Teaching and assessment
When you teach, the student learns. This division between lecture and testing is an artifact of the scholastic environment of the past. It is not needed, and it’s not optimally efficient either.
That’s not to say that there shouldn’t also be retesting, reassessment, new discussions. Go back to the hypercube, or talk about something else, and then we find the student doesn’t actually understand it. Maybe they did; maybe they don’t now. So, maintaining mastery and proficiency.
Every student is different
The map is not some sort of quantitative checkbox, a series of checkboxes. Every student is different, and those differences are a part of true assessment.
This student’s able to make creative leaps in this way and apply this in unique ways according to this particular field of mathematics, with this particular emphasis on mathematics.
It’s not really up to 100%.
Different levels
There’s a level that you might say, “Okay, this person’s proficient.” Then you might say, “Well, this person has mastery.” But then you might say, “Well, this person has a deeper creative insight that goes beyond these things.”
The student needs to be able to reproduce, in multiple contexts, different answers. They need to reproduce that in different ways and show that they understand a particular thing.
Qualitative
“You could show a six-year-old a hypercube, or something advanced, and just them looking at it brings it into a familiarity that develops their mind.”
Rigorous cultivation
“The student needs to be able to reproduce, in multiple contexts, different answers.”
Transfer
“The interesting thing is to have the student be able to learn that same concept in either of the Worlds. So they don’t have to be in a particular World to learn that concept.”
Creative insight
“This person has a deeper creative insight that goes beyond these things.”
The student leads
The AI can go in and say, “Okay, so-and-so has learned this. They’re interested in this, and they haven’t learned this yet. How can I tie this in and teach this to them now?”
The student leads, and there’s some gentle guiding. If the student’s going completely in the wrong direction, the AI can take over and say, “Okay, well, how about this? Are you interested in this? Let’s try this.”
If the student’s not interested in anything, at some point maybe they should say, “Well, just give this a chance.” So it needs to have some direction for sure.
“What are you trying to learn?”
“What are you interested in?”
“How can I tie this in and teach this to them now?”
It will evolve
A changing definition of comprehension should definitely be in place. It will change, so it has to be built out with that consideration. I anticipate that it will change. Everything will evolve.
It would be stored in a database. That’s the student’s profile. And then the model will actually go and read that and add it to the context where needed and where relevant.
What can somebody learn here?
Maybe what we should do is take the current Worlds, do an assessment, and say, “What are all the things that somebody could learn here?” Knowing that the profile does not span all topics yet.
Over time, I can say, “Let’s add this. Let’s add that. Let’s add this new World here, a new function in this World.” And then new things will be developed.