7 karma · joined July 29, 2021
And you're absolutely right re Facebook & the rest of the world doing positive reinforcement well (casinos and game-designers are what immediately come to mind for me).
You've definitely encountered some (fortunately non-crashing) bugs here that I need to look at and fix (the 22 versus 22 for instance needs to have different numbers to make sense in a lesson on operand-order equivalence for multiplication), but seems like there are also quite a few product/design tweaks I should make as well.
For the lessons jumping around --> that's actually intentional & very important for learning (though from your feedback I can see I really need to make it much clearer why so that learners don't experience it as aimless) - question-variation achieves 2 things - it pushes what the learned just covered out of they working memory (so that when they get the question again in a few moments, they need to fully reconstruct the idea in their minds), while at the same time having the learner review lessons they've learned recently (for new users, however, since I don't have any recent lessons for them yet, I'm including questions thy've likely already mastered given their level, which may need to rethink as it could be adding to that potential of aimlessness learners might have).
Thanks again, and definitely let me know if you encounter any other issues.
As for Skinner's core belief that positive reinforcement is a more effective long-term motivator for learning, I couldn't agree more, and have seen it time and time again when user-testing with kids.
I think we forget as adults just how much mental energy is needed to approach a new concept or idea. And the energy level of kids can wane very quickly when they're discouraged (never mind punishment, even just 2-3 wrong questions in a row with encouraging parents present can sap them completely). I think we also forget how earth-shattering it can be to get a question wrong - I've seen kids go from answering questions correctly no problem, to completely doubting whether they still understand even the basics of the questions they were previously getting correct.
I've found it's crucial to help build back up their confidence whenever this happens. Part of the benefit of Grokkoli is that it will immediately try to get to the core of the learner's confusion towards a given question, usually by asking troubleshooting questions that start with the simplest/easiest components of a question and build back up to the original. And a big part of why this works is that it restores kids confidence very quickly at that moment.
Once their energy is back up, kids are primed to learn, and they want to keep going. Grokkoli checks in with learners after a certain number of questions (a function of their grade-level) to see if they want to take a break. So far, I'm seeing kids opt to keep answering questions 3-5 times per session.
Englemann's ideas seem a little more complex (not as easily distillable) but every bit as interesting - I need to read more before getting back to you.
Thank you for sharing, and definitely let me know if there's anything else you recommend I look into.