Re:Sweden goes back to basics, swapping screens for books in...
by chowells on Thursday April 02, 2026 @06:10PM
(#47620825)
"Progress is at fault" only is a criticism of the criticism if it's actually progress. What if actually being forced to slow down and think about a thing is what actually makes you learn it, and anything designed to optimize a process removes its educational value? If that were true, would "EdTech" still be progress?
Re:Sweden goes back to basics, swapping screens for books in...
by fc417fc802 on Thursday April 02, 2026 @06:29PM
(#47621027)
I imagine it would depend case by case on exactly what parts were optimized and how. Presumably it's possible to optimize for more time spent thinking as well as for thinking about more useful things.
Re:Sweden goes back to basics, swapping screens for books in...
by fc417fc802 on Thursday April 02, 2026 @06:25PM
(#47620987)
> "Progress is at fault" is a tale as old as time
Worth noting that all of those examples are adjacent to the industrial revolution. At least personally I don't know enough to have perspective on cottage production but I imagine daily life must have been quite different 1000 years ago.
I have several friends who work in education.
At one point there were computer labs in school, there was education around computing. The pervasiveness of computing killed these programs, along with various kinds of skill based classes, like wood/auto/home economics (cooking and or sewing).
All of them tend to agree that the losses of these programs is, in hindsight, problematic. Many of them think that a return to computer education (and conveying deeper insight) would be a net positive.
> EdTech
To a person, every one I know thinks their EdTech platforms suck. One of them is in a support role as part of their job and often tells me stories of how lamentable the software and faculties interactions with it is/are.
"Progress is at fault" is a tale as old as time: https://xkcd.com/1227/