Robot Teachers and the Slippery Slope of Ed Tech

Imagine a robot designed to take the role of a traditional educator. For real?

On Wednesday, March 25, Melania Trump's introduction of humanoid robot Figure 03

set the education community abuzz.

Profile of a humanoid robot

“Imagine a humanoid robot named Plato,” she said, that “will provide a personalized experience, adaptive to the needs of each student.”

After all, Figure 03 speaks multiple languages, makes adjustments to its code in real time, has a great memory, and contains more information than any human could hold. 

But the assumption that students are empty vessels waiting to be filled is a faulty one, refuted by a long line of theorists -- among them names like Piaget and Dewey -- who have dedicated their lives to the study of learning. Centuries ago, Greek philosopher Plutarch is credited with saying “The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.” And that fire is kindled not by a wealth of information but by human relationships and real-life experiences.

The bond of human interaction between a teacher and her students

The Role of the Teacher

Teachers – humans with actual neural processes – are intuitive. They know their students as unique individuals with variations in background knowledge, prior experience, maturity, development, personalities, insecurities, and social and emotional contexts.

Teachers understand the value of relationships. They build trust with their students, they motivate, they comfort, and they sense how and when to pivot. Their adaptive behaviors are not mimicking human responses based on stimuli; their adaptations are human interactions informed by their own emotional intelligence.

Most of us readily recognize the robot-teacher idea as far-fetched and ill-advised. And yet, we’ve been balancing on an increasingly slippery slope with educational technology for quite a while now.

The Business of Ed Tech

We live in a digital age. Digital tools are everywhere, including classrooms. Access to ed tech is a good thing -- students need to learn to use tech tools. The problem is that we have succumbed to a model that puts students in the role of digital consumers, rather than digital creators. 

Students in a school computer lab

Overwhelmingly, students' individual interactions with computers are for two primary purposes: to provide skill practice and to monitor progress.

For skill practice, the emphasis is generally on rote memorization, recognition of patterns, and the reading of excerpts (rather than books, which is a whole other conversation).

This type of practice can be effective, but it comes with a high price tag. There's the literal cost -- schools purchase hardware, software, subscriptions, and licenses -- and then there’s the cost to instructional time.

Education systems are data-driven, and the progress-monitoring that accompanies these programs is attractive to school administrators. The allure of disaggregated data is so strong that progress-monitoring can consume precious time that was once dedicated to authentic, hands-on, experiential learning.

Additionally, progress-monitoring and assessment tools are limited by digital constraints. As noted by educator Antero Garcia, “these tools limit what assessment looks like and penalize students based on flawed interpretations of learning.” Students continue to show progress within these closed systems, but we’re losing sight of larger goals, like thinking critically, interacting civilly, and igniting Plutarch's fire. 

With the increase in the use of ed tech for well over a decade, we should see the benefits trending. However, The 74 reports that “Since 2013, students have lost nearly three-tenths of a standard deviation in combined math and reading scores — the equivalent of more than a year’s worth of education.” Think about the advances in technology introduced into classrooms since 2013. And yet, we’ve been in steady decline.

Then there’s the matter of screens…

The Intrusion of Screens

Students using an interactive whiteboard

Walk into any modern classroom, and you’ll probably see an interactive whiteboard. It’s a giant screen that has been affixed over the traditional whiteboard.

Interactive whiteboards can do a lot of cool things. Teachers can create engaging lessons by blending videos, apps, diagrams, and text.

Students can interact from their own devices or even by touching the screen. Teachers and students can write on the interactive whiteboard with a stylus, and they can save and print what’s been written.

These boards are promoted as being engaging and adaptable, and publishers create content specifically for them. So, what's the downside?

To begin with, the whiteboard underneath can no longer be used. You can write on the interactive board instead, but it's not the same tactile experience as using a dry erase marker (and sometimes it's difficult to see the writing clearly). These behemoths have consumed the space that was once used for writing, modeling, practicing, and using magnetic manipulatives. 

Additionally, interactive whiteboards are expensive, they require training, they’re subject to technical glitches, and they tend to keep teachers locked in one area. And, they are screens.

Screens are so pervasive that the American Academy of Pediatrics offers guidelines for screen time and suggestions for seeking quality digital interactions. Schools often pass along these guidelines to parents. And yet, schools allow screen time to creep into classrooms, willingly exchanging hands-on experiences for virtual ones.

Learning in Real Life

Digital learning experiences are of great value when they achieve something otherwise inaccessible, like watching videos of bird migration, seeing scenes of foreign countries, or video-chatting with an author. But virtual experiences should not replace real experiences and in-person relationship-building.

Watching a live caterpillar eat, grow, form a chrysalis, and emerge as a butterfly is a powerful, interactive learning experience with life cycles. Watching a video about this process can add to a child’s understanding, but it should not take the place of the hands-on experience. Witnessing the actual process of metamorphosis over time yields higher engagement, better concept development, better retention, and a positive emotional association.

The fact that a learning experience can be presented digitally does not mean that it should be presented digitally. There is power in experiential learning, particularly when it's coupled with human interaction. 

A teacher and students interacting with a book

Reading books and singing songs are good examples. Used sparingly, electronic read-alongs and sing-alongs can be fun and functional. But videos of books and songs should be supplemental; they should never take the place of reading to a child or singing with a child. Real-time eye contact, facial expressions, vocal inflections, emotional connection, variations in tempo and volume, and relationship-building are sacrificed when we opt for the screen.

The younger the child, the more important it is that our default is three-dimensional and multi-sensory. Actual manipulatives are of greater value to the learner than virtual manipulatives, especially when concepts are new. Think about the difference between presenting a young student with an image of a sphere vs. a spherical object.

Typing is an expedient and functional digital tool that’s appropriate for final products and polished presentations. However, a growing body of research suggests that memory, recall, and concept development are stronger when students take notes by hand. As reported in Scientific American, a recent study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) showed that “When students wrote the words by hand, the sensors picked up widespread connectivity across many brain regions. Typing, however, led to minimal activity, if any, in the same areas.”

Educational technology and digital devices can add value and expediency to teaching and learning. However, they need to be used with careful intention.

An Intentional Approach to Educational Technology

Technology is always advancing, but we must be intentional about its use in the classroom. We need to make sure we don’t allow tech tools to take the place of three-dimensional learning, real-life experiences, and human interaction. 

• Be aware of the difference between consuming and creating when it comes to ed tech. Make sure students have opportunities to use technology as a tool – recording videos, creating presentations, collecting data, and studying trends. 

  
  

Common classroom manipulatives

• Monitor the use of technology in the classroom. If virtual experience is being allowed to take the place of modeling, using 3D manipulatives, and providing tactile experiences, we’re headed in the wrong direction. Be sure to prioritize tactile experiences and human interaction.

• Monitor your own use of screens when interacting with children. If screens provide an experience that cannot be achieved in real life, they add value to learning. But if they routinely replace real-life experience and human interaction -- making eye contact, singing together, having conversations, sharing laughter -- well, then a robot could do that.

Back to the robot...

Imagine a robot designed to take the place of a traditional educator. It’s a far-fetched prospect, but it’s an extreme point on a road we are already traveling.

Let’s take a step back and rekindle the fire of learning. For real.

Click here to receive monthly blog posts via email.