve apprenticeship, in which your apprentice’s work would effectively pay for your retirement, or company training, in which even if an employee was not loyal, you could still make money from them after they left you.
I figured that these strategies were close enough to how I would desire teaching to work anyway, that it was worth a shot.
One downside would be that it would cause teachers to compete to teach kids, instead of working together to get the best learning outcome.
That being said,, there’s a lot being taken for granted above, not the least of which is that people won’t figure out some way to game the system. I’m open to split testing this approach, like I am with everything in Docademy. Do you( or any other commenter) know of any ideas to substantially increase the social incentives for teaching such that it could measurably change the turnover rate? I haven’t hit upon any yet, but I’m open to any suggestions thrown my way.
I would guess that being a teacher is a lot more fun if you don’t have to give students grades. Especially for someone who tries to be really fair grading seems to produce a lot of unnecessary work.
As far as the system goes in Germany, I think we just pay our teachers a higher salary and we have a low turnover rate. It might be that simply paying every teacher a decent salary is the way to go.