In 2002, Maine became the first state to implement a statewide laptop program to some grade levels. Then-governor Angus King saw the program as a way to put the internet at the fingertips of more children, who would be able to immerse themselves in information.
By that fall, the Maine Learning Technology Initiative had distributed 17,000 Apple laptops to seventh graders across 243 middle schools. By 2016, those numbers had multiplied to 66,000 laptops and tablets distributed to Maine students.
King’s initial efforts have been mirrored across the country. In 2024, the U.S. spent more than $30 billion putting laptops and tablets in schools. But more than a quarter-century and numerous evolving models of technology later, psychologists and learning experts see a different outcome than the one King intended. Rather than empowering the generation with access to more knowledge, the technology had the opposite effect.
That’s just not true. People don’t learn with pencil or computer better - a single tool does not shape the learning experience. Sure pencil has positive effects stimulating muscles while learning but it has a billion of negative effects too.
[citation needed]
It’s actual on people to cite that pencil is somehow better but somehow all research never yields any results. Hmm I wonder why. Maybe because learning efficiency doesn’t revolve around a single tool that is being used, weird I know.
[citation needed]
also: you made a claim that “People don’t learn with pencil or computer better”, and that claim needs backing up with facts.
no it’s the other way around dummy. The default state is neutrality and if you have a claim that something veers of it then you have to substantiate it.
there’s no such thing as a default assumption of “neutrality”. straight up not a thing that exists.
what does exist, and what you’re mosst likely mixing up here, is the mediocrity principle. that’s en entirely different concept and has nothing to do with “neutrality”, because no such concept exists in scientific contexts.
“neutral” is not a concept in nature, so it’s not a concept in research either.
there was for a long time a similar concept for U.S. broadcasters, where they were obligated to try and provide balanced reporting, but that also has nothing to do with research.
if you can provide a source for that “neutrality” claim, I’d be thrilled to learn something new! but for now that’s yet another [citation needed]
What are you even talking about. So you by default assume position that pencil learning is good and ask someone to disapprove it? Don’t you see flaw here? Smh
no, i don’t.
you claimed that haptic learning and digital learning are equal.
that’s the claim.
and you provided zero evidence for that claim.
claims are not true by default, just because they are “balanced” or “neutral”.
what matters is:
your claim that digital learning is at least equal to haptic learning is, by definition, the newer claim, so it needs evidence to back it up.
it must be the newer claim, because people have been learning through haptic media for literally millenia, but digital learning is a very recent development.
so claiming they are equal needs to be backed up by evidence.
or in other words: you pulled that claim out of thin air. bring the facts or get lost.
Look at this dude thinking that science is equivalent of “I said it first” lmao