Support NeoGAF

[sans_pants]

http://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/arpa-ed-and-the-future-of-education-innovation/

Backstage from the media circus, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats have been quietly drumming up support for a new $90 million program to accelerate innovation in educational technology, or ed tech. Called the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education, or ARPA-Ed, in the president’s 2012 budget, this lean, mean little research agency would create a platform for ed tech innovators to compete to develop cutting-edge learning tools.
On Wednesday, as the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, or HELP, committee moves to overhaul No Child Left Behind, Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) is expected to introduce an amendment that would bring ARPA-Ed to life. If enacted, ARPA-Ed would put competitive grants and contracts in the hands of innovators seeking to develop technologies to revolutionize the way students learn. Because it kindles competition, ARPA-Ed is an interesting Obama initiative that has the potential to reverse the sputtering trajectory of the U.S. education system.

Proponents of ARPA-Ed aim to exploit cutting-edge technology and developmental psychology in education to create a more efficient, individualized, and engaging learning regimen for today’s students. ARPA-Ed would follow its predecessors in adopting a bottom-up, rather than top-down approach to nurturing innovation. Instead of attempting to dictate what the most effective means of instruction might be, ARPA-Ed will reward learning about learning, researching research, and thinking about thinking.

Shamefully republicans want to block it as "wasteful" despite the meager price tag

 

[SRG01]

http://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/arpa-ed-and-the-future-of-education-innovation/

Shamefully republicans want to block it as "wasteful" despite the meager price tag

Please, let this go through. Millennial students have drastically different learning styles than traditional students. We need more tools to help us teach.

 

[jchap]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

Excellent idea.

 

[akachan ningen]

I'm sure it would end up being exactly what they say it will be, just like every other government program out there.

 

[Divvy]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division.

What the hell?

 

[Clevinger]

http://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/arpa-ed-and-the-future-of-education-innovation/





Shamefully republicans want to block it as "wasteful" despite the meager price tag

Nope. Sorry. That money could buy us 150 Tomahawk missiles.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

Nope. Sorry. That money could buy us 150 Tomahawk missiles.

Another way to make sure your children are smarter than other countries children.

 

[Zoramon089]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

Correlation =/= Causation...and technology has NUMEROUS benefits when it comes to education. Arguing otherwise is incredibly stupid. The internet alone has changed the way students find information compared to those not even 20 years ago

Oh and saying science hasn't changed in 200 years? LOL

 

[mt1200]

There are some "old method" styled schools over here, and the kids are too damn skilled at math, physics and english, they always get into public colleges (which require asian-level admission tests) .

Their year repetition rate is quite high though.

 

[Chichikov]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years.

And neither have our instruction methodology.
I personally think we can do better than having a teacher reading from a book + homework.

Don't you?

p.s.
The statistics that is taught in high-schools get to late 19th century - early 20th century work, but that's a REALLY minor point.
I'm just being anal.

Edit: oh, you said non-graduate. well, you're dead wrong then, undergrad math touches a whole mess of modern stuff.

 

[Plinko]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

I can confirm this for secondary/elementary math EDUCATION. Memorization and drill are still the best way to learn math. Studies continue to show that no matter what new methods of teaching math are introduced, they don't work as well. Science, on the other hand, changes constantly.

 

[nib95]

Great idea. And honestly, the more I read about Republican ideas and oppositions to these sorts of things, the more I think they (some of the one's in Government) are a disease on to America. Technological innovation in such a time can't be bad, especially if it's geared towards renewable energy, waste, health and so on.

 

[Measley]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

 

[teepo]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

wolfram would like a word with you

 

[spiderman123]

Sounds good but want to see hear more specifics.

 

[Foffy]

Great idea. And honestly, the more I read about Republican ideas and oppositions to these sorts of things, the more I think they (some of the one's in Government) are a disease on to America.

What kind of disease? I'd say a cancer, myself.

Everytime I hear a Republican talk, it's always something greedy or just absolutely repulsive. It's like they collectively have the mindset of the way the world worked circa 1909.

 

[Kinitari]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

Some of the concepts introduced for tablet/digital learning are amazing. Do you not see the benefits of introducing an interactive, intelligent and live-shared textbook into a classroom? It could randomly generate math questions and place them in a simple game, where a teacher could see exactly what sort of problems give an individual student the most trouble and address it easily?

I had an online text book for one of my college courses last semester, and holy fuck, that thing was soooo damn useful, I don't even know where to begin. This should be explored, the benefits are there.

 

[jchap]

What the hell?

Okay 200 years might be a stretch for the full high school science curriculum. Maybe 150 years.

Newtonian physics / calculus: 17th century
Maxwell's equations: 1860's
Atomic Model / molecular chemistry: 1810-1850

There is maybe a high level look at something like DNA which is more recent but most of what is taught at that level is quite dated.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Whole thread is now about making jchap look like an idiot... Not that it's particularily hard or anything.

EDIT: See!!!

 

[Chichikov]

Okay 200 years might be a stretch for the full high school science curriculum. Maybe 150 years.

Newtonian physics: 17th century
Maxwell's equations: 1860's
Atomic Model / molecular chemistry: 1810-1850

He said math and he said non-graduate.
He's dead wrong.

Also, we studied special relativity in high school (though in a simplistic form).

Edit: also - the periodic table, evolution.

 

[jchap]

He said math and he said non-graduate.
He's dead wrong.

Also, we studied special relativity in high school (though in a simplistic form).

Wow thats only 100 years old!

 

[Misanthropy]

.

 

[Divvy]

No no guys, he's got a point, nothing has changed in science in 200 years, especially astronomy. I mean look at Pluto; it wasn't a planet in 1811 and it isn't a planet now. See? Nothing has changed!

 

[big_z]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

There's been studies in the last few years showing kids are getting dumber because they're losing their moderate to long term memory. They have to rely in the crutch of electronic devices to help them.

This can be seen as both good or bad. On one hand kids have more information than ever at their fingertips on the other they'll soon have the memory of a goldfish.

Edit: basically because finding information and processing can be done with electronic devices their brains ability to archive information becomes retarded. it's kind of a use it or lose it situation. however in future generations the brains ability to use medium & long memory might barely exist since electronic information access will retard it's developement from a young age.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Holy shit, I need this in my veins! Campaign on the Obama!

 

[Clevinger]

It's pretty irrelevant anyway since this program is about innovating how they teach, not about what they teach.

 

[Zaptruder]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://www.khanacademy.org/

you should have a look at it, become informed and hopefully revise your opinion.

But the information in that link shows you to be the dumb uninformed, closed minded piece of shit that you probably are.

 

[Clevinger]

C'mon. We really need name calling?

 

[ryan-ts]

 

[Slavik81]

This just in... Non graduate level math and science hasn't changed in 200 years. We don't need ipads to teach 3rd graders long division. Somehow, the educational quality keeps declining as we get more technologically advanced.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are so many problems which remain fundamentally unchanged, but we pointlessly attempt to improve with new technology. What use is internet shopping when I could just go to a store? And why the hell would you put the news on the internet when I can just read it in the paper?

Why have a DARPA, either? People haven't changed much in the past ten thousand years. Decapitate the modern man with a sword and he'll die just as quickly as a medieval one.

 

[quilter46761]

Okay 200 years might be a stretch for the full high school science curriculum. Maybe 150 years.

Newtonian physics / calculus: 17th century
Maxwell's equations: 1860's
Atomic Model / molecular chemistry: 1810-1850

There is maybe a high level look at something like DNA which is more recent but most of what is taught at that level is quite dated.

I know this is not really the point of this, but...

Thermodynamics weren't totally solidified until the late 19th century.
Evolution also wasn't until the mid-19th century, and the foundations of genetics didn't follow until well after.
Mendeleev didn't put out the first periodic table until 1870 or so.
Most astronomy is a product of the stronger telescopes of the last century.

And, on top of that, I used quantum ideas in both chemistry - orbitals, bonding, and so on - and physics - blackbody radiation, the compton effect, the photoelectric effect. Did we get into the exact math in high school? No. But to pretend we didn't study them is false.



On topic, I love this idea. DARPA sounds like one of the coolest places to work anywhere, and to possible put the discoveries to direct positive use would be fantastic.

 

[Zaptruder]

There's been studies in the last few years showing kids are getting dumber because they're losing their moderate to long term memory. They have to rely in the crutch of electronic devices to help them.

This can be seen as both good or bad. On one hand kids have more information than ever at their fingertips on the other they'll soon have the memory of a goldfish.

The technology has been woven into the fabric of our society already.

The relative attractiveness of said technology ensures this.

The problem is that we haven't quite adjusted to properly take advantage of an educational system built with this stuff in mind.

Instead of a rote learnt memory based curriculum as has been prevalent, how about we focus a curriculum on one that emphasizes on how to find, sort, filter and cross reference information in new and exciting ways?

 

[Zaptruder]

C'mon. We really need name calling?

No. We probably don't. It's just frustrating to be immersed in a new wave of thinking - then have some guy come along with his uninformed opinion, spouting it like he's got it all figured out.

One is often compelled to return the invective, even if it's not the most productive thing to do.

 

[LegendofJoe]

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://www.khanacademy.org/

you should have a look at it, become informed and hopefully revise your opinion.

But the information in that link shows you to be the dumb uninformed, closed minded piece of shit that you probably are.

This site is awesome Zaptruder, thank you for introducing it to me.

 

[jchap]

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://www.khanacademy.org/

you should have a look at it, become informed and hopefully revise your opinion.

But the information in that link shows you to be the dumb uninformed, closed minded piece of shit that you probably are.

Yeah khan academy is probably a better resource than the education I received getting my PhD in EE and years spent conducting research and writing peer reviewed journal articles (gasp non-100-year-old science!). Like it or not, you could have a student more than prepared for any technical undergraduate program solely with material more than a century old. Sure there are a few exceptions taught at a very high level here or there, but the bulk of physics and mathematics foundations that were taught 100 years ago are the same as today... only now, they aren't taught as well.

The point is not to derail this into "LOL I LEARNED ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS IN HIGH SCHOOL", it was to point out that advanced technologies are not required to teach the fundamental skills which the students who under-perform are deficient at.

 

[GhaleonQ]

It seems like we'd have to know our goal before making our path there more efficient.

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://www.khanacademy.org/

you should have a look at it, become informed and hopefully revise your opinion.

But the information in that link shows you to be the dumb uninformed, closed minded piece of shit that you probably are.

Well, since I'm in education reform, I'll pull the elitist card back on you and scoff at another novice pushing yet another pilot program that hasn't proved itself when extrapolated to a larger area. It's good stuff, but so were a lot of failed or local-only programs.

 

[fatigues_gasolini]

whoops

 

[The Technomancer]

There's been studies in the last few years showing kids are getting dumber because they're losing their moderate to long term memory. They have to rely in the crutch of electronic devices to help them.

This can be seen as both good or bad. On one hand kids have more information than ever at their fingertips on the other they'll soon have the memory of a goldfish.

Interesting. I definitely feel that most of my undergraduate education hasn't been cemented into my long term memory, but I don't know if that's an actual memory issue or if its because they try to teach us so much that we often only spend a week or two on a concept and then never affix it with regular drilling over the next few years.

 

[quilter46761]

Yeah khan academy is probably a better resource than the education I received getting my PhD in EE and years spent conducting research and writing peer reviewed journal articles (gasp non-100-year-old science!). Like it or not, you could have a student more than prepared for any technical undergraduate program solely with material more than a century old. Sure there are a few exceptions taught at a very high level here or there, but the bulk of physics and mathematics foundations that were taught 100 years ago are the same as today... only now, they aren't taught as well.

The point is not to derail this into "LOL I LEARNED ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS IN HIGH SCHOOL", it was to point out that advanced technologies are not required to teach the fundamental skills which the students who under-perform are deficient at.

Because you decided to take a swipe at me, then, what is the harm in researching?

We're failing to educate many students. What should we do?

 

[Bowling Pin]

...Metal Gear?!

 

[Zaptruder]

Yeah khan academy is probably a better resource than the education I received getting my PhD in EE and years spent conducting research and writing peer reviewed journal articles (gasp non-100-year-old science!). Like it or not, you could have a student more than prepared for any technical undergraduate program solely with material more than a century old. Sure there are a few exceptions taught at a very high level here or there, but the bulk of physics and mathematics foundations that were taught 100 years ago are the same as today... only now, they aren't taught as well.

The point is not to derail this into "LOL I LEARNED ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS IN HIGH SCHOOL", it was to point out that advanced technologies are not required to teach the fundamental skills which the students who under-perform are deficient at.

Not required to teach; but the judicious use of those technologies can help us both overcome structural issues that are building up in the education system, and exceed previously available methodologies of teaching.

But like I said above, it will also be important for us to refigure the way this stuff is taught - taking into account the pervasive presence of technology, and figure out a better way to create a symbiotic link between the tech and our education.

Ignoring its presence and refocusing on the older paradigm is in some ways, akin to ignoring the existence of pen and paper and focusing on teaching children verbally.

 

[jchap]

Because you decided to take a swipe at me, then, what is the harm in researching?

We're failing to educate many students. What should we do?

I think a big problem is the hesitancy to fail students. Sending a student on to the next level of incremental subjects like mathematics while their understanding of the basics is incomplete only exasperates the problem. Put the money towards more teachers, tutoring services, and do not let students move on before they are ready. We try to force students through school like herds of cattle. In many cases, students get dragged along with their peers even if they aren't ready. We need to make sure an understanding is established and be more flexible with advancement through the curriculum.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well, since I'm in education reform, I'll pull the elitist card back on you and scoff at another novice pushing yet another pilot program that hasn't proved itself when extrapolated to a larger area. It's good stuff, but so were a lot of failed or local-only programs.

I'm not in education reform, but I can recognize how Khan academy and programs like it afford some pretty fundamental advantages for students; including but not limited to immediacy of feedback, use of behavioural feedback loops (i.e. achievements) to encourage said behaviour, and providing logistical advantages in lecture based content (i.e. stuff where you instruct at students)...

and how this stuff is only really viable when you take advantage of present and future technology.

It simply accords better with the way our brain works - works better with the neurology of brain function.

Any one in education reform that ignores that aspect of how people learn is ignoring a vitally critical aspect of education altogether.


I can understand where you're coming from - there are certainly localized political and structural issues that may make the adoption of something as radical as this difficult, maybe even impossible in the short term - but I think there's little doubt that a system like the Khan Academy represents the long term future of education not just in the states, but everywhere.

 

[Plinko]

I think a big problem is the hesitancy to fail students. Sending a student on to the next level of incremental subjects like mathematics while their understanding of the basics is incomplete only exasperates the problem. Put the money towards more teachers, tutoring services, and do not let students move on before they are ready. We try to force students through school like herds of cattle. In many cases, students get dragged along with their peers even if they aren't ready. We need to make sure an understanding is established and be more flexible with advancement through the curriculum.

Because parents are too stupid to realize that their children could actually be to blame for their bad grades/lack of motivation and instead take it out on the teacher. As a result, the school just says 'screw it' and moves them on.

I teach at a private school and thankfully don't deal with this much, but I did my student teaching in the public system and could not believe how often this happened. I don't blame the teachers one bit, either, after sitting through parent-teacher conferences.

 

[dinazimmerman]

It's a worthy cause, but I can see a good chunk of the funds going to waste due to corruption.

 

[quilter46761]

I think a big problem is the hesitancy to fail students. Sending a student on to the next level of incremental subjects like mathematics while their understanding of the basics is incomplete only exasperates the problem. Put the money towards more teachers, tutoring services, and do not let students move on before they are ready. We try to force students through school like herds of cattle. In many cases, students get dragged along with their peers even if they aren't ready. We need to make sure an understanding is established and be more flexible with advancement through the curriculum.

Hmm okay. I agree. Now we just have to figure out how to make this happen.

Because parents are too stupid to realize that their children could actually be to blame for their bad grades/lack of motivation and instead take it out on the teacher. As a result, the school just says 'screw it' and moves them on.

I teach at a private school and thankfully don't deal with this much, but I did my student teaching in the public system and could not believe how often this happened. I don't blame the teachers one bit, either, after sitting through parent-teacher conferences.

And this has to be the biggest roadblock. I hope we're not fucked already.

 

[Slavik81]

Yeah khan academy is probably a better resource than the education I received getting my PhD in EE and years spent conducting research and writing peer reviewed journal articles (gasp non-100-year-old science!). Like it or not, you could have a student more than prepared for any technical undergraduate program solely with material more than a century old. Sure there are a few exceptions taught at a very high level here or there, but the bulk of physics and mathematics foundations that were taught 100 years ago are the same as today... only now, they aren't taught as well.

The point is not to derail this into "LOL I LEARNED ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS IN HIGH SCHOOL", it was to point out that advanced technologies are not required to teach the fundamental skills which the students who under-perform are deficient at.

A hundred years ago, university was something reserved for a tiny fraction of the current population. Many fewer highly educated folks were required.

Today, a single bachlor's degree costs well over a hundred of thousand dollars in direct costs (though it's usually subsidized). If technology can make that cheaper by even just 10% it will be more than worth it.

Classes like Stanford's free online computer science courses are a fantastic step in the right direction. As a recent Electrical Engineering graduate working in computing, ongoing university-calibre training is very useful for covering subjects I couldn't get to in my four years of dedicated schooling.

 

[akira28]

Sounds like Obama got my letter.

/smugcat

 

[jchap]

A hundred years ago, university was something reserved for a tiny fraction of the current population. Many fewer highly educated folks were required.

Today, a single bachlor's degree costs well over a hundred of thousand dollars in direct costs (though it's usually subsidized). If technology can make that cheaper by even just 10% it will be more than worth it.

Classes like Stanford's free online computer science courses are a fantastic step in the right direction. As a recent Electrical Engineering graduate working in computing, ongoing university-calibre training is very useful for covering subjects I couldn't get to in my four years of dedicated schooling.

I'm all for free learning resources like this and MIT's online lectures. I'm hopeful that someday there will be a route for education purely through these resources with standardized tests (like the PE) serving as the "degree". However, I don't think resources like this (or khan academy) really will help those who aren't motivated enough to pay attention in primary school in the first place (the problem this research program was suppose to address). I feel changes to current teaching protocol and not technological advancements are the path to improving educational quality.