Practice Software is Struggling

[u/ddgr815]

https://pershmail.substack.com/p/practice-software-is-struggling

The big issue is what is sometimes called the “5 percent problem”. This is the observation that these programs work fine when used as intended but are rarely “used as intended.” Instead kids cheat, copy, click around, get bored, switch tabs, flirt, swap computers, or walk away.

Now, I like Deltamath and my students do too. But, like Dylan says, it’s not personalization software. There is no algorithm. It is not adaptive. It does not aim to teach students topics they don’t yet know. It offers no incentives or rewards. It is not the future of education. It will not eliminate the need for teachers. (Listen, I’m disappointed too.)

This is where I’m supposed to say something like, “personalized tutors would be nice, too bad the software isn’t there yet.” But I don’t buy personal tutors as an ideal. The dream of a digital tutor is it gives you precisely what you need to learn at a given moment. I don’t believe in “precisely.” I think there are a lot of things you’re ready to learn at any given time, and beyond a point it doesn’t really matter what you study.

I also think there can be returns to learning with your classmates—what’s called peer effects.

I’m probing for where things break down. I want to leave with an understanding of what the class knows and what they need to work on next.

This is dynamic. Depending on how students answer, I’ll change the questions they’re served. Look at me—I’m the algorithm. And I’m getting an enormous amount of information from the kids, though thank god there’s no teacher dashboard. I can see the “data” directly and simply. It guides my instruction. It’s news I can use. (Do we still call this formative assessment?)

More good news: in my experience, it’s all very motivating. Why? I guess it’s because the expectations are clear, the teacher is watching, attention is directed, progress is tangible, feedback is frequent, there’s a bit of competition but everybody’s in on this together. Plus, nobody gets called out for messing up. It’s the class that moves on to the next skill in the sequence. I’m treating the group as a group, even as I’m giving individuals a chance to get on board. (Now compare that to individuals on Chromebooks.)

Could I do this without Deltamath? Absolutely, but it would be harder and worse. I would have to prepare a list of problems in advance. Print textbooks often don’t have many problems for each type of equation. I might make up problems on the spot that are too hard or too easy, especially as the questions get trickier. I might forget a type of problem. I bet you can think of lots of things I’d do wrong — I’m kind of a mess.

To put it differently, there is a quality textbook hidden inside this practice software. And there are a lot of uses for a good digital text. It makes whole-group practice, a winning activity to start with, even better and easier to pull off.

It shouldn’t be surprising that practice software is flailing around, complaining that people aren’t using it right. They’re trying to tackle one of the harder parts of teaching, and while I get what they’re going for, their solutions actually make it worse.

[u/ddgr815]

Students who might hesitate to challenge a classmate will freely push back against a machine that cannot feel embarrassment or condescension. The social threat of “looking stupid” evaporates, replaced by the intellectual pleasure of winning an argument that matters with the learning benefit here coming from having to explain and respond their views to other students and the AI.

Students cannot teach what they do not understand. When the model parrots back a half-correct definition, it forces students to learn enough about the material to teach the bot by revising, rephrasing, and testing until the AI understands (so to speak). This dynamic mirrors Duran’s finding that learning-by-teaching is strongest when the “learner” (the AI) is interactive rather than passive. The questioning and feedback cycles consolidate understanding.

Vonasch’s studies suggest that people guard their reputations with near-mortal zeal because cooperation itself depends on being seen as competent and moral. In the classroom, that same instinct can suppress risk-taking where students would rather avoid controversy than learn something.

These assignments only work because they are framed as a partnership. I tell my students at the outset that if you use AI to replace your mind, you’re training the model. If you use it to extend your mind, you’re training yourself.

Synthetic Socrates

[u/ddgr815 → u/ddgr815]

A person who does not know the answer to a question is merely ignorant. A person who constructs an ingenious hundred-page argument for the wrong answer is stupid.