next »

[Rayblon]

Computers; namely computer monitors, prove to cause learning through electronic devices less effective than their paper counterparts. True or false?

[Michael]

Computers; namely computer monitors, prove to cause learning through electronic devices less effective than their paper counterparts.

That appears to be more of a statement than a question..

[Rayblon]

Computers; namely computer monitors, prove to cause learning through electronic devices less effective than their paper counterparts.

That appears to be more of a statement than a question..

It's always gonna be true or false methinks.

[Michael]

In my opinion: False;

My new school this year has been issued chromebooks for student use, and we've been learning on them. Although, in a subject like Math, it makes the process slower, and paper is more beneficial at that time.

[pspeed]

I don't think it's true or false. 

For one thing, everyone learns differently.  For another, every subject/concept may require a slightly different approach.

As an anecdotal example, I occasionally like to do Sudoku puzzles.  I used to do the ones in the paper and switched to the ones on the paper's web site.  My performance improved _tremendously_.  So much so that I wrote a Sudoku app just so that I could transfer the weekend's Samurai Sudoku to a computer app and do them there.  (Samurai Sudoku is 5 regular puzzles interlocked on the corners.)

I think there are a few things at play in this particular case but they both boil down to the same thing: I don't have to write the numbers by hand.  This means that my brain doesn't have to waste time interpreting those 'imperfect' symbols but it also means that all of the numbers are the same shapes which really taps into my brain's pattern matching potential without disparity.  Eventually my newspaper switched to a different online app that went with a more hand-written feel.  I hated it.  I eventually found a different news paper that still had the original u-click app and so I play there.  (For reference: I can finish 1 and 2 star [out of 5] Sudoku puzzles in about 3 minutes.  The Saturday five stars take me about 8 minutes on average and the Friday 3 or 4 stars less than that.  Sunday's 3 stars are harder for some reason [for me] than even the Saturday 5 stars so those can take as long as 15 minutes.)

The bottom line, some things will benefit from the consistent type facing and the lack of a need to interpret 'scribbles'.  Some thing like creative writing are purported to benefit from the mind-hand-paper connection... though I still firmly believe that revision should be done on the computer because things will look more wrong in typeface than in handwriting.  I also believe that for some people this effect is more of a boon in the early drafts than any mind-hand-paper benefits would balance.

Also, from someone who learns best from diagrams, paper can't have animated diagrams so it already loses on that count.  But we're all wired a bit differently.

[Michael]

Paul, I see where you're going with things, but wow, it takes me over an hour to finish a sudoku! (Then again, I don't sit down all at once)

[pspeed]

Paul, I see where you're going with things, but wow, it takes me over an hour to finish a sudoku! (Then again, I don't sit down all at once)

You learn tricks after a while.  The 1 stars, if I even bother to do them, I try to set odd extra goals for myself just to make them more challenging.  Like that I have to do all of the 1s then all of the 2s... or that I do one number absolutely last, etc..

Maybe I should stream doing a sudoku sometime... lol.

[Rayblon]

I was always kind of biased towrd technology, but there were always things that irked me. For instance, dim the lights in your room and wave your hand in front of your monitor. focus on the the light trail it leaves behind, now wave your hand somewhere other than your monitor.

See the difference? The motion blur from the monitor is choppy whereas the motion blur outside of it is smooth. That's because computers teach you things at 60 frames per second. We as a species simply aren't accustomed to that (yet).




The answer is a very slight yes. There's a statistically anecdotal amount of evidence suggesting computers impose a steeper learning curve on subjects aboout half the time, but not by much.

[Michael]

I've heard that the normal monitor refresh rate is now about 60 FPS, while the human eye refreshes at about 20 FPS. I don't understand how that equates well; if the refresh rate of a monitor is higher than the eye, it makes  sense to me that it shouldn't appear choppy.

[pspeed]

I've heard that the normal monitor refresh rate is now about 60 FPS, while the human eye refreshes at about 20 FPS. I don't understand how that equates well; if the refresh rate of a monitor is higher than the eye, it makes  sense to me that it shouldn't appear choppy.

The human eye has no fixed refresh rate, really... and it's certainly not 20 FPS and that's easily provable.  Your peripheral vision is especially good at detecting flickering at 20 FPS.

Regarding the other, if you have an LCD monitor then there is no "off" so any jerkiness in your waving hand movement is imagined or really is detecting some refresh period of your eyes.  You can't see it when you run your hand in front of other things because they aren't bright lights.  (And anyway, those lights are also 60 hz so if you are reading by a light then the book has no advantage over the computer.)  I'd argue that the 'flickering' you think you see would happen over any background sufficiently bright enough to catch your focus instead of your hand... and is probably your hires central focus part of your retina catching hard glimpses in the semi-transparent wash of the movement.

[Rayblon]

I'd argue that the 'flickering' you think you see would happen over any background sufficiently bright enough to catch your focus instead of your hand... and is probably your hires central focus part of your retina catching hard glimpses in the semi-transparent wash of the movement.

Then this phenomenon would occur in front of a sufficiently bright fire. Time to get out the white phosphorous!