[ntSean]

This has a fundamentally faulty premise that smartphones and paper are equals in delivering reading material, or that their format is preferable.

Learning platforms such as Duolingo, Brilliant, or Khan Academy very infrequently give you a wall of text to parse. This suggests, that it isn’t a necessity or preferable for comprehension.

So to me, this feels silly. As if someone is complaining that a bike hurts your ability to leisurely move at a walking pace through a park.

Why was there an expectation that it would be more ideal?

Use tools are that are appropriate for the context.

For long form text, use a context that allows you to consume slowly, whether than be an e-book or hard copy.

[dorchadas]

> This suggests, that it isn’t a necessity or preferable for comprehension.

Or, it shows that they're trying to get people to stay around and use them more. I actually really doubt Duolingo produces anyone who has true comprehension in reading a passage of text simply because it only ever asks you to translate one-off sentences (and rarely at that, it only has you click words if you're on the app!). I don't think they're optimizing for comprehension and understanding as much as they're optimizing for user engagement.

[ntSean]

They definitely optimise for user engagement. At first words, then sentences, then passages and short stories.

This pathway has been effective for me, I've been doing Duo for a few months now! Which leaves me lost in your premise of "true comprehension"?

But maybe that would mean this conversion is about semantics rather than us having a "true conversation"

[dorchadas]

If Duo ever moves on to passages and short stories, then it's only on a few of the trees, and only at the end level. I've done everything on the Irish (tested out, as I already speak it fluently) and it never rose above a few sentences being translated. And the French one that I've done so far (about half) is the same apart from the 'Stories' feature which really isn't that great as it just has you click missing words and doesn't ask about comprehension.

> Which leaves me lost in your premise of "true comprehension"?

"True comprehension" in a foreign language is, in my opinion, when you can read a full passage (not a random sentence or even something like Duo's stories) and answer questions about it. It doesn't have to be a literary passage, but it shouldn't be something as simple as "Translate to English: Mes frères sont gentils", as the French course often asks (and then only makes you pick words, not actually type). And the comprehension should be inferring something from the passage, not something you can get by just matching word patterns.

So, again, maybe DL does it later on in the French course, but it certainly isn't available in their (horrible, to be honest) Irish course.

[toyg]

> a wall of text to parse. This suggests, that it isn’t a necessity or preferable for comprehension.

No, that suggests that those platforms understand the limitations of the medium and try to work around them - with mixed results. They still have to use a modicum of text, they just build other stuff around it to reinforce meaning.

Your critique would be valid if these platforms were not using any text whatsoever - which might well happen at some point, in the distant future, but definitely is not the case now.

[ntSean]

Ironically I don’t understand why my critique must be framed in an extreme context to be valid!

Must have been because I read this comment from my mobile device. Time to get the printer going ;)