[nkrisc]

Developmentally, a 16-18 year old is very different than a child.

I don’t know whether laptops in school are bad for children, but you can’t really make that comparison.

Personally, my belief is that children should learn to use computers (I did as a child, and it was massively beneficial) but that computers should not be central to their foundational education.

Kids shouldn’t learn basic arithmetic on a computer. They should learn it with their hands, with things they can hold, and by writing.

Computers can come later when the math is far more advanced.

[exedore6]

You say that as if learning maths by hand/on paper is generally effective. Tell me that your peers aren't innumerate.

[nkrisc]

Most people have the world's knowledge in their pocket, including a calculator, and still can't tell you the original price of a $25.00 item that's 15% off. You're describing a general education problem.

I'm not saying you can't teach kids math on a computer, I'm saying I believe it's better not to.

[derefr]

One thought: if the computer is locked down into a mode where it's acting as a fancy typewriter to fill form-fields (i.e. if you're kiosked into the Blackboard worksheet "app" during the lesson), then what's the difference between learning by typing vs. "by writing"?

Another thought: "learning with their hands, with things they can hold" is nice to say, but counting blocks/geometry boards/etc are actually rather expensive (hard to have as many sets as there are kids, for several reasons), so often kids will only get a short amount of time to experience such things, rather than being able to use them as a thinking aid whenever they want until they grow out of the need for them. On the other hand, presuming each child has a computer, "learning by interactive example" — i.e. having interactive touch-enabled simulations of these same learning toys — is almost as good, and freely scalable to the entire student population, such that each child gets as much time to experiment with the simulation — and really learn the lesson of it — as they want. Including taking it home with them!

A third thought, perhaps less persuasive because I'm an outlier, but personally meaningful to me: back in the 90s, I learned PEDMAS before parentheses were even taught to us in school. I had grabbed "C for Dummies" from a grocery-store shelf — asking my mum to purchase it for me — because I knew that C was how you made video games. Instead, I ended up reading about "operator precedence" / "operator binding affinity" as a general concept. Yes, I was 9; yes, most of what I read flew right over my head. But that part stuck! And when I later — at the age of 11 — learned PHP and then Ruby, I already understood how to translate math on a page into syntax for a REPL, because I had seen the C example of how to write binding-precedence parsing. And then I did start creating (simple) game demos — and more interestingly, from-scratch game engines to power them (because toolkits like Unity weren't a thing back then), which involved more than a little bit of maths to make even the simplest physics integration steps work. (Yes, this means I understood how acceleration translates to velocity and then displacement — and so had an intuitive grasp of integrals, despite never having been exposed to them — when I was 12. I came into my pre-calc and physics classes prepared!)

[nkrisc]

> One thought: if the computer is locked down into a mode where it's acting as a fancy typewriter to fill form-fields (i.e. if you're kiosked into the Blackboard worksheet "app" during the lesson), then what's the difference between learning by typing vs. "by writing"?

There is some evidence to suggest that writing does help retain information, as multiple functions of the brain are being engaged with the same information. Whether that extends to typing and using a computer I do not know.

> Another thought: "learning with their hands, with things they can hold" is nice to say, but counting blocks/geometry boards/etc are actually rather expensive (hard to have as many sets as there are kids, for several reasons), so often kids will only get a short amount of time to experience such things, rather than being able to use them as a thinking aid whenever they want until they grow out of the need for them.

That's a failure of the education system, not an argument in favor of computers in the classroom. That problem is solvable without computers.

Lastly, kids learning how to use computers is a good thing, I do believe. I do not, however, believe that learning on computers should replace other forms of learning, especially for foundational skills.

[ceejayoz]

> One thought: if the computer is locked down into a mode where it's acting as a fancy typewriter to fill form-fields (i.e. if you're kiosked into the Blackboard worksheet "app" during the lesson), then what's the difference between learning by typing vs. "by writing"?

There's a good amount of evidence for a difference. Example study (of which there are many): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210319080820.h...

"A study of university students and recent graduates has revealed that writing on physical paper can lead to more brain activity when remembering the information an hour later. Researchers say that the unique, complex, spatial and tactile information associated with writing by hand on physical paper is likely what leads to improved memory."

[danpalmer]

I agree that developmentally children are different at that age, which is why I suggested different reasons why it may still be appropriate.

I think basic computer access at home and for homework is a pretty convincing reason. And I do agree that kids should learn to write with a pen and do maths without a calculator (/computer).