Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAMA_Calculator - a calculator that won't reveal the precise answer until you supply an estimate (physical hardware in 2014, I think the current version is an app.) The website makes claims about the pedagogic value, but I didn't see any actual citations at https://qama.world/the-science/ just "everyone knows" kind of things... but if they had research supporting it that would probably inform your approach?
I think speed would be irrelevant, or perhaps would discourage deep engagement with the problems.
I think presenting it as AI can be wrong is not as valuable as presenting it as developing the ability to question what one is told. (e.g. Verizon Math)
indeed I agree with you however studies have shown that kids have access to interfaces to chat with an LLM from a young age, and the traction this technology is taking is increasing. Indeed verizon math seems more whole when it comes to topic variety.
This is an interesting idea, but I need more than one sample to get a feel for it. I did the example on the homepage, and then one more that it linked to, and both had extremely basic errors my kid would have no problem with (currently doing Math Academy prealgebra, approx year 9/8th grade level). I'd suggest allowing people to try more than one very basic error.
while solving a lathoa case, if you spot the error you get back an amount of points. if you score also the explanation exhibiting your understanding you gain more points.
11 comments:
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAMA_Calculator - a calculator that won't reveal the precise answer until you supply an estimate (physical hardware in 2014, I think the current version is an app.) The website makes claims about the pedagogic value, but I didn't see any actual citations at https://qama.world/the-science/ just "everyone knows" kind of things... but if they had research supporting it that would probably inform your approach?
I think speed would be irrelevant, or perhaps would discourage deep engagement with the problems.
I think presenting it as AI can be wrong is not as valuable as presenting it as developing the ability to question what one is told. (e.g. Verizon Math)
indeed I agree with you however studies have shown that kids have access to interfaces to chat with an LLM from a young age, and the traction this technology is taking is increasing. Indeed verizon math seems more whole when it comes to topic variety.
This is an interesting idea, but I need more than one sample to get a feel for it. I did the example on the homepage, and then one more that it linked to, and both had extremely basic errors my kid would have no problem with (currently doing Math Academy prealgebra, approx year 9/8th grade level). I'd suggest allowing people to try more than one very basic error.
> if she finds an error to gain more XP
What does this mean?
while solving a lathoa case, if you spot the error you get back an amount of points. if you score also the explanation exhibiting your understanding you gain more points.
It helps us practice critical thinking. What it doesn’t do is help us practice knowing WHEN to use critical thinking.
Easy, all the damn time.
https://xkcd.com/309/
kek..
interesting perspective...when and how much also is a skill someone should have.