I have a background in education. I’ve had a unique career that’s gone back and forth between engineering and education. I hold graduate degrees in both. I say this only as prologue.
I propose an eInk-based tablet device with both keyboard and stylus input which has network and (very) limited internet access that acts as both a textbook library, note taking device, and can be used to both receive and submit homework
While I agree with most of what you wrote, this part sticks out to me. I think the missing piece in your analysis is the human element, human neurology. The literature that’s been coming out in the years since devices were widely deployed has been pretty damning. It’s not just that the devices are distraction machines, though they certainly are that. It is that they are fundamentally, neurologically inferior methods of educating a student. It is not simply that computers are distraction engines. You can put two learners in completely distraction free environments, and ask one to learn on a tablet, and one with pencil and paper. Even with no distractions at all, the paper will be far superior.
We are physical embodied beings. A lot of tech folks like to think of themselves as some sort of disembodied soul piloting a meat robot, but that isn’t remotely how humans actually work. The body is just as much part of learning as the mind. Your mind is part of your body; and your body heavily influences your mind. Even your gut bacteria have an immense impact on your thought processes. Learning is not a passive process of absorbing information like a sponge. It requires active practice and synthesis, and the more modalities that experience occurs in, the better.
Here is how a traditional lecture works:
The teacher speaks orally and writes key notes and diagrams on the board.
The students watch, hear, and participate in the discussion.
They continually process the lesson and detect the key points.
They process the key points and summarize them mentally.
They write the key points on paper notes, requiring coordination of the logical, auditory, visual, and motor portions of the brain.
They must do this in real time if they want any permanent record of the contents of the lesson.
Here is how an electronic lecture works:
Because it’s delivered by powerpoints, there’s no constraint on the amount of content. Instructors cram too much in the slides for students to ever hope to manually copy during a lecture.
Students can’t keep up, so they reasonably ask for instructors to post their slides in advance, so students can “follow along.”
Students watch a lecture with their laptop screen up, passively watching, never needing to write or process anything as they “already have all the notes.”
If a teacher uses powerpoints of reasonable length, students will still expect slides to be given them in advance, as that’s what they’re used to in other classes. Even if you can hold firm on this, students will still have woefully underdeveloped note-taking skills, as those skills have been allowed to wither from years of powerpoint instruction.
This is a fundamental problem with the technology. Again, we’re embodied creatures. Writing with a pen and paper is more of a full body experience than using a touch screen can ever be. Tech loves to “remove friction,” but friction is the only way you ever actually learn anything.
We need to get the computers out of regular classroom instruction entirely. I’m perfectly fine with computers in a lab or library where students take computer-intensive courses (like programming or CAD), but there should be zero electronic devices employed in the lessons of core academic subjects such as mathematics, language, the sciences, and social sciences.
yes, I see what you’re talking about, and I don’t - whatsoever - disagree.
what I’m proposing is only on the student-side: an e-Ink tablet device which contains all curriculum-approved textbooks (within that student’s context) alongside note-taking capabilities (via KB or stylus), homework assignment receiving/submission capabilities as well as test/exam receiving/submission capabilities (local zone/time limited), plus other sundry capabilities as the education institution/demands see fit.
But the issue you raise is not WRT the student-held devices but WRT other tech within the tech environment and how they’re used.
My experience with this is much more recent-- my time finishing my undergrad degree and in grad school (2012-2016 at Parsons)-- studying, and you find this ironic-- UI/UX. ;)
Now, I can, first-hand, attest to how much I appreciated the instructors who took the time to add the line-by-line “reveal” effects to their powerpoints, so that they could reveal the points they were making as their lectures progressed. these were usually the instructors who had some previous instruction, themselves, in teaching. Some of the other instructors eschewed powerpoimts entirely and just used a whiteboard, or only used the projector to show us pictorial examples during off-the-cuff lectures.
nonetheless, I fully understand the point you’re making-- but this is much more a point to be made about effective teaching methods, and less a point about technology/“screens” overall, IMO-- but, still, a valid point-- just one WRT overall teaching in general today.
I’m trying to address the context of “what tech are students holding in their hands”. but what you’re saying does play into that.
systemic problems require systemic solutions. you and I are both discussing two separate branches of that system. another is these vultures of “total solution providers”, these private companies who hardly know what they’re doing, milking school districts out of tens of millions, just to provide shitty, barely functional “total solutions” that do the most damage. but I won’t even get started on Canvas or its cohorts…
No. The technology itself is the problem. Tablets and laptops are not suited for ordinary classroom instruction. I don’t care if they’re delivered by a billion dollar private equity firm or a ragtag FOSS project.
That does suggest the profit motive specifically works against the best interests of both students and teachers such that any “fit for purpose” platform is going to suffer from ill-conceived feature creep. Any suggestions on that front? I can already hear the howls of corporate overlords and political fiscal hawks at the suggestion of publicly funding such a platform.
yeah-- remove the profit motive. develop a FOSS solution by funding community-developed projects that can be shared across domains rather than farming the work out to private interests who only seek to enrich themselves. rather than selling our kids’ souls out to the corporate devil, we can do that hard work ourselves and reap our own rewards which we can then share with everyone.
edit: that’s what’s so frustrating-- doing the right thing - the solution to so many complex problems - is often so dumbfoundingly simple
That’s just publicly funding with extra layers of separation from politicians though. I’m fully behind such a plan, but I do have some concerns:
FOSS works great for the core layers, but lets be honest with ourselves for a minute, engineers suck at building interfaces that make sense to users, particularly children, and interface designers are expensive. Also I love FOSS hardware… as an enthusiast. Distribution at scale, durability, and so on are also going to be a challenge, and no having “Joe down the street with a 3D printer throw something together” is not the same as having professionally manufactured PCBs.
Vulnerability to embrace-extend-extinguish, situations like where a “Non-Profits” end up being converted to a for-profit through shady shit, means we’re going to need legal defences and people with uncommon character coordinating the project.
The nature of the modern political sphere is not conducive to plans where there isn’t a billionaire’s toady in a suit wining and dining the school board members and offering political kickbacks to run with that platform. The platform is the easy part compared to the task of getting sufficient adoption to make it viable.
These are all solvable problems but the scale of the team needed to accomplish it would be… significant. It’s achievable, but it’s not going to be easy or quick.
These are all solvable problems but the scale of the team needed to accomplish it would be… significant. It’s achievable, but it’s not going to be easy or quick.
what would it be worth otherwise? you’ve seen the result of taking “the easy way”.
Oh I know a lot of school districts, and you’re not wrong, the career educators and administrators would absolutely be on board, it’s the elected officials you have to worry about. They tend to hold the purse strings in most places.
I want to be clear, I like your vision, just from an execution perspective I’ve seen a lot of these ideas go completely off the rails before because there’s a lot of landmines to doge. You might want to start in Europe. There’s a lot more checks on corruption over there.
I have a background in education. I’ve had a unique career that’s gone back and forth between engineering and education. I hold graduate degrees in both. I say this only as prologue.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, this part sticks out to me. I think the missing piece in your analysis is the human element, human neurology. The literature that’s been coming out in the years since devices were widely deployed has been pretty damning. It’s not just that the devices are distraction machines, though they certainly are that. It is that they are fundamentally, neurologically inferior methods of educating a student. It is not simply that computers are distraction engines. You can put two learners in completely distraction free environments, and ask one to learn on a tablet, and one with pencil and paper. Even with no distractions at all, the paper will be far superior.
We are physical embodied beings. A lot of tech folks like to think of themselves as some sort of disembodied soul piloting a meat robot, but that isn’t remotely how humans actually work. The body is just as much part of learning as the mind. Your mind is part of your body; and your body heavily influences your mind. Even your gut bacteria have an immense impact on your thought processes. Learning is not a passive process of absorbing information like a sponge. It requires active practice and synthesis, and the more modalities that experience occurs in, the better.
Here is how a traditional lecture works:
Here is how an electronic lecture works:
This is a fundamental problem with the technology. Again, we’re embodied creatures. Writing with a pen and paper is more of a full body experience than using a touch screen can ever be. Tech loves to “remove friction,” but friction is the only way you ever actually learn anything.
We need to get the computers out of regular classroom instruction entirely. I’m perfectly fine with computers in a lab or library where students take computer-intensive courses (like programming or CAD), but there should be zero electronic devices employed in the lessons of core academic subjects such as mathematics, language, the sciences, and social sciences.
yes, I see what you’re talking about, and I don’t - whatsoever - disagree.
what I’m proposing is only on the student-side: an e-Ink tablet device which contains all curriculum-approved textbooks (within that student’s context) alongside note-taking capabilities (via KB or stylus), homework assignment receiving/submission capabilities as well as test/exam receiving/submission capabilities (local zone/time limited), plus other sundry capabilities as the education institution/demands see fit.
But the issue you raise is not WRT the student-held devices but WRT other tech within the tech environment and how they’re used.
My experience with this is much more recent-- my time finishing my undergrad degree and in grad school (2012-2016 at Parsons)-- studying, and you find this ironic-- UI/UX. ;)
Now, I can, first-hand, attest to how much I appreciated the instructors who took the time to add the line-by-line “reveal” effects to their powerpoints, so that they could reveal the points they were making as their lectures progressed. these were usually the instructors who had some previous instruction, themselves, in teaching. Some of the other instructors eschewed powerpoimts entirely and just used a whiteboard, or only used the projector to show us pictorial examples during off-the-cuff lectures.
nonetheless, I fully understand the point you’re making-- but this is much more a point to be made about effective teaching methods, and less a point about technology/“screens” overall, IMO-- but, still, a valid point-- just one WRT overall teaching in general today.
I’m trying to address the context of “what tech are students holding in their hands”. but what you’re saying does play into that.
systemic problems require systemic solutions. you and I are both discussing two separate branches of that system. another is these vultures of “total solution providers”, these private companies who hardly know what they’re doing, milking school districts out of tens of millions, just to provide shitty, barely functional “total solutions” that do the most damage. but I won’t even get started on Canvas or its cohorts…
No. The technology itself is the problem. Tablets and laptops are not suited for ordinary classroom instruction. I don’t care if they’re delivered by a billion dollar private equity firm or a ragtag FOSS project.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020739X.2025.2584340
All this talk of FOSS is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
That does suggest the profit motive specifically works against the best interests of both students and teachers such that any “fit for purpose” platform is going to suffer from ill-conceived feature creep. Any suggestions on that front? I can already hear the howls of corporate overlords and political fiscal hawks at the suggestion of publicly funding such a platform.
yeah-- remove the profit motive. develop a FOSS solution by funding community-developed projects that can be shared across domains rather than farming the work out to private interests who only seek to enrich themselves. rather than selling our kids’ souls out to the corporate devil, we can do that hard work ourselves and reap our own rewards which we can then share with everyone.
edit: that’s what’s so frustrating-- doing the right thing - the solution to so many complex problems - is often so dumbfoundingly simple
That’s just publicly funding with extra layers of separation from politicians though. I’m fully behind such a plan, but I do have some concerns:
FOSS works great for the core layers, but lets be honest with ourselves for a minute, engineers suck at building interfaces that make sense to users, particularly children, and interface designers are expensive. Also I love FOSS hardware… as an enthusiast. Distribution at scale, durability, and so on are also going to be a challenge, and no having “Joe down the street with a 3D printer throw something together” is not the same as having professionally manufactured PCBs.
Vulnerability to embrace-extend-extinguish, situations like where a “Non-Profits” end up being converted to a for-profit through shady shit, means we’re going to need legal defences and people with uncommon character coordinating the project.
The nature of the modern political sphere is not conducive to plans where there isn’t a billionaire’s toady in a suit wining and dining the school board members and offering political kickbacks to run with that platform. The platform is the easy part compared to the task of getting sufficient adoption to make it viable.
These are all solvable problems but the scale of the team needed to accomplish it would be… significant. It’s achievable, but it’s not going to be easy or quick.
what would it be worth otherwise? you’ve seen the result of taking “the easy way”.
deleted by creator
Oh I know a lot of school districts, and you’re not wrong, the career educators and administrators would absolutely be on board, it’s the elected officials you have to worry about. They tend to hold the purse strings in most places.
I want to be clear, I like your vision, just from an execution perspective I’ve seen a lot of these ideas go completely off the rails before because there’s a lot of landmines to doge. You might want to start in Europe. There’s a lot more checks on corruption over there.