The idea was nice. It really looked progressive. Notebooks might have provided an ability of more interactive illustration to material. You can't overestimate the usefulness of that. No idea what went wrong. It is worth investigating, not just screaming "technology bad, booo!"

Of course the implementation should have been more slow with assessment after each iteration and with experimental groups, etc...

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There are quite some studies showing that interactivity actually decreases learning on the long term. Basically, the learner gets distracted by all the shiny buttons, looks for new information instead of incorporating the old one. This gets worse the more options are available at any given time, so the learner constantly has to make a conscious choice to keep their concentration. Comparing it with a book, there are less options and less distractions.

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev 0 points 3 days ago

That's why experiments should have been done. "Too much" is almost always bad, but if the dosage is correct then -- snap -- and everything is super cool.

It might (I am not a specialist, but absolutely sure in this regard) affect differently on different categories of students. Clever ones would profit from interactivity, more stupid ones should continue to study in a more tedious way with less distractions for unimportant nuances.

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

you learn more by having to read a whole page to find a sentence and then write your full sentence answer by hand than you do by hitting ctrl-f, ctrl-c, ctrl-v on the keyboard. You miss out on the surrounding contextual information.

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The word "notebooks" in your comment makes your point really unclear in this context. I think you might be referring to portable computers but the way it reads sounds like your referring to actual paper books

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago

Yes, I mean computers.