Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
|
Chargement... Teaching Machines: The History of Personalized Learningpar Audrey Watters
   University Presses (97) Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre.  lemontwist | Feb 6, 2022 |  aucune critique | ajouter une critique
How ed tech was born- Twentieth-century teaching machines--from Sidney Pressey's mechanized test-giver to B. F. Skinner's behaviorist bell-ringing box. Contrary to popular belief, ed tech did not begin with videos on the internet. The idea of technology that would allow students to "go at their own pace" did not originate in Silicon Valley. In Teaching Machines, education writer Audrey Watters offers a lively history of predigital educational technology, from Sidney Pressey's mechanized positive-reinforcement provider to B. F. Skinner's behaviorist bell-ringing box. Watters shows that these machines and the pedagogy that accompanied them sprang from ideas--bite-sized content, individualized instruction--that had legs and were later picked up by textbook publishers and early advocates for computerized learning. Watters pays particular attention to the role of the media--newspapers, magazines, television, and film--in shaping people's perceptions of teaching machines as well as the psychological theories underpinning them. She considers these machines in the context of education reform, the political reverberations of Sputnik, and the rise of the testing and textbook industries. She chronicles Skinner's attempts to bring his teaching machines to market, culminating in the famous behaviorist's efforts to launch Didak 101, the "pre-verbal" machine that taught spelling. (Alternate names proposed by Skinner include "Autodidak," "Instructomat," and "Autostructor.") Telling these somewhat cautionary tales, Watters challenges what she calls "the teleology of ed tech"--the idea that not only is computerized education inevitable, but technological progress is the sole driver of events. Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque |
Discussion en coursAucunCouvertures populaires
 Google Books — Chargement...GenresClassification décimale de Melvil (CDD)371.33Social sciences Education Teachers, Methods, and Discipline Methods of instruction and study Teaching aids, equipment, materialsClassification de la Bibliothèque du CongrèsÉvaluationMoyenne: (3.5)
Est-ce vous ?Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1
So I was looking forward to reading this book, hoping that it would start out with the early 20th century teaching machines and segue into a discussion of how those same ideologies form the basis for a lot of so-called modern ideas. I was also hoping for a more pedagogical, rather than technological or sociological, critique of the teaching machines. (Although I would suspect that there is no compelling data on the topic, if any data exists at all.) How can a teaching machine as envisioned by Pressey or Skinner teach students to apply knowledge? How can it accomplish anything other than rote instruction? And are "modern" versions of teaching technology any more effective?
I suppose the most amusing aspect of the book was how teaching machines were intended to "reduce the drugery and paperwork" of the teacher. That narrative hasn't changed in 100 years. I still receive solicitations from textbook publishers and other companies for me to use their automatic grading software, their automated learning platforms, their online homework systems. Some of them are quite useful, but none of them actually reduce my need to be an active part of my student's educational lives. None of them actually reduce the amount of time I spend grading and giving feedback.
I didn't dislike this book, but was disappointed that it focused almost entirely on Skinner and pretty much dropped off after the 1960s. It almost seemed like a 200-page historical rebuttal to the story about Sal Khan given in the introduction, and nothing qualitatively more substantial than that. (