Mark HurstNow THAT's a headline.
"The U.S. spent $30 billion to ditch textbooks for laptops and tablets: The result is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents"
luca@markhurst My totally unfounded opinion is that any tentative to enrich didactics with totally new "special effects", "added interaction", etc., has had the finally effect of disrupting *attention*.
They've lost the basic attention that's needed to follow a (boring) old book, because they've found the /entertaining/ part of the process more interesting.
Who writes educational texts should follow a good course on psychology of communication.
They've lost the basic attention that's needed to follow a (boring) old book, because they've found the /entertaining/ part of the process more interesting.
Who writes educational texts should follow a good course on psychology of communication.
skuaLet's put your post up on the networked smart screens and student's tablets, and then look at whether it fits with the synergies between genAI in education, so called "individual learning plans", flooding teachers with adminstrative paperwork and removing music, fine art and crafts from the curriculum?
/(Is this marking the end of a sarcastic post? So hard to be sure these days)
@skua Oh yes, I still think it fits well: too much attention would be lost on side "enriching" content, than payed to main subject.
I mean, it's a good thing explaining with examples and collateral facts that may help getting into the subject. I love that. However, beyond some limits, the focus may be moved.
LLM responses are then of a specialized kind, where with many well combined words, you fool your interlocutor to always be right and well informed. This is another very complex issue.