←back to thread

346 points obscurette | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.186s | source | bottom
Show context
svieira ◴[] No.42116351[source]
The key point:

> Seeing as the great majority of students spend over 80% of their digital device time using these tools to multitask, the automatic response for a great majority of students using these tools has become multitasking.. Unfortunately, when we attempt to employ digital devices for learning purposes, this primary function quickly bleeds into student behavior.

> This is why, when using a computer for homework, students typically last fewer than 6 minutes before accessing social media, messaging friends, and engaging with other digital distractions. This is why, when using a laptop during class, students typically spend 38 minutes of every hour off-task. This is why, when getting paid as part of a research study to focus on a 20-minute computerized lesson, nearly 40% of students were unable to stop themselves from multitasking. It’s not that the students of today have abnormally weak constitutions; it’s that they have spent thousands of hours training themselves to use digital devices in a manner guaranteed to impair learning and performance. It’s also that many of the apps being run on those devices were carefully engineered to pull young people away from whatever they were doing.

> And perhaps this is the key point: I’m not saying that digital technologies can’t be used for learning; in fact, if these tools were only ever employed for learning purposes, then they may have proven some of the most important academic inventions ever. The argument I’m making is that digital technologies so often aren’t used for learning that giving students a laptop, tablet, or other multi-function device places a large (and unnecessary) obstacle between the student and the desired outcome. In order to effectively learn while using an unlocked, internet-connected multi-function digital device, students must expend a great deal of cognitive effort battling impulses that they’ve spent years honing - a battle they lose more often than not. (of course schools do often try to implement blockers and restrictions, but this opens up an eternal cat-and-mouse struggle, and the mice are very good at finding ways to evade the cat.)

replies(3): >>42116391 #>>42116469 #>>42117104 #
crimsoneer ◴[] No.42116391[source]
The interesting follow-up here... there is no reason these effects should be restricted to children. Like, if children can't learn with devices in a classroom, it suggests executives can't learn in an office (and might give a hint as to why we haven't seen expected productivity benefits driven by it).

But again, if the effect was this strong, I'd really expect to see broader evidence (even just at a national level based of digital uptake).

replies(5): >>42116471 #>>42116491 #>>42116493 #>>42116606 #>>42116715 #
1. forgetfreeman ◴[] No.42116493[source]
There have been consistent reporting for two decades that screens are leading to measurable reductions in attention span. Three decades of reports linking the internet and digital culture with mental health issues. What evidence is missing?
replies(3): >>42116618 #>>42116659 #>>42120720 #
2. crimsoneer ◴[] No.42116618[source]
I'd be particularly keen on evidence affecting primary outcomes - eg, are people genuinly more productive or healthier. Attention span is an interesting metric, but if it doesn't directly affect how much work you can do or the quality of it in a meaningful way, I am less fussed.
replies(1): >>42117775 #
3. kazinator ◴[] No.42116659[source]
People with an Internet- connected screen appear to have a short attention span because they have instant access to a multitude of things that they're interested in, competing for their attention with whatever you want them to be focusing on.

That what you want them to be focusing on is no longer the path of least boredom like it was in the previous era; the path of least boredom goes through their mobile device.

People's ability and willingness to concentrate on something that interested in has not changed one iota. That sort of biological change takes hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

Observations of the behavior of people interacting with tech can easily support the wrong argument that people's attention spans have increased. Just look at how somebody can play the same game for 11 hours straight, right?

replies(1): >>42117793 #
4. forgetfreeman ◴[] No.42117775[source]
Given reports on multitasking consistently show it degrades performance this kinda seems like a slam dunk?
5. forgetfreeman ◴[] No.42117793[source]
> People with an Internet- connected screen appear to have a short attention span because they have instant access to a multitude of things that they're interested in, competing for their attention with whatever you want them to be focusing on.

This is incorrect. There have been repeated studies that show a distinct decline in individuals ability to consume and process long-form text. Folks brains are literally remodeling towards ADHD-like behaviors.

replies(1): >>42119929 #
6. kazinator ◴[] No.42119929{3}[source]
But that's more like a developmental situation in the individual having to do with their education.

I would expect, say, individuals not going to school past grade two showing a declined ability to multiply 12 by 11.

People's handling of long form text may be off from several decades ago, but it's still better than their illiterate ancestors 500 years ago.

replies(1): >>42120850 #
7. j45 ◴[] No.42120720[source]
I suspect it's not screens alone, but whether one is creating with screens or consuming with them. Different parts of the brain.
8. forgetfreeman ◴[] No.42120850{4}[source]
It has literally nothing to do with education. It's the brain's own neuroplasticity responding to overstimulation:

https://longevity.stanford.edu/lifestyle/2024/05/30/what-exc...