🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul29.012704.23784@uvm.edu> cavrak@emba-news.uvm.edu.UUCP (Steve Cavrak) writes:
>From article <13643@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, by steffen@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen):

>	... Teaching machines simply automated this process.

>	This seemed like a good idea at the time, it still seems like a
>	good idea to me, and given the wide availability of computers,
>	seems much more practical now than then.  Does anyone know
>	what ever happened to this concept?  Has it been discredited
>	in educational circles, has it fallen between the cracks, or
>	is it in widespread use, and everyone knows about it but me?

>While not totally "discredited", it certainly has passed out out vogue.

>There are a number of things that are "wrong" (i.e. limiting) about
>it.

>- Skinner, who was very instrumental in proposing the original models,
>was quite insistant that the number of "stimulus - response" pairs
>required in getting to a level of competence was quite large.  He
>estimated something like 100,000 arithmetic "problems" to reach a 3rd
>grade level.

This exemplifies well what can be taught with programmed learning; 
manipulations and nothing else.  

			..................

>- most of learning is not "rote" memorization or "stimulus - response"
>but "model acquisition".  People try to understand what is going on
>about them, how things work, and what they can do next.  Jerome
>Bruner, a colleague of Skinner across the street, was one of the
>people to point out the difference between "teaching" and "learning".

Unfortunately, at this time the great bulk of material presented is
exactly stimulus-response.  It is trying to make humans act like
computers.  What is needed in education is concepts.  There is a
big amount of talk of transfer of training; what I have seen on
this is either negative, or it is application.  

I was on the faculty at Michigan State University when the then
president tried to get the various departments to adopt computer
courses.  I do not know if any did; it would have required many
hours of manpower to produce the materials, and they would not be
useful in 2-3 years.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)