computers are already teaching in several schools and it has nothing to do with teachers: computers are smarter yet emotionless so i think that you will have computers operated by new-age teachers :-\ :-\ :-\ : :
Computer cannot take a role as a teacher. It's created by human, and i will state that A CREATURE CANNOT EXCEED IT'S CREATOR.
In that way, yes. But aren't they controlled by human? And if the computer becomes the teacher all of the students' data(of scores) can be tampered easily. Which mean it's a downfall.
it would function properly...Until someone don't understands what the pc is explaining. And thats what computers can't do and don't work on this aspect. One people learn something different than other. Some people learn faster and some don't. Some people don't even learn at all. Some people have dislexia. And yet, we still have teachers that can't explain things in a different manner at all! Computers aren't perfect cause they were made by imperfect people.
In the case of chess, no, no they weren't, there are also many computers in manufacturing not controlled by humans. As for students' scores/grades/whatever been tampered with easily, that's complete nonsense. Many countries have students' grades on a computer system as it is, yet students don't tamper with them easily.
yup because most teachers wont know what roms are! seriously tomorrow ask your teachers what a ROM is and they will get confused if you ask the computer what it is they will download a 5 hr lesson about ROMS and hopefully(secretly) give u a link to romulation my point is that computer will have 1000x more knowledge then basic school teachers!
The problem is not the amount of knowledge, because you can't even learn that much over a small period of time without forgeting some stuff. Is how you pass them to the students. to do this, a machine would have to understand how learning work, and even the ones that created the machine(us) doesn't know for sure how it works!
Please, the meaning of controlling is wide. Programming is also "controlling". Anyway, computer cannot provide data that doesn't exist in it's database if there is a hint of something. It's only provided by logic. And only humans can provide logics.
Actually Deep Blue(the computer that beat the chess champion) displayed creative thought. Even if we have to program a computer, isn't that basically the same as teaching a teacher. Except that the computer will never be wrong, will never condemn a student for providing information it didn't already know, etc.
Still, computer's interactiveness is much less that a human. Much of that, a proper manner teaching can only be done with teacher.
This is where I disagree, I don't think teachers lend anything to their students that a machine couldn't. In fact I've seen many cases where the effects of a teacher have long lasting negative influences on the student. I suppose there have been a few positives, but many more negatives, so I think the neutrality of a digital teacher would be an overall improvement.
A children's behaviour is depend on the environment. So it's not only from school. I think it's quiet amusing when we think we should be taught by a computer. Although they can compare them by score, it can't compare students by expression and interact.
You're in class to learn, not to interact. There's no need for the computer to compare students by expression and interaction as it's not the reason their in school.
Got bored reading the third page so if this has already been stated sorry. To the debate on the second page if humans really are perfect then there would no longer be need for teachers or robot teachers and remember nobody is perfect because if you say everybody is perfect then that may also mean that everybody isn't because you can't define something without it's counterpart how can you say that something is perfect if there is no such thing as imperfect.
To add to my last post, I don't think computers can replace teachers since students and computers cannot develop a sexual relationship unless given that hardware.
I had to read that 5 times to make sure that my lack of sleep didn't make me read that wrong it didn't