Japan Today
national

Japan to allow schools to exclusively use digital textbooks from 2030

57 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Why the 5 year wait?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Mr Kipling,

That was my exact thought too. In five years time, digital textbooks are going to be like faxes are today. Why are government agencies so sloooooooooow?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Digital textbooks are a pure mistake.

Nothing better than a textbook to concentrate on learning,.

And spending a day on reading digital texts makes the brain more tired.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

AI teachers are on the way. Soon, only the homeroom teacher will be necessary to babysit the class who will be taught each subject by AI which has the entirety of human knowledge at its disposal and which can explain things more efficiently and effectively. 2nd language acquisition classes will have AI partners to role play scenarios with and provide conversation partners who are clear, competent and at whatever level that best suits each student's needs. Digital textbooks are just the beginning.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Already some countries are moving away from digitale textbooks due health issues and the poor concentration students have.

Japan is again to late

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Pure nonsense, only printed textbooks and dictionaries etc will bring results, for many reasons, but especially because they address more senses, like the specific book's touch, the smell, own handwritten side notes and so on. Digital versions can only be useful as an exception, if a student has forgotten to bring his printed exemplar to school.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Pick up a real book! All these tablets and screens are just an excuse to have one glued to your hand, so when you become an adult you'll be pinged all the time, and you can't live without it. Books don't need electricity, don't break, we can get them wet, the screen doesn't break, and guess what.......you don't need stupid cables, and we don't need to swipe. I can open my book ten times faster than powering up and recharging a tablet. I can drop it a thousand times and never have to worry. It's just a scam by companies selling junk to the government. With books, I can build a great library, enjoy the artwork on the covers, and walk past all the books I've read, maybe pick one up again, the touch, the smell, and flip open a random page. How many tablets will be around in 20,30.40 years for the next kid to pick up and read a book? Zero! And more importantly, I can give you a paper book! (for free), or even sell it, and it'll still be there in 100 years or recycled, and no E-waste anywhere to be seen.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Bad idea. Could work for college books but I don't it's a good idea for es, jhs and hs.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"Japan to allow schools to exclusively use digital textbooks from 2030."

And still we will continue complaining about our youths bad eye sight.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Our local High Schools here in my US small city have been digital for 5 or more years. The kids have a choice to get textbooks if they choose.

I favor using the actual books, but then, I'm old (8-). I even think the work of carrying the books to and from school is good for the kids.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Already some countries are moving away from digitale textbooks due health issues and the poor concentration students have.

For sure, this can be expected, and I wonder why politicians and administrations do decide such policies.

Have those politicians tried to learn from a digital textbook, Never

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Books have no replacement. Electronic learning doesn’t come close to book learning. Actually needing to read and not summarize or be entertained.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Soon, only the homeroom teacher will be necessary to babysit the class who will be taught each subject by AI which has the entirety of human knowledge at its disposal and which can explain things more efficiently and effectively.

Sorry but no, not even close. https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/1i4a97w/water_is_not_frozen_at_27_degrees/

Even second language teaching (that should be easier since it does not even depend on AI) shows a drop on quality when AI is introduced, as users of services like Duolingo complain about.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Students can write notes to annotate their digital books - this is ability is not exclusive to paper books. And looking at screens does not in and of itself cause nearsightedness; a lack of UV exposure and subsequent low levels of melatonin are the main driver of the myopia epidemic (which could be largely cured with more time spent outdoors). That all said, tablets are a great distraction as children open other apps, or simply enjoy zooming in and out instead of focusing on their work.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Does language even need to be taught anymore? I mean, sure, it's great as a hobby, and some people might need it, but I can probably count on one hand the number of students I have taught English to that use it in any meaningful way, and I've taught a lot of students.

AI may not be perfect, but it's getting better day by day, and it's good enough for most daily language needs.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Does language even need to be taught anymore?

Unless you expect people to learn completely by themselves that would be a hard yes. That is how everybody learns, by being taught by family, teachers, social interaction, etc.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sorry but no, not even close.

Time will prove me correct...again

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I love books, but I also like digital ones. My iPad has more than 1,000 books, and I listen to audiobooks when cooking. Books are good, and I have quite a collection of oversized art books with beautiful paintings. When I see tiny children struggling to school with those heavy bags, I wonder how many books they are carrying.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Tick tock...Tick tock...Tick tock...

The writing is on the wall

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240221/p2a/00m/0na/018000c

Classroom AI promises personalized learning, saved time for staff, students:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/10/af3be9aa244b-ai-robots-may-lend-hand-in-japans-english-classes.html

Schools in Japan turn to AI robots for help with English classes

https://techhq.com/2023/07/how-is-ai-education-coming-to-japanese-schools/

Japanese schools prioritising AI education

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Time will prove me correct...again

In how many centuries? when you depend on crystal ball arguments you are conceding the current situation simply do not support your predictions, so you have to say things will change in the future.

Classroom AI promises personalized learning, saved time for staff, students:

A completely different thing from your first claim where teachers would supposedly become irrelevant. Not to mention that this is about "AI promises..." Technology provides example not only of successes, but also many different failures, and most venture companies end up never delivering in their promises.

Currently AI is unable to reliably provide correct answers, and it is already being polluted by wrong data that is including in its training (with no realistic solution in view for the problem). Pretending this will be solved no matter what is not a claim based on reality, more like wishful thinking (and blindly believing those that want to profit from AI and need to push it for everything).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As someone with experience in academic libraries I do hope that districts shy away from going all digital. With different learning styles students need a variety of learning materials including print, ebooks and increasingly audiobooks.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Currently AI is unable to reliably provide correct answers,

I've seen ALTs unable to explain the subjunctive mood...in English, let alone Japanese.

AI can do so accurately in less than a second...in both languages

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I've seen ALTs unable to explain the subjunctive mood...in English, let alone Japanese.

AI can do so accurately in less than a second...in both languages

So you plan to replace competent teachers with something that is worse than incompetent ALTs?

You were trying to argue how AI could replace teachers, are you lowering now the standards to argue it can only replace people that are obviously bad at their work? That is like saying that AI can replace doctors because you have seen some that can't even read an EKG strip.

Ai is still completely unreliable, and corruption of the data used for training is projected to make the problem much worse without any practical or realistic way to solve it (since there is no way to eliminate AI produced data to train AI). Plenty of examples to show unconceivable mistakes being still common, I have never seen a teacher explaining how water will freeze at 32F, but remain liquid at 27F.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So you plan to replace competent teachers with something that is worse than incompetent ALTs?

I don't plan on doing anything...

You were trying to argue how AI could replace teachers, are you lowering now the standards to argue it can only replace people that are obviously bad at their work? 

No one said anything about "only", only that AI already outperforms most teachers in terms of accuracy and efficiency in terms of time...as well as the ability to accommodate and service students with varying abilities in a single classroom by acting as both teacher and interactive partner (something a single person is unable to do, and something by which students get confused and stumped when paired up with equally deficient learners to perform a given task)

Mewl all you like about the inevitable...but the writing is on the wall. I'm in education and have been for more than 30 years. We are already using interactive AI in the classroom and getting training on more and more AI technologies as they become available.

Mewl on...Ferris Mewler...It's happening despite your milquetoast whimpers about it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I don't plan on doing anything...

So you are **suggesting **to replace competent teachers with something that is worse than incompetent ALTs?

 one said anything about "only"

When the best example you could find to compare with AI are incompetent people that is what you are arguing.

If someone came here to say his invention can replace automobiles, and then, to make his point, compares his invention with steam-powered cars of the 19th century, what else is there to interpret than the person have such a low confidence that he has to use the worst example he could find in order to have an argument.

AI already outperforms most teachers in terms of accuracy and efficiency in terms of time...as well as the ability to accommodate and service students with varying abilities in a single classroom by acting as both teacher and interactive partner

Any source for this? because you are making a claim nobody has made, AI can (under heavy supervision) facilitate single tasks, not everything a teacher can do. It is as valid as saying a scientific calculator can replace a math teacher since it can solve equations faster and without any mistake

Mewl all you like about the inevitable...but the writing is on the wall.

when you depend on crystal ball arguments you are conceding the current situation simply do not support your predictions, so you have to say things will change in the future. (for sure, because just trust me bro)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

AI has already been implemented in classrooms throughout Japan. Teachers have received training in AI technologies to be used in classrooms. These technologies are not going away. They will be used more and more, the more classroom applicable they become.

PS. The above is not a prediction but a schooling on MEXT’s stated initiatives:

New School Guidelines in Japan, issued by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), place a high priority on integrating artificial intelligence (AI) education into schools nationwide.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

AI has already been implemented in classrooms throughout Japan.

Yet no report about it replacing any teacher, strangely similar to calculators being used in classrooms around the world without math teachers being replaced.

These technologies are not going away

Yeah, same claim as pagers and palm pilots, they were never to go away, until they did.

The above is not a prediction but a schooling on MEXT’s stated initiatives:

So strange that the initiative mentions absolutely nothing about making teachers necessary only to babysit the students and instead treat it exactly as what it is, a limited tool that can be exploited as long as is used properly by the teachers.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yet no report about it replacing any teacher

That bit was a prediction…

based on what I’ve seen in the classroom to date, which is how effective and efficient AI centered learning works in the 2nd language acquisition field. We are now in the infancy stage of AI classroom application and already all the teacher has to do is direct the students to their tasks and related goals. The interactive AI does all the rest. Considering that AI is at its “Pong” stage, it’s not hard to imagine the “direct the students to their tasks and goal” role becoming that of AI rather than the teacher’s. One can easily envision the role of teacher simply becoming an overseer who “babysits” the class to ensure they’re studying rather than playing or sleeping.

Yes, this is a prediction…based on what I’ve seen, heard, read and have been trained on through MEXT’s directive…directly.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

For the 2017 academic year exams, 291 errors had been reported by 153 universities - or 20 per cent of all universities nationwide - as of November 2017.

TOKYO (THE YOMIURI SHIMBUN/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - A series of errors were unearthed in the second round of entrance exams held in February last year by Osaka University and Kyoto University, which later announced they would accept an additional 47 applicants as a result.

Kyoto University is one of Japan’s elite universities. Entrance exams are checked, double checked and triple checked prior to printing, yet elite educators are prone to not only making mistakes but overlooking them consistently.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That bit was a prediction…

And that bit is the one that I am criticizing and you trying to defend. An exaggeration that has no real possibility to happen in the foreseeable future.

We are now in the infancy stage of AI classroom application

And as in all infancies this is something that can go very differently by unexpected factors, so there is no real value in getting fixated only on the best case scenario as if nothing could go wrong (including better technologies replacing AI).

Yes, this is a prediction…based on what I’ve seen, heard, read and have been trained on through MEXT’s directive…directly.

Appeals to authority from anonymous accounts are not relevant. If someone came here to say this is a fad that has already been decided to be abandoned in 2 to 3 fiscal years no matter the results, would you simply trust this claim? what if the person says this is based on his personal experience in the committees that decide such matters? would this appeal constitute an argument?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Kyoto University is one of Japan’s elite universities. Entrance exams are checked, double checked and triple checked prior to printing, yet elite educators are prone to not only making mistakes but overlooking them consistently.

So people can be as bad as AI, that does that all the time (with the euphemism of "Hallucinations"). If anything this would indicate that the persistent problems with AI are unlikely to ever be solved since this would depend on people not making (and not overlooking) problems before the corruption of source materials for the training of AI makes the process progressively more unreliable and prone to further mistakes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Appeals to authority from anonymous accounts are not relevant

The appeal to authority fallacy applies to an argument. I’ve simply cited MEXT’s directive vis a vis AI application in the classroom, which can be verified via MEXT.

My argument is that as a result of MEXT’s directive, along with the advance of AI technologies, more and more of those technologies will be implemented in Japanese classrooms. I also contend that among those technologies will be AI teachers…That is my argument. What MEXT’s initiatives and directives are…are a matter of fact, on which I’ve based my conclusions.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

So people can be as bad as AI, 

Elite educators, not just flunky ALTs, can be and are worse than AI in some cases.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The appeal to authority fallacy applies to an argument. I’ve simply cited MEXT’s directive vis a vis AI application in the classroom, which can be verified via MEXT.

Not at all, you explicitly tried to use a supposed personal experience (training) that nobody can verify, that is the appeal to authority fallacy. If you recognize this as being worthless that is fine as well, anybody can try to argue about their supposed experience as well and it would have the same lack of value.

 I also contend that among those technologies will be AI teachers…That is my argument. 

No, that is your claim, not an argument since it completely depends on a personal prediction about what the future will be, without any further argument to support it.

Elite educators, not just flunky ALTs, can be and are worse than AI in some cases.

In some cases means that AI is worse in the rest of the cases.

And once again this also means that it is even less likely that the problems that are projected to happen with AI training will be ever solved, after all even the elite makes mistakes, and the window of opportunity before training data becomes completely inadequate (since it already been contaminated with AI produced content) is also closing quickly.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Not at all, you explicitly tried to use a supposed personal experience (training) that nobody can verify, that is the appeal to authority fallacy.

This from MEXT:

the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is actively promoting training programs for teachers to enhance their understanding and application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the classroom,

I'm such a teacher who has received such training.

I work at Tokyo Univerisity of Agrucilture's Third High School, Higashimatsuyama Saitama

Anyone can verify whether or not we've received training in the application of AI technologies in the classroom.

I enjoin you to call our administration to ask such a question. You'll find our admin staff courteous and accommodating.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

In some cases means that AI is worse in the rest of the cases.

Not necessarily. It could also mean that in some cases AI is better than elite educators while in others AI could be just the same, i.e. a teacher could teach a student that 2+2=4, just as AI could.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm such a teacher who has received such training.

Someone that claimed that during training the text was treated as an exaggeration not to be taken seriously would have an argument of the same value, none. This would still be the same if someone came saying they provide the training and that they explicitly tell people this is at much a tool, and a very limited one so people should not expect much of it. Once again, things that are not possible to be verified have no value as argument. If this person gives the name of an institution where training is given, would that change the value of this claim? obviously not. It would required identification, without proof of credentials that can be confirmed this becomes again just hearsay, so it is irrelevant as an argument.

Anyone can verify whether or not we've received training in the application of AI technologies

Yet your claim do not depend on receiving the training, but what you personally claim is being done on the training, and predictions that you say are based on it.

I enjoin you to call our administration to ask such a question.

Wait, so you think people can just call an institution because an anonymous person on the internet mentions their name and ask "Are you saying teachers are going to be replaced by AI? because someone on the internet said so"? That makes no sense. Specially when not even the name of the school is written properly.

What if someone said he called and the school said it was false? is that an argument?

That is why verifiable references are necessary, not hearsay from anonymous accounts.

Not necessarily

Realistically speaking that has no chance to be correct, and less and less likely the more time it passes thanks to the countdown until improvement by training becomes realistically impossible.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

 I also contend that among those technologies will be AI teachers…That is my argument. 

No, that is your claim, not an argument since it completely depends on a personal prediction about what the future will be, without any further argument to support it.

Incorrect...as usual.

My argument is based on MEXT's explicitly stated directive to implement...and I quote

"the application of AI technologies in the classroom"

along with the certainty that AI technologies will improve...ergo my argument is (I'll highlight it for those who find such things difficult to identify):

Due to the Ministry of Education's directive to implement AI technologies in the classroom and the fact that AI technologies are adready being used in the classroom and are advancing in terms of classroom applicability, I deduce that, more and more, AI will assume the role of educator in the Japanese classroom.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

My argument is based on MEXT's explicitly stated directive to implement...and I quote

Not incorrect, your source do nothing to support your argument, IT can clearly be interpreted as a limited tool without nothing in your quote contradicting this perfectly valid interpretation.

along with the certainty that AI technologies will improve

That claim is still unsupported, AI may or not improve, (it can be peaking already) that do not means it will be able to make teachers unnecessary in the classroom as you claimed. It is definitely not certain that AI will improve beyond the point of being a tool. Your deductions are not arguments since other people can "deduce" different things from the same source.

For example MEXT information (and training) is available nationally, with thousands of people being informed about it, so it is not unreasonable to think that at least few of those people, that are very present online would reach the same deductions if they were justified. Yet I can not find anyone with identifiable credentials claiming AI will "certainly" represent a huge change in the paradigm of teaching, just repeating the same, that it is being promoted without any guarantee about the results.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Your deductions are not arguments since other people can "deduce" different things from the same source.

Then they would have a different argument, a weak one.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

your source do nothing to support your argument

) that do not means it will be able to make teachers unnecessary in the classroom 

LMFAO! Looks like you’re in need of an AI proofreader.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Then they would have a different argument, a weak one.

Well, that is the same one you have, a personal opinion about something that do not support that claim. Same strength.

So, no source where anybody else out of thousands that have been trained with MEXT materials support your personal opinion? that is telling.

LMFAO! Looks like you’re in need of an AI proofreader.

Imagine that, giving up trying to use arguments and instead "arguing" grammar, it is common for people that recognize lack of ability to defend their points to stop doing it and focus on irrelevant things. Probably AI will soon begin to "discuss" in this invalid way as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20231102/p2a/00m/0sc/026000c

“A Chiba prefectural high school began experimenting with an AI-based English conversation practice system in September as a possible solution to the speaking skills barrier, considered a particularly tough learning hurdle among the four major language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking). 

The system uses AI to determine conversation content based on the student's level of spoken English. A high school student who has tried the system said, "I was able to talk naturally, and I want to speak more."

This is just the beginning

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

something that do not support that claim.

It’s not a claim. It’s a prediction based on MEXT’s initiative and the supposition that AI will advance and become more applicable in the classroom.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Imagine that, giving up trying to use arguments and instead "arguing" grammar

I’d already made my argument. There was nothing more to add.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230923/p2a/00m/0na/015000c

Junior high students in Japan city to use generative AI for English conversation practice

>

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is just the beginning

Blackberry said the same, still crystal ball arguments that means there is no actual current basis to assume this.

It’s not a claim. It’s a prediction based on MEXT’s initiative and the supposition that AI will advance and become more applicable in the classroom.

That is the claim you make, that the MEXT materials inevitably lead to that prediction, even if nobody else have done such out of thousands that have know about it.

I’d already made my argument. There was nothing more to add.

That is the point, when you have nothing to add against the arguments that refute yours it is good enough to stop, but to make off topic comments or begin to criticize the grammar indicate you are not willing to accept it so you have to say something even if not an argument.

Junior high students in Japan city to use generative AI for English conversation practice

Exactly, nothing more than a tool for one specific task, a very long way of replacing a professional that make a very wide variety of such tasks every day at work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

when you have nothing to add against the arguments that refute yours it is good enough to stop, 

Nothing you've said refuted my argument.

a very long way of replacing a professional that make a very wide variety of such tasks every day at work.

How long, only time will tell. "Very long" is as much a guess as "soon" is.

The point I was making was that AI is already being used in the Japanese classroom.

My argument is that it will not only continue being used but it will be used more and more...until eventually it will have replaced all but the overseer function of the homeroom teacher. Now, to be clear for the deliberately obtuse among those coming across this thread, this is an argument of prediction...that is...I predict this will happen based on MEXT's directive of implementing AI technologies in the classroom and the supposition that AI will improve and thus make it more efficient and more applicable in terms of assuming the role of educator in the classroom.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Blackberry said the same

Compare Blackberry's capabilities with those of the latest Smartphone

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That is the claim you make, that the MEXT materials inevitably lead to that prediction, even if nobody else have done such out of thousands that have know about it.

MEXT's initiatives are clearly written for anyone to read. Thousands need not say a word about that to make that so.

the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is actively promoting training programs for teachers to enhance their understanding and application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the classroom

These words "actively promoting...for...the application of AI technologies in the classroom" don't require a single person out of billions to utter a single word about them for them to exist.

It's up to you to come up with a directive from MEXT that contradicts their statement that they are promoting training programs for teachers to enhance their understanding and application of AI technologies.

I've based my argument on their initiative along with the "likelihood" of AI advancing in terms of classroom applicability.

What's your argument? "Well...uh...er...what about the Blackberry?"

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Incorrect...as usual.

Shocking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing you've said refuted my argument.

Everything you refuse to address do, from the invalidity of considering a subjective interpretation as the only one to the lack of any other person reaching the same conclusions from the same materials.

How long, only time will tell. "Very long" is as much a guess as "soon" is.

Again, crystal ball arguments means you have nothing to support your claim in the current situation, that is my point that there is no basis for this conclusion you are fixated with, no available capabilities that would come much sooner than what is necessary for AI to actually do all the tasks of a teacher.

*The point I was making was that AI is already being used in the Japanese classroom.*

As a limited tool, like calculators.

*My argument is that it will not only continue being used but it will be used more and more...until eventually it will have replaced all but the overseer function of the homeroom teacher.*

Which again is not an argument because it proves nothing, it is a prediction for which you could use actual arguments to prove but you have not because is only a completely personal opinion. Is like saying that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor, that is not an argument is a claim, and when it is based on "is the flavor that I like the most so I think is the best" then that means is just a personal belief.

*I predict this will happen *based on MEXT's directive

Which is not an argument either since there is nothing in the directive that allows this prediction and many different factors that indicate the opposite, from the current bottlenecks in development of new capabilities to the contamination of training materials with products of AI. Arguments that again you are trying to ignore precisely because they disprove what you want to believe, ignoring these arguments means they remain valid and refute your prediction. A prediction that once more is not shared by anybody else that has been trained in the same materials.

Compare Blackberry's capabilities with those of the latest Smartphone

Blackberry has no longer importance in communications or development of technology, if your point is that AI will be treated in the future like Blackberry is treated right now then that is correct, but nobody can validly claim it dominates anything.

MEXT's initiatives are clearly written for anyone to read. Thousands need not say a word about that to make that so.

But that nobody in thousands share your views do say something. Specially when lots of people like to talk about these kind of directives when they are implemented.

These words "actively promoting...for...the application of AI technologies in the classroom" don't require a single person out of billions to utter a single word about them for them to exist.

But they don't support your personal opinion about their meaning, they don't mean what you think they mean, promoting the application of a tool do not mean the tool is projected to replace more functions than what it already have, nor it says that the application will end up being successful, much less transformative.

I've based my argument on their initiative 

You based your opinion, not an argument.

What's your argument? "Well...uh...er...what about the Blackberry?"

My argument is that there have always be people saying "just wait and see" only for them to be completely wrong. Plenty of examples of that are available.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Blackberry has no longer importance in communications or development of technology,

Yes, it's been replaced by more advanced, superior technology.

You based your opinion, not an argument.

Wrong.

My opinion is that AI will eventually replace "teachers" in their role as the educator in the classroom.

My argument is "This will ocurr as a result of MEXT's directive regarding the "application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the classroom...along with advances in AI technology, specifically in terms of classroom applicability...in other words...the capacity to teach, give instructions, correct wrong answers, clarify explanations and provide interactive capabilities congruent with each individual student's level and specific needs."

My opinion is followed by my argument.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

My argument is that there have always be people saying "just wait and see" only for them to be completely wrong. Plenty of examples of that are available.

Your argument is "there have always been people who are wrong...ergo, you are wrong".

There have also been plenty of people who have been proven to be right after having been told otherwise.

Your argument is faulty.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If this is a means of allowing the kids to walk to and from school without having to carry so much stuff with them, its a reason to support digital books. Honestly, I think there are great benefits of print books that cannot be replaced, but when used properly, digital counterparts can do just fine. I'd like to see certain parts of books replaced by multimedia that can be accessed by QR code, meaning students could access things like audio for listening practice, video or high-definition images for sciences and social studies, and so on. That way, the books can be halved in size, but actually contain more content. QR codes also mean that the media content they link to can be easily updated and replaced as necessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, it's been replaced by more advanced, superior technology.

Even when the owners said the best was still to come, it happens no matter how convinced the people that support it may thing.

My argument is "This will ocurr as a result of MEXT's directive 

That is still not an argument because this is not something objective that anybody can simply accept. It is still your opinion.

An argument would be for example:

"AI will be very successful because MEXT decided to direct people to focus on it and use it, and it previously have worked this way, for example like the time MEXT decided to fund and support the SCARDA project 3 years ago to focus on the development of drugs and vaccines against covid and we all can see how this ended up in dozens of new vaccines..."

An argument is not based on how you feel about something that is written, specially when you use the text to conclude something that is not written in them, an argument would be when you use evidence of past successes (or failures) to argue how this time the same thing will happen again.

Your opinion about the future is followed only by your opinion about the importance of a directive, not by an argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your argument is "there have always been people who are wrong...ergo, you are wrong".

That is completely incorrect, the argument is that there have always been people that have turned up wrong even if they were convinced to be right, ergo it does not matter how convinced you are AI will replace teachers on the classroom you can still be wrong and there are no guarantees.

The argument for this to be wrong (not just possibly wrong) is that apparently nobody reading the same materials is as convinced, and the problems AI is already facing to have a reliable performance outside of single tasks in a controlled environment.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites