There are some innovation and technology enthusiasts who claim that computer-based

learning will soon replace teachers. Just take a look at some recent op-eds by Andy
Kessler and Richard Galant. They point to the accessibility of information via the Internet
and the recent advances in online instruction and adaptive learning as harbingers of
teacher obsolescence. These assertions are alarming to those who advocate the
importance of teachers, like Diane Ravitch and Wendy Kopp. They point to a strong body
of research that affirms the importance of good teachers.

So how do we make sense of this war of words and tumult of opinions? To one degree or
another, both sides are overlooking important considerations.

Those who proclaim that computers will replace teachers often naively reduce teaching
to mere instruction and assessment. In doing so, they forget the true breadth and
complexity of the job teachers perform. Computers are becoming better at providing
customized direct instruction and at assessing student mastery of foundational
knowledge and skills. But good teachers do much more than present information and
drill the fundamentals. High-quality teachers guide their students through activities and
projects that stretch them to analyze, synthesize, and apply what they have learned
across academic subjects and into the real world. They provide personalized, qualitative
feedback to help students develop their critical and creative thinking. They create a
classroom culture that intrinsically motivates students by honoring their hard work and
by making academic achievement socially relevant. Going above and beyond the call of
duty, many of the best teachers are driven by a “whatever-it-takes” attitude to ensure
that all their students receive the resources and support needed to put them on a path
to success in life. Those human aspects of good instruction are not going to be replaced
by machines anytime soon.

On the other side of the debate, those who emphasize the importance of traditional
teachers often do not notice how unrealistic it is to provide high-quality teachers at scale
in the current monolithic model of classroom-based instruction. They overlook the fact
that the breadth and complexity of the job of good teaching makes it nearly impossible
for most teachers to do all of the critical aspects of their job exceptionally well.
Teachers are expected to design and execute daily lesson plans for multiple hours of the
school day, orchestrate student learning activities, administer and grade student
assessments, develop and implement efficient and effective classroom procedures, and
differentiate their approaches for diverse student needs, all while managing the daily
wild cards of student behavior. Additionally, we expect teachers to maintain close
contact with parents, provide students with social and emotional support, perhaps offer
after-school tutoring, sponsor student clubs, coach sports, organize school and
community events, and shoulder many of our schools’ administrative duties. With all of
these jobs crammed onto their plates, few teachers have the time, stamina, or cognitive
and emotional capacity to do each job well. Under these circumstances, is it any surprise
that so few teachers produce the results that we demand of them? Exceptional teachers
are often put on pedestals in the media and in public debate, but these awesome
individuals produce a level of work that is rarely sustainable and certainly not scalable.
The model of monolithic classroom instruction from the late 1800s just wasn’t designed
to allow teachers to meet 21st-century expectations.

In fact, traditional classrooms were designed to prepare students for jobs in an industrial
economy of the past. To meet this end, the system was set up to process seemingly
homogeneous batches of similarly aged students through one-size-fits-all instruction.
Undifferentiated instruction was acceptable back then because students only needed to
understand math, science, and literature at a C or D level in order to “pass quality
control,” receive their diplomas, and enter the workforce. Teaching might have been a
reasonably manageable job back when these assumptions held true, but in the
knowledge-based economy of today, the assumptions no longer hold and teaching
becomes a heroic job.

Despite the incredible challenges we face in providing good teachers at scale, there is a
bright light at the end of the tunnel. The educators, innovators, and entrepreneurs that
are now experimenting with blended learning are completely redesigning our models of
instruction. Rather than merely layering technology on top of traditional classrooms,
they are leveraging technology to transform the role of teachers, accelerate student
learning, and magnify the impact of educators. Blended learning allows much of the
work of basic instruction—like drilling multiplication tables or reviewing vocabulary words
—to be offloaded to computers so that teachers can focus on the aspects of teaching
that they find most rewarding, such as mentoring students and facilitating exploratory
learning projects. Properly implemented blended learning does not eliminate teachers,
but instead eliminates some of the job functions that teachers find most onerous.

Technology will not improve our education system if we marginalize or eliminate

teachers. Likewise, our education system will not meet modern needs at scale until we
innovate beyond the factory-model classroom. Innovation may lead us to classroom
setups and teacher roles that look very different from today, but a human element will
always be an essential part of the equation. By framing the debate as technology vs.
teachers, we create a false dichotomy. Instead, our conversations should focus on
finding ways to let technology do what it does best so that we can leverage teachers to
do what they do best.
 I E LT S Es s ay, to p ic : C o mp uters rep lac ing teac hers

As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for
teachers in the classroom.

There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people’s lives,
especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on
computers for research and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have
decided to leave the original way of learning and to get knowledge through online
schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding
the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom.

Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been
helping some students to progress in their studies quicker compared to studies in an
original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different
intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies
because of others’ incapability of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in
their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning
from teachers.

However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact
influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with
a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn
the importance of studying in a group and respect for other students, which helps them
improve their social skills.

Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some
students’ deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same
explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor. Hence, students
can have a better chance of avoiding a failure in a subject.

In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it
will continue to be such in the future because no machine can replace the human
interaction and its consequences.
Hoke Simpson, Chair
In the Academic Senate paper, The Future of the Community College: A Faculty
Perspective,1 the authors maintain that computer-based distance learning is inherently
inferior to traditional classroom instruction. This position is not so much argued in the
paper as it is merely asserted. "Teaching is the `business' of creating epiphanies," say
the authors, "and this will always be best accomplished through the power of personal
presence." (Future, p. 14)

It may not surprise anyone that the Academic Senate Office has not been flooded with
E-mail and phone calls from the field contesting this assertion. It seems that most
instructors-even those most dedicated to developing the new modes of delivery-
acknowledge, perhaps on no more than an intuitive basis, the truth of this claim.

As the paper points out, however, there are those whose vision of the future is
singularly "facultyless," and who, instead, see the teaching function taken over by
machines. How much more efficient and cost effective! How many fewer grievances and
contract disputes! And shared what? Govern this! (.as the plug is pulled.)

In view of recent sightings in our fair state of the occasional manager and even
legislator given to the opinion that faculty are far too uppity, and whose eyes grow
brighter at the prospect of a future without us, it might not hurt to look more closely at
the analysis behind the claim that classroom instruction is the preferred route to
learning.

At last spring's meeting of the American Philosophical Association in Los Angeles,

Professor Eugene Heath of SUNY at New Paltz found himself on a panel discussing the
potential of computers for the delivery of instruction in philosophy. Professor Heath was,
at best, lonely and, at worst, he must have felt like he had wandered into some sort of
sales convention. His fellow panelists were all from the same institution in the
Northwest, and they had come to sell. With the zeal of the newly-converted, they
hosanna'd the glory of the machine, and praised the learning experience they had
brought to their students through the manipulation of bits and bytes.

Professor Heath was no stranger to distance learning: he had developed and taught his
own course via computer and had written about it in an article titled, "Two Cheers and a
Pint of Worry: An On-Line Course in Political and Social Philosophy." 2 On this occasion,
finding the "cheers" in abundant supply, Mr. Heath gave voice to his "pint of worry," and
talked about his reservations about on-line classes. In the panel discussion, as in his
article, he grouped his remarks under three headings: the professor as a cause of
thought; the profession of teaching as a practice; and the college as a place.

Behind each of these areas of concern, according to Heath, is the fact "that on-line
education reduces all communication to written propositions..The real issue," he writes,
"is whether teaching and learning can be reduced to written propositions."

Heath's answer is "No, they cannot." On-line documents, he suggests, "may offer
opportunities for thought and reflection, but these documents may not cause reflection,
at least not in the same nuanced manner as a skilled teacher causes one to think and
reflect." (296) For example, a teacher can cause reflection through the use of her voice
and strategic silences. In his spoken remarks, Heath told the story of an instructor
whose effectiveness increased dramatically through the device of bringing a cup of
coffee to class. Whenever he paused to take a drink, the silence gave students the
occasion to reflect and pose questions. Such silences can't be achieved in the medium of
the written word.

Additionally, Heath notes, for a professor's words to be effective.

"(in the sense of effecting thought) one must have an awareness of one's audience. This
awareness is not merely an awareness of facts about the audience (soand-so dislikes
Plato, is active in student government, is unhappy, and so forth) but an awareness of
that audience's attentiveness, comprehension, seriousness, and interest. Without such
awareness, the classroom professor is merely speaking, reading, or explaining, all of
which could be done in a room with no one present. And what is the professor doing
when engaged in on-line teaching? The on-line awareness of the professor is limited to
whatever facts may be gleaned from some on-line profile of students or from the
professor's own evaluation of the student's written work; however, .none of this
matches the immediacy or efficiency of direct, face-to-face, awareness. In its absence,
there is little room for the unarticulated understanding, the spontaneous insight, or the
developing sympathy that can arise between teacher and learner."

The production of that moment of insight is the "epiphany" of which the authors of the
Future paper wrote. Of course epiphanies can occur in the course of one's reading of
written propositions; their occurrence in such circumstances, however, seems likely to
be far more random and less frequent than under the nurturing provocations of an
instructor.

This brings us to yet another dimension of the issue of the professor as cause of
learning, one which Heath does not discuss. He, and we, when talking about "modes of
instructional delivery," tend to be exclusively focused on the advantages and
disadvantages to the student. There are, however, advantages to the instructor as well.
Through the performatory aspects of their profession, instructors stand in a relationship
to their audience similar to that of all performers: They nurture certain appropriate
responses in their audience and, in their turn, the performers feed off of-are quickened
or nurtured by-those responses when they are produced. As the comedian lives for the
laugh, so the professor lives for the moment of insight. From the professor's
perspective, the difference between classroom and online instruction in terms of her own
satisfaction is similar to the difference between the experience of the singer who has
thrilled a live audience, and one who has achieved a "wrap" in the recording studio. The
immediacy and intensity of the former cannot be matched by the latter. We have a right
to expect that burn-out will occur much sooner for the on-line "performer" than for the
one with a live classroom audience.

Heath's concern with the professor as cause of learning leads naturally enough to his
concern with the profession of teaching as a practice. At its best, classroom instruction
involves the exercise of "judgment and know how, neither of which," Heath writes, "can
be reduced to rules or systems, but both of which are essential components of the
practice of teaching." (296) The effective teacher's awareness of the "attentiveness,
comprehension, seriousness, and interest" of the students is constantly translated into
judgments as to which phrase, diagram, admonition, or example will bring students
closer to achieving insight. One knows how to rephrase the student's inchoate question
in just the way that will help him toward the answer. And one knows that not all
inchoate questions are equal, that they reflect greater and lesser distances from the goal
of comprehension, and one measures one's responses accordingly.

Heath's concern, of course, is that the conditions of immediacy required for this sort of
practice, "involving unarticulated judgment and know how," simply do not exist on-line,
especially when " all communication must be reduced to disembodied propositions."

Another dimension of the practice of teaching which gives Heath pause lies in the fact
that such practice involves "more than judgment or know how: It is also exemplary of
attitudes, dispositions, emotions, and commitments, none of which are easily conveyed
through written propositions." (296) In the written word, one finds only the products of
the professor's labor; lost are the attitudes, the "intellectual qualities," the passion,
discipline, patience, etc., that informed it. Yet, Heath maintains, it is the acquisition of
these intellectual qualities, taught by example in the classroom, that makes the
difference between true learning and the mere transfer of information.

Finally, Heath's focus on the importance of conveying intellectual attitudes brings him to
his concern with the college as a place. One of the great attractions of online learning is
that of the "college without walls," of learning that is not bound by constraints of space
and time, that can be engaged in when it is convenient to do so. Heath believes that
these very features of on-line learning inculcate precisely the wrong attitudes and
values.

"A (physical) place devoted to learning, study, and research, a place to which one must
go at certain hours, may prove inconvenient to some, but its very inconvenience is also
its signal importance: Some things have to be set aside if one is to engage, focus, and
commit oneself to learning. Though this is one consequence of place, it also implies the
seriousness of education. That the computer is convenient because its courses occur in
no real space or time easily translates into the view that one need not engage when one
doesn't want to, that one need not set aside certain activities for the sake of learning,
and that one may, simply, turn off the machine if something is too difficult; in sum:
learning is no more important than anything else."

Heath concludes that "perhaps on-line education has a place, but it is a subordinate one:
on-line education is best viewed, at least under current technology, as a surrogate: The
best education occurs between teacher and student."

It is certainly worth observing at this point-especially for those who may not yet have
read the paper on The Future of the Community College-that the paper by no means
places the Academic Senate in opposition to the use of technology in education. As is
pointed out in the paper's conclusion,

"The Academic Senate would be clear.that it is rejecting only the extreme demand that
technology serve as a replacement for faculty. The Academic Senate maintains that
technology, both now and in the future, is a marvelous enhancement to instruction, and
would urge that its potential continue to be explored and utilized. In addition, the
Academic Senate applauds the fine work of those faculty who are developing course
content for distance learning, who are maintaining the highest standards of academic
integrity while ensuring increased accessibility to higher education for students in the
future."

Heath's remarks do have considerable import for those who develop on-line courses. If
he is correct, and the loss of immediacy involved in going on-line is an impediment to
learning, then it becomes all the more important that on-line instructors adhere
rigorously to pedagogical "good practices." As the authors point out in the Academic
Senate paper, Guidelines for Good Practice: Technology Mediated Instruction, "good
teaching is good teaching, regardless of the medium or method chosen for delivery." 3 If
the medium has inherent obstacles (and every medium does-yes, even the classroom),
then one must take special care to find ways of compensating for them. One way to do
this is to seek out and take advantage of unique opportunities afforded by the new
medium itself. As we can see from Robert Breuer's remarks elsewhere in this issue
("What Makes Technology Mediated Instruction (TMI) Succeed?"), this seems to be
exactly what instructors in California's post-secondary systems are doing.

Does Heath's analysis have implications for the Academic Senate's hard-fought and
successful battle to change the "personal contact" requirement for distance learning to
"effective contact"? I don't think so. On-line learning has one huge advantage over
classroom instruction: It provides access to education for those who cannot get to the
classroom. Heath himself acknowledges this. The "personal contact" requirement vitiated
this advantage, and the Academic Senate furthered the cause of student access in
getting it changed.

I, like Heath, am an instructor of philosophy who ventured into the digital world-in my
own case, spending ten years teaching in a department of computer science. I am
excited about the potential of on-line instruction, and am delighted by the Academic
Senate's insistence on maintaining the highest pedagogical standards. For my own part,
however, I am most interested in computer technology as an adjunct to classroom
instruction, which, I am convinced, is inherently superior to its on-line cousin.

There is, in sum, an important role for technology in education; but that role will not
entail the `downsizing' of faculty so long as our `business' is that of creating epiphanies.

A computer is an electronic device which has the ability to receive, transform data into
information while a teacher on the other hand is a person who provides education for
pupils (children) and students (adults). Computers have an advantage over teachers
because they cannot get tired, they have been programmed to analyse people, have
human driven qualities like patience.
To begin with, computers do not have blood running through their veins and so do not
get tired as humans do. A computer can teach pupils for twenty four hours a day without
taking a rest.
Furthermore, computers have a character of patience since they are machines. They can
recite an “ABC” song over and over again for a thousand times without screaming at
children but humans will become angry and furious at these little children after the eight
songs.
Another fact is that, computers can analyse and detects faults in whatever event the
student partake in. For instance, a computer can know that this particular student is
finding it hard to differentiate between this and that even when it was being recited
loudly. Humans do not have such qualities even the psychologists.
Teachers on the other hand do not have all these skills but they can instil moral
discipline in children. Computers on the other hand cannot do this. Teachers who are
humans can use some illustrations which the child can easily understand.
Many schools cannot also afford the cost of buying and maintaining computers. Some
parts of this world is now developing.
Computers also cannot know human gestures and it has much of its teachings based on
theories with just little practical’s.
Also many parents prefer teachers to computers they see that student can misconduct
themselves in class but the computer cannot punish them.
Also many children have sense of fear in them when teachers are around.
Another point worthy of mention is the facts many people find it difficult to use
computer. Some students do not know how to use these machines.
Some students find it boring sitting behind computers for long periods of time. This
makes students feel trapped behind the machine.
According to health experts, people who do not take ergonomic breaks when using the
computers and may suffer from chronic ailment such as damaged spinal cords, eye
problem, wrist pains, neck strains and other computer related diseases.
In conclusion, both computers and teachers have contributed immensely to the
development of education in the world.
In my opinion, I think that computers can never and ever replace human teachers as
long as human beings are reproducing.
One of the biggest argument in favor of teachers here is that computers cannot replace
the humanly warmth, emotion and affection that students need.

However, the real question is, what if computers CAN, in the near feature, mimic all
that?
With the evolution of artificial intelligence already in full swing, are we really that far
away from creating computers that are capable of mimicking human emotions?
We have already laid down the brick work for this with the IoT (internet of things) that is
learning about human behavior with thousands upon thousands of sensors and with the
help complex neural network algorithms.
I have never heard of a child getting distracted by what the teacher is wearing. Never,
even though a child can get distracted on different sites on the computer. Most schools
can monitor whatever they are doing so if they are looking at the wrong thing in class,
they can report to the teacher or the parent.

Also the computer knows SO much more than the teacher also computers are always
updated with the current affairs which the teacher is not always. Also, online textbooks
can be updated straight away. If there is newer version of a textbook the computer will
update itself straight away and free of charge teachers can’t they might have to go away
to an expensive course to get all the new teaching requirements.

And even though computers these days can be quite expensive, in the long run it is
usually cheaper because all the software is automatically and it is cheaper than
employing teachers. And lastly kids these days just generally like computers better.

Kids love technology and computers can change lessons into game form to interact kids
more. Plus, it would be way less time consuming to program a computer than to find,
screen, employ, and pay teachers. Also, a teacher has to attend four years of university
and a computer can be programmed in less than a week. This makes graduation an
earlier date, therefore getting more people with jobs at an earlier age, making the
success rate higher.

Computers should definitely replace teachers

 
Using computers firstly allows students to work at their own pace rather than the
average pace, allowing those behind to catch up and those ahead to excel.
Computers also eliminate many of the negative personal feelings associated with
teachers- embarrassment, distraction, labeling, and other issues that may cause serious
long term implications on students.

Computer can't get mad at you

When you get mad at the computer you can do anything you want to it and it won't get
hurt. Teachers will get mad if you do something bad and will get hurt. Computers can
get punched and will be just fine but a teacher will send you to the principal’s office and
no one wants to go there.

Point 1: Children are often distracted by what the teacher is wearing, saying, or doing.
The teachers get frustrated because while they are trying to teach, the children are
distracted and cannot concentrate.
If computers replace teachers, the kids will be able to concentrate more because they
have no distractions, unlike the teachers. Computers only hve one thing and that is a
screen. Teachers teach at about the pace for one student in the classroom. Computers
have the ability to adapt to the pace of every child in the class by looking at test scores
and homework scores. So computers can help every child with their own problems.
Sometimes teachers can be strict even though you’re not doing anything. When you are
working sometimes the teacher yells 'do your work!!' even though you are working, but
with computers you can learn more and not be distracted because the teachers distract
you when you are trying to work. The teachers even distract you when you are trying to
do a test. With computers you can concentrate more and can't be distracted.
Children are distracted by other students talking to them or what the teacher is doing or
wearing when their trying to teach. And children may find it hard to listen when possibly
another child is speaking. It’s even harder when you need help and the teacher is talking
with another child surroundings.
Point 2: When teachers teach, it can contain false information or personal opinions, but
computers do not make any errors and it is accurate. Using computers is way more
efficient and it saves a lot of time. Typing is way faster and neater than writing. They
also do not get offended. If your naughty you would not need to go to the principal’s
office and they won’t, you won’t hurt their feelings if you say 'you stupid computer!'
People are relying on technology more and more. Computers can be programmed, so
those people that say they have no feelings you can program them to know and have
feelings. Teachers are dependent on computers too. It takes time for teachers to get the
technology set up for a lesson, if it were a computer it can automatically do it itself.
People are creating better and better technology, it won’t be long until a computer can
program its self like a person can control itself. Then it can also have speakers to talk. In
those science fiction shows where the computer has like a zigzagged wave going across
it. That is the mouth. Computers would have that soon with our technology getting
better. Like a projector a computer could have one with it so that it projects what a
human could do. So like a holographic teacher controlled by the computer. It could be
the exact same as a teacher. The teachers that lose jobs can get one easily, their
teachers they are very smart they know stuff for a lot of subjects. It’s all fair. Some kids
hate some or all teachers not many kids like their teacher. Some kids are addicted to
video games. Like this the kids will treat it like games so then they will pay more
attention to class. Also you can find more things in the computer and you can search
more. Sometimes the teachers don't know stuff so you have a computer to help you.
Teachers barely help you. While a teacher can get frustrated, computers cannot.
Students can learn at their own pace, as well as get assignments handed back instantly.
Children can also be comfortable learning in their own environment.

Point 3: It would cost less because you would not need to go to school and so the school
would not need to pay all the teachers. Also the teachers would not have to waste their
boring years at university because we do not need teachers. It is all that simple, just go
out, buy a computer and plug it in! The Government could save hundreds of dollars just
because teachers need to be paid and computers don't. With technology moving on
rapidly soon computers will have emotion and feelings. Computers are a lot faster than
humans so students can learn faster. I think that using computers is a completely new
way of learning and I think that a change is needed. We will not need to buy lots of
books, stationary and books at the start of the year. We will not have participate in
donations for the school to buy computers because most families will have a computer of
some sort and our parents will be working and making money.

Conclusion: So now you know why i believe this and you should to. My three points
were: children would not get distracted, teachers’ personality, and less cost. 
Does your teacher know everything there is to know and recall it all with perfection?

Does your teacher know everything there is to know? Answer and recall it all with
perfection? Well think again. Computers are the future and they are quick and reliable.
Computers can also provide us way more knowledge. I am convinced for these three
reasons: Less distractions, the teacher’s personality and Less cost.

Teachers v Techies: The Big Robot Debate Robots could soon replace teachers. In fact,
not only could they replace them, but they should and will. That’s the view of two top
education technology experts, who’ll be at the OEB Debate in Berlin later this month to
argue their case that substituting artificial intelligence for real teachers will boost quality
and lead to better results. Robot teachers “never get ill, don’t forget much of what they
are taught, operate 24/7 and can deliver from anywhere to anywhere there is an
internet connection,” says Edtech entrepreneur Donald Clarke. “Unlike our brains, they
don’t sleep for eight hours a day and, in a fatal objection to human frailty, neither get
burnt out, retire nor die.” Together with his colleague, Christoph Benzmueller of Berlin’s
Free University, Mr Clarke will propose the motion that “this House believes that artificial
intelligence could, should and will replace teachers.” “The OEB debate is always lively,”
says former British MP Harold Elletson, who will chair the proceedings, “but this is likely
to be more explosive than usual. Passions are running very high about the use of
artificial intelligence in education and the idea that robots could soon do away with
teachers altogether is dynamite.” The motion will be opposed by futurist thinker Nell
Watson, the founder of ‘Poikos,’ and by Andrew Keen, author of ‘The Internet is not the
Answer’ and director of ‘salonFutureCast’. They argue that teachers have many roles,
which cannot be replaced by artificial intelligence. “I can foresee machines being
excellent coaches, perhaps better than humans,” says Watson, “but, as for replacing the
best mentors, I doubt that machines will realistically challenge the role of people in that
regard any time soon.” For Watson, ‘mentoring’ is at the heart of the relationship
between teachers and their students, and technology is already distracting from this,
creating a “testing and tracking culture.” Students, she says, are becoming “nails” with
“algorithmic hammers smashing them back into place.” “This may turn into a ‘teachers v
techies’ debate,” says Elletson, “but it’s an opportunity to kick important ideas around.
It’ll be fun, there’ll be lots of noise and, at the end of the evening, we’ll all know a lot
more about the potential for artificial intelligence in education and the issues involved in
developing it further.”