Hacker News Reader

Comment by zmmmmm | Hacker News Reader

heh ... i'm frustrated that the schools my kids are going to aren't embracing this tech. the applications in education are absolutely mind blowing.

View on HN

I'd be happy with reliable HVAC and enough books to go around. AR headsets seem a bit frivolous.

With all this future tech, maybe we'll be able to get the mold and structural issues sorted out soon...

"AI-powered mold removal"

You see, the "struggle" in learning that comes from trying to form concepts out of text you read from books or from teacher's voices you listen in school instead of a complete audiovisual intuitive feed like VR will provide, is actually necessary. Your children will get impaired if they don't build the skill to learn from non-tech methods. Schools in India (and mostly Asia) enforce chalkboard and pen-and-paper methods of instruction at all levels, and I believe kids are better off for it. Ed-tech had insane hype in India at one point, with startup players getting billion-dollar evaluations, and it turned out to be a massive bubble that burst and broke the country's startup economy. I believe one of the main reason for that is that ed-tech solutions simply aren't as effective as they are imagined to be.

Ed-tech will not work in schools until people (teachers) learn to use technology properly. Simply putting on videos for kids (as you say) cannot replace all the skills the traditional model gives us.

No. I am saying the opposite. The better edtech gets and the better "experiences" it provides, the worse it will be for the children's development as they will impair their ability to think and learn for themselves. Learning from reading and writing is superior because it enforces higher conscious engagement at the part of the students. The friction and struggles are important.

What you are saying will make them consume information, not learn.

Reading and writing don't necessarily enforce higher conscious engagement than any other medium. Take for example music: one can read about how a musical instrument works, even write about how a musical instrument works, but neither is remotely comparable to the conscious engagement required to play the instrument.

I grew up around the golden age of 'edutainment' produced by publishers such as Dorling Kindersley. They released books with full-colour illustrations, video cassettes, interactive computer software and games on specific topics that all complemented each other. What's particularly special about this is how the same information can be taught effectively to different children, each with their own unique characteristics. The curriculum is consistent even though the leaning style is allowed to vary. So yes, the struggles are important, but there's no reason to miss the opportunity to learn in another way while one overcomes these struggles.

I enjoyed DK encyclopedias in my childhood too. Also had a full set of Britannica CDs. But do these qualify as ed-tech when they are not being used institutionally? Wasn't the original comment about using VR/AR solutions in classrooms?

I can see both sides of the coin here. There's huge potential for both beneficial educational applications as well as huge potential for manipulation and getting people hooked on attention stealing technology.

What are the applications in ed?

Things like Titans of Space [0] and Wooorld [1] are good examples. The sweet spot is apps that let you physically experience things that are otherwise impossible as a learning experience, rather than trying to understand it as dry abstract concepts.

[0] https://www.meta.com/en-gb/experiences/titans-of-space-plus/...

[1] https://www.meta.com/en-gb/experiences/wooorld/4360608937312...

You can turn almost any abstract concept into a hands on experience. Imagine learning any mathematical concept as a liveable experience.

I was under the impression VR is really bad for kids eyes.

I've had the same concerns about mobile phones, tablets, and computer screens. In fact, mobile phones and tablets seem to have an even greater addiction factor, and their smaller screens could be more harmful due to prolonged close-up use [1].

[1] "Ocular and visual discomfort associated with smartphones, tablets and computers: what we do and do not know" (2019) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14343924602923438...

If you put kids in them 8 hours a day, it would be a concern (although I don't think there is substantive evidence either way yet). I think there's a safe middle ground where using something like this for up to couple of hours in a day at most is very unlikely to have any significant effect. It's just not enough fraction of the time to cause a major impact, especially older kids (teens).

I don't know, that seems like a lot of assumptions about an unproven technology.

we are already several years into millions of kids using VR headsets. I would say it may not be "proven" but it's also well beyond completely "unproven" in that if there were major effects we would definitely be seeing them organically by now.

That's why Meta tells users not to let children below 10 years use their headsets. And those between 10 and 12 should not use it for more than 2 hours per day.

Not to equate them, but as a counterpoint, that's not how it worked out with cigarettes.

It is known pretty early on Cigarettes are harmful, we just ignored it because.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com