Utter foolishness if you ask me. Why would you want some computer program teaching you something when a person does a much better job at it? These guys researching this are wasting their time. Why is a real person better? Teaching experience, physical interaction, empathy, ability to percieve different levels of learning ability and adjust to such, ability to adapt to more than simply facial & physical expressions. Robots are a long way off from that, not to mention how many have ever had anything published?
Salary depends a lot on the school. My dad, a principal of a private highschool, has been there for almost 40 years and makes less my uncle's pension that retired as a techer from a public highschool after 25 years.
the voice is pure Kiwi, unfortunately. That said, she does sound as if she is hamming it up a bit: there are better voices to be had. This one might sound a bit friendly, but she also seems to be talking to k-12 students rather than undergrads.
I studied at Massey because it is a leader in distance learning, which is what this is all about: how to make the distance learning more captivating and interactive. I had to do it out of books, and it is a real chore: many people don't go the course because they need help. Anything that can help students in remote locations (rural areas, Antarctica, etc.) is a good thing. Education should be truly available to all (including open access content), but physical teachers will still have a role (fancy offering telephone support?).
People that have to be homeschooled, because, for example, of deathly allergies to common items found at schools, such as dairy products, and whose parents work full time is why. This makes a lot of sense, but they still have a long way to go on this matter.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It's an interesting concept but, could they have chosen a more annoying voice?
I agree... quite annoying :P
Utter foolishness if you ask me. Why would you want some computer program teaching you something when a person does a much better job at it? These guys researching this are wasting their time. Why is a real person better? Teaching experience, physical interaction, empathy, ability to percieve different levels of learning ability and adjust to such, ability to adapt to more than simply facial & physical expressions. Robots are a long way off from that, not to mention how many have ever had anything published?
@Azayzel
Look at a teachers average salary. That is why it's being developed.
Salary depends a lot on the school. My dad, a principal of a private highschool, has been there for almost 40 years and makes less my uncle's pension that retired as a techer from a public highschool after 25 years.
The salary of teachers allows for a direct and unfiltered view on a society's value-system.
the voice is pure Kiwi, unfortunately. That said, she does sound as if she is hamming it up a bit: there are better voices to be had. This one might sound a bit friendly, but she also seems to be talking to k-12 students rather than undergrads.
I studied at Massey because it is a leader in distance learning, which is what this is all about: how to make the distance learning more captivating and interactive. I had to do it out of books, and it is a real chore: many people don't go the course because they need help.
Anything that can help students in remote locations (rural areas, Antarctica, etc.) is a good thing. Education should be truly available to all (including open access content), but physical teachers will still have a role (fancy offering telephone support?).
@ Azayzel.
People that have to be homeschooled, because, for example, of deathly allergies to common items found at schools, such as dairy products, and whose parents work full time is why. This makes a lot of sense, but they still have a long way to go on this matter.