3 ms·
It's obvious to anyone that bringing screens is just bringing in distraction. And even in the fields where they may be of some benefit (maths for example) the b
by anothernewdude 5y ago
It's obvious to anyone that bringing screens is just bringing in distraction. And even in the fields where they may be of some benefit (maths for example) the benefits are so minor as to be pointless.
- KyeRussell 5y ago“it’s obvious to anyone” is not a substitution for proof and that statement makes it obvious that you’re just speaking from intuition. Screens are not inherently…anything.
- elevaet 5y agoYes, screens aren't inherently anything, but I think they're using "screens" as shorthand for the phone/social media/apps ecosystem that does have addictive qualities and is fairly well studied. Tons of good references in here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240116/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240116/ OTOH I think it's fair to say that something like an e-reader or a dumb watch has low-addictive qualities, and have screens.
- trgn 5y agoI find that a copout answer. Screens are inherently distracting. They literally flash and flicker. The devices that those screens are attached too have buttons and little jiggery bits. There's a ton of distracting software on those devices, browsers, games. The supposed learning software is all about gamification and slidey swoopy menus and other completely distracting BS. So yes, "screens" as a pars pro toto for digital learning is inherently distracting. It's only when you reduce it so far as to be meaningless, - "a screen is just some LED-lights organized in a square, how's that different from paper," - that you can say they're not.
- aufhebung 5y agoWhere he speaks from intuition I speak from personal experience. Through my entire High School experience iPads and computers were more often used to play Clash Royale or Tetris in class than used for actual work.