Do Tablets Help Children Learn?

hypnosec writes "With the wide array of electronic devices available in our everyday lives, it appears that children have formed an attachment to a different kind of toy. According to the latest survey, 77 per cent of polled US, UK parents believe that iPads and other tablets are good educational tools that boost kids' creativity. Meanwhile, researchers in this field explain that it is a matter of balance — and a child's access to tablets and other similar electronic devices should be monitored. Specialists warn that using tablets in excess could cause attention deficit disorder and even autism, particularly at a very young age."

Comments

Wrong question.

[pushing-robot]

Do they help us learn? Well, it depends on the software.

Are they part of the Star Trek future-utopia? Hell yes.

Cell phones...tablets...we're well on our way to holodecks, and I'll be damned if we stop now.

Re:Wrong question.

[digitallife]

Joking aside, you're spot on that it depends on the software. My daughter started using my iPad when she was one, and some of the educational/kids apps are complete garbage, doing more harm than good. Some of the apps however are FABULOUS. She learned her numbers and letters before she was three, and despite my best efforts, I think the iPad did most of the work. The big benefit the iPad has is that it can hold their attention, and give them infinite time when it's got it. I had to struggle to keep her interested in letters and numbers, and I would run out of energy (or time) relatively quickly.

On top of that, iOS is just fantastic for kids. My current one year old grabs the iPad whenever he can get his hands on it (he bites it so I keep it away from him!), and he's already figured out how to open it, scroll through the apps, and launch one without breaking anything. All in the few seconds he gets when I'm not looking! Even at 3 my daughter can't use a mouse effectively, so a normal computer is totally unworkable at these young ages.

Finally, I think using a tablet is a lot better than zoning in front of a tv. God knows how much Time our generations spent doing at, and we still managed to turn out okay... I think...

What?

[nmb3000]

How does a device which drives and rewards specific behavior (tap the star to win!) increase creativity more than free-form finger paints and crayons?

Oh, that's right. It's a $600 toy they're trying to justify buying. Surely there must be something better they can spend the $6,000 on than 10 iPads.

Re:What?

[geekoid]

Stop being myopic. Please THINK.

Let me twist that around:

How does connect the dots with a crayon increase creativity more than an iPad where they can learn to play music, finger paint, and read.

It's what you DO. You sound like those people that complain TV is bad and then go off to read a 10 cent romance novel.
It's a tool. Use it as such.

Re:what?

[Samantha Wright]

The nydailynews.com article actually cites a few researchers talking about the problems of replacing human interaction with computer instruction: i.e., it hinders the development of social skills and creates a dependence. These are basically the same anti-TV-babysitter arguments, except with interactive devices instead of passive media. No researcher is actually quoted naming any developmental or hereditary disorders as being "caused" by too much screen time; one is even noted as insisting caution in making such claims.

I believe we can firmly blame sloppy journalism.

Re:What?

[nmb3000]

I realize there is software written for tablets (someone linked to many below) which emulate activities such as drawing and painting. The point of this article is that creativity and learning are improved over traditional methods. I doubt that doing things on a tablet is even equivalent to the physical interaction of other methods, let alone superior.

Is a math program better than watching and interacting with a teacher? Are 8 blobs of colored pixels really better than the 5 oranges and 3 apples on the table?

Is drawing (with a 100+ ms latency) better than on a piece of paper? Will a flat glass screen provide the subtle, subconscious insight into texture, shading, pressure, etc that crayons do?

Is a finger painting program provide as meaningful feedback as actually getting paint on your fingers? Just how well can you simulate the color and paper for water-colors?

Humans are social animals that have evolved to use our hands to examine and manipulate our environment. There's a reason smaller children do things like finger paint -- it's a very tactile activity with clear feedback.

Technology has a place in the classroom, of course -- the newfangled school computers I used in my middle school years are what pushed me at CS and programming -- but tablets like the iPad are solutions looking for a problem. That they're failing to find one is why we get these articles claiming they're "better" because, gosh, 77% of adults guts' say so.

You say they're a tool -- okay, nice truism. Please, tell me what tablets do to improve more traditional methods.

Re:What?

[Seraphim1982]

How does connect the dots with a crayon increase creativity more than an iPad where they can learn to play music, finger paint, and read.

The crayon is only limited by the imagination of the kid (and reality), while the iPad is limited by both the imagination of the kid and the programmer.

For example: When I was in first grade we learned about the primary colors and how mixing them would give other colors. Our 'homework' was to color in this venn diagram type thing, so there would be a 'red' circle and a 'blue' circle and where they overlapped was purple. Now just about every kid in the class used a red crayon to color in the red part, a blue crayon for the blue part, and a purple crayon for the purple part (I think this was how the task was presented to us). One kid however used the red and the blue crayons in the purple area to make it purple, and it worked pretty well. If he had been doing the same sort of thing on in an app then he would have only worked if it was something the programmer thought of and took the time to put in.

Re:What?

[digitallife]

Tablets do two primary things to improve on traditional methods of education and learning:

1) they provide an interactive, consistent, high availability, versatile environment which replaces alternative 'babysitters' such as the TV or game console. Let's be honest, if all kids had 2 parents giving 24 hours a day to them, we wouldn't need daycare, babysitters, or school, because they are all just supplements for parents. But parents need to work, make dinner, clean the house, change diapers, buy the groceries... And they run out of time and energy. A tablet with a good educational app is better than many of the readily available alternatives.

2) they have the ability to engage kids in a way that adults often struggle with while teaching certain (boring, non physical) content. I know that my very best efforts were barely enough to keep my daughter interested in learning letters for more than a couple minutes, yet playing an alphabet app with her could keep her interested for up to 30 minutes. Apps that simply are not available for desktops/laptops, in a format (touch) that is far superior, especially for young kids.

Re:What?

[AmiMoJo]

But parents need to work

That is the real problem. If one parent can dedicate themselves to family life instead of having to work then even with all the pressures you mention the affect on children is huge. Unfortunately wages today are so low that for most people having only one parent work is just impossible, and society suffers for it.

We don't want to pay for really high quality child care like they have to Scandinavian countries and we don't want to pay people enough to support a family on their own.

Re:what?

[dkf]

I ma from the era where for entertainment kids through rocks at each other. i.e. every generation prior to 1995.

Newsflash: kids still love a big empty cardboard box that they can use for pretend play. It can be a cave and a fire engine and a space rocket and bath, all in one afternoon.

Is our children learning?

[noh8rz3]

The real question is, is our children learning?

Re:Is our children learning?

[noh8rz3]

Hmm, perhaps I didn't get the wording exactly right, but I was completely honest in 1) the absurdity of this joke of a statement, made by the most powerful man in the world, and 2) the idiocy of a president who was elected in a botched election that did not reflect voter intent.

btw, it looks like you're "defending" the guy by saying he can't read a cue card correctly.

At least it's an improvement

[chrylis]

I hadn't heard Jenny McCarthy was blaming iPads now; I suppose it's an improvement from a public-health perspective.

Re:At least it's an improvement

[Kaenneth]

It's the mercury in the florescent backlights that causes autism.

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[JoeMerchant]

Yes, and too much television will rot your brain, give you cancer, and ruin your eyes.

Tablets: They're new, they're (a little) different, they'll have lots of critics and fear mongers.

  As for "causing ADD/Autism", I only see that happening if they're used as the ultimate babysitter (kinda like TV 30 years ago.) If a kid's whole day, every day, consists of 99% tablet interaction and 1% ducking criticism from parents and other adults, yeah, they're going to come out a little bent, at least compared to kids who didn't grow up that way.

Anybody still go to a school that forbids simple +-x/ calculators in advanced math and science courses? This, too, shall pass.

Learning is not so simple

[girlintraining]

I wish people would stop making the assumption that there is only one way to learn something. It implies that there is one superior form of learning and a bunch of inferior ones. One problem of one-to-many teaching is that it must use a learning style which is effective to the broadest audience, which can (and usually does) mean that the learning style used is not the optimal one for some, if not most, of the audience. Another is that not all material is equal; You do not teach math the same way as you do phy ed; The goals are different, and in fact the areas of the brain targeted for development are different. Radically so.

So to ask a question "Do tablets help children learn?" is disengenuous at best. They will help in some situations. They will not help in all situations.

With that out of the way, I have some personal experience worth sharing. My sister is age 15 and has struggled with reading and math; Her verbal vocabulary vastly outstrips her written vocabulary. I purchased an iPad 2 for her this christmas (not cheap!) after several previous failed attempts to get her interested in reading. Since then, her reading comprehension has improved, and I believe access to a tablet device can be credited with that, because of it's interactive and hands-on nature. It is a more intuitive design for written material than a computer, and it is in a more accessible format. As well, because she can just swipe her finger over a word and get a definition and a spoken example of the word, it helps associate the written form of the word to the spoken one. I think tablets are very good for certain specific cases like this; and could be very beneficial for people with specific learning disorders.

But I do not suggest everyone buy a tablet for their child (or 'a' child, as the case may be!).

Re:Learning is not so simple

[girlintraining]

Specialists warn that using tablets in excess could cause attention deficit disorder and even autism

Oh yeah, I forgot to add this bit: Also, the specialists above are morons. Nobody has yet conclusively determined the cause of either condition, but it appears to be hereditary, at least in part. Suggesting that tablets cause autism is as scientifically irresponsible as saying vaccinations cause autism. Let me be clear here: Nobody knows why these things happen. Anyone who says otherwise should be immediately imposed upon to provide compelling evidence to support their claim, since many studies have been done and no clear answer has emerged yet.

Re:Learning is not so simple

[Samantha Wright]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a student frustrated or hindered by adding interactivity to any learning process. I think the implied benefit is sufficiently broad in its appeal that a general claim can be made. Certainly they're not necessary, and perhaps a claim could be made about setting up unmaintainable expectations (can't learn everything interactively, after all!), but because we're wired to learn from experience first and by proxy second, it's natural for any animal with a nervous system to desire this sort of learning aid.

Re:Learning is not so simple

[girlintraining]

Specialists think you are being a bit harsh in deriding their unfounded claims. 100% of experts interviewed agree!

"Right and wrong do exist. Just because you don't know what the right answer is, even if there is no way for you to know what the right answer is, doesn't make your answer right or even okay. It's much simpler than that... It's just plain wrong." -- Dr. House

Re:Learning is not so simple

[fiziko]

Not completely. Different students have different learning styles that are predisposed at birth. If Sara can learn, Tommy can learn, but Sara might learn with a measurable increase in efficiency if she hears the material, while Tommy can learn more efficiently if he sees it. It's certainly not an on/off switch, but it is a fast/slow switch.

And, for the record, I work in private education and we've been teaching with tablets (iPads and otherwise) for almost two years. On average, students are more engaged and learning faster than when we did a similar job on paper. There are rare exceptions, of course. Note that the tablet doesn't do the teaching; a human teacher does the teaching, and the content is on the tablet screen. The biggest variable in how effectively students learn is the teacher, and not the technology the teacher happens to be using.

Re:Learning is not so simple

[sarts]

I agree with you there, but there are more factors to account for. I myself have only just discovered what it is that makes me 'remember', and 'learn'. And that is 4 years after I have completed my Bachelor degree in Computer Science. Depending on the source or nature of the information, I am either better at hearing it, or seeing it. And with other skills I actually need to try, and fail (a few (dozen)) times before I understand what is going on. Learning always came 'natural' to me, with no real stimulus to get good at it, or understand it. If it took me 26 years to figure out how to learn, there is no way any teacher, parent or politician could 'specify' which teaching method is going to work best for me, or any other individual. The current method of teaching, to me, appears like someone throwing a plate of spaghetti against the wall, and see what sticks. It's messy, and quite some people end up on the floor (of society), but at least you can point at the mess and say 'see, I am doing my best'.

Re:Learning is not so simple

[twocows]

Why would somebody mod this troll? This was obviously a joke.

I have ADHD

[grammar fascist]

If there are environmental factors, they're slight. It's as heritable as height.

Plenty of things can cause the same symptoms in the short term without the neurological condition. Examples are the death of a parent (the emotional pain is, among other things, highly distracting), lack of sleep, and malnutrition. Yes, staring at a screen all day and experiencing nothing but rapid, small rewards can cause an otherwise healthy kid to find other things less rewarding. But I've read a lot about ADHD, and I've never seen anything conclusive that says such things can give a child the actual disorder.

Key word: "excess"

[enjar]

We monitor all of the "screen time" our kids get. Phones, computer, TV, DS and Leapsters can be played with or watched for a while (usually about one hour a day). We also don't allow screen time before lunch and make sure they also have physical activity, read books, play games (card, board, puzzles), Legos, ride bikes, go to the park, go outside (sledding, swingset, bubbles, hula hoop) and do organized lessons (dancing, swimming). We also take family vacations at a lake where we do swimming, fishing, canoeing, tubing, hiking and other outdoor stuff. Last year I think they went four days without TV. Sometimes they whine that they want to watch something else but once they get involved in something new they generally forget about it.

We'd never just park them with a tablet and let them "learn" that way. They still have a lot of real-world stuff to figure out before they can spend significant time in electronic land.

what?

[geekoid]

"Specialists warn that using tablets in excess could cause attention deficit disorder and even autism, particularly at a very young age.""

Specialist in what, making scary shit up about technology?

The tablet is a window to the world. Parents should control it, but that's about it. If it gets the child active in something, then it's good. The fact that it's a tablet is secondary.

I ma from the era where for entertainment kids through rocks at each other. i.e. every generation prior to 1995.
My kids are very much in the internet generation. And they can do and learn far more then I had the opportunity to.

Asking the wrong question.

[Nyder]

Of course tablets can help you learn, that is a no brainer.

The real question is, Can we give them to children and monitor their use so they use it to learn, instead of just for entertainment.

Hmmm

[AxDx]

I personally work in education in a fairly large school district.. Whenever people discuss this topic, they tend to focus on the wrong things in my opinion. What we need to focus on: 1) Is this a matter of taking a technology that was developed for personal entertainment and trying to make it conform to "serious education". 2) If kids can't write/express succinctly on paper or read a book, what makes you think that some shiny $500 tablet will? 3) Total cost of the device, not just initial.. you look at your average tablet plus e-books, plus apps and you have a very expensive alternative to plain ole notebooks, pencils, and textbooks 4) Management.. Schools quickly learn that just giving these things away to students quickly amounts to a management nightmare they didn't foresee.. Everything from warranty repair, broken glass, application deployment/updates and acceptable content are only possible with a well thought out plan, and school-wide participation at all levels..

Re:Hmmm

[jon3k]

Good points, worth discussing

1) It wasn't specifically for entertainment, that's a pretty misleading argument. It's just a tablet computer, it was designed from the ground up for a lot more than entertainment. (eg - Exchange messaging, calendaring, contacts, reading, web browsing, etc. Just watch the original iPad commercials.)
2) That's a misleading argument. The question shouldn't be limited to "can we get non-performing students to perform". That isn't its sole purpose. An iPad can also be a better tool for already productive and capable students.
3) Compare that to the cost of the school supplies it replaces. I was spending hundreds of dollars a year in textbooks alone years ago when I was in school. I'm afraid to even ask what it costs now.

Also worth considering - what does that iPad bring to the table beyond with what we have now. How about the level of interaction we've never seen. Two students coloring together? instantly feeding their art to a large display (tv/projector) to share with the whole class? the only real limitations are your imagination. What about the communication with the parent to help development, you can feed the child's work right into a web based application that a parent can monitor from work/home. You could take it as far as being able to see and comment on your child's work in real-time.

I think we need to get outside of the box of limiting iPads to being simply replacements for the tools we have now. It can be so much more than that with a little creativity.

Re:Hmmm

[gnapster]

2) If kids can't write/express succinctly on paper or read a book, what makes you think that some shiny $500 tablet will?

One thing that computers do much better than dead trees: instant feedback. I teach and tutor mathematics, and many students appreciate receiving prompt correction not just on the final answer to a problem, but the incremental steps. Computers are good at generating exercises on a theme, and the software is getting better all the time. This kind of assistance was previously only available through close interaction with a human, and it applies to learning in a variety of areas, including writing and reading.

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[tripleevenfall]

More generally - is there anything they aren't blaming autism on these days?

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[Xhris]

Too much television will "rot" your brain - there is no question about this. Studies have clearly show that, for example, children under 2 there is a steep correlation between hours of tv watched per week and vocabulary (tv watching decreases your small kids vocabulary).

My 7yo daughter is reading years ahead of her age - I'm sure this is down to a very small amount of television watching - and she does not miss tv at all. She would much rather play with her sister or read a book.

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[Eponymous Hero]

let's go further. is autism an indicator of our evolution? is autism a natural progression of our minds mixing with technology before we merge with it a la kurzweil-style? the borg seem pretty autistic.

ipads in the classroom

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

As I've pointed out in other threads, I work in a school where we're slashing budgets but somehow can afford to buy ipads for all the classrooms. Sadly, the ipad isnt well integrated into the curriculum, there isnt an IT strategy or plan nor people to do something if there were one. Waste of money.

Creativity? Sure. We had etch-a-sketches for that sort of thing, and play doh and finger paints. Seems they're just electronic versions of the same.

Re:Indeed.

[Samantha Wright]

Agreed. That was the funniest non-sequitur I've read since I last cleaned spam off my blog. (Cheap viagra, cheap viagra, cheap viagra, cheap viagra.)

Consider the source

[tomhath]

The company that did the survey, KidsIndustries, offers their marketing service "to ensure your brand is front of mind with your consumer". So quick, run out and buy several iPads; everybody knows they make your kid smarter.

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[Samantha Wright]

Yes. To our knowledge, sloppy journalism has yet to be linked with a rise in incidence of autistic spectrum disorders.

Re:Indeed.

[Chris Burke]

With Easter coming up, wouldn't it be more appropriate to spam about Cheep Viagra for those flaccid marshmallows?

Look at adults first.

[pclminion]

We observe clear addictive behavior in adults who use the Internet to consume media. Being able to carry the Internet with you on your phone or tablet obviously exaggerates these effects. So you really should be asking yourself, does it make sense to not only expose, but force, children to use devices that clearly lead to addictive patterns of behavior when used by adults?

I own a tablet, and I find that I can no longer entertain myself effectively by reading a book. Instead of grabbing a book I impulsively reach for the tablet. Instead of sitting down for two hours to work on something in a concentrated way, I find myself becoming distracted regularly and goofing off with the tablet. My wife and I both exhibit these addictions and we will often sit on opposite sides of the house, isolated, browsing random shit online. Yes, a computer can do all these things but you don't sit at a computer 24/7 (well, most people don't). With a phone or tablet it's trivial to carry the addictive substance with you everywhere you go.

I allow my older son to use the tablet for about five minutes per day. And even that is perhaps too much. When it's time to stop, he gets combative and irritable. It reminds me a lot of how I used to behave when I couldn't smoke a cigarette. The only way you could not notice that this is a bad thing is if your head is up your ass.

No, we should not be exposing children to this any more than necessary, and we should definitely not REQUIRE it!

Re:Look at adults first.

[Anonymous Coward]

I allow my older son to use the tablet for about five minutes per day. And even that is perhaps too much. When it's time to stop, he gets combative and irritable. It reminds me a lot of how I used to behave when I couldn't smoke a cigarette. The only way you could not notice that this is a bad thing is if your head is up your ass.

No, we should not be exposing children to this any more than necessary, and we should definitely not REQUIRE it!

Congrats on winning the most INSANE argument award. Try giving your child ANYTHING they like then taking it away after 5 minutes and you'll get the exact same response. Heck same goes for an adult. Ask me to do anything meaningful within a 5 minute period per day and I'll probably end up "combative and irritable". You're the kind of parent that would see smog in city air and pollution in the water and react by trying to limit or starve your children of both air and water because they are addicted to them. Get a clue!!!

Re:Look at adults first.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just taught him that it's always you who withdraws him from something. It's therefore natural for him that you also were responsible for the show stopping. And he's annoyed at you taking away things from him.

Also, I'd not be surprised if he develops ADD. After all, he's not allowed to pay attention for an extended time.

Thats right enslaving robots is bad...bad!

[voss]

Attractive female robot companions that have imprinted on you and think you are awesome and want to be helpful ...is good.

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[jedwidz]

Even Teletubbies isn't safe. One time they tried to teach the concepts of 'big' and 'small' by moving closer to and further away from the screen. Ouch. And then there's the repressed-memory-trauma-inducing 'lion' and 'bear' segments.

Once I met someone who claimed to have never watched TV, but instead read novels extensively. I thought that was fascinating, like meeting an alien or a ferral human. As a test I asked her about Scooby Doo, and she had *no clue* what I was talking about. Bonus IQ points right there.

As reading recommendations she suggested 'Dune' by Frank Herbert, and 'The Bone People' by Keri Hulme.

Re:Autism?

[__aaltlg1547]

Of course. If it's genetic, there's no reason to listen to their kookball warnings.

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[hairyfeet]

But sadly the problem is that is EXACTLY what often happens, they become fancy electronic babysitters. I have gone in houses where there isn't a single book, not a one, but they make sure the kid has an X360 or PS3 because that keeps little Billy out of their hair.

As for the tablet i don't see anything the tablet could do that a cheap netbook or desktop could do, except maybe cost more. in the end its not about the tech, its about actually stimulating the child's mind, really interacting with them instead of just handing them some more technocrap and sending them to their rooms.

I had mine build their own desktops, showing them along the way what each piece was and explaining how it worked, I loaded up modding tools to show them how code was translated into what they saw on the screen, etc and now while the oldest has many friends that are having to take remedial computer classes he gets extra points being a TA and helping show the others how to properly research on the net. its not the tech, its actually spending time with the kids that counts.

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[JoeMerchant]

As for the tablet i don't see anything the tablet could do that a cheap netbook or desktop could do, except maybe cost more.

In the 8-10 year old range, I have found the iPad 1 to be more kid-resistant than an Asus netbook. I think, dollar for dollar, the iPad will outlast 2, perhaps 3 netbooks.

A topic which parallels this one closely...

[Pollux]

When I first got into teaching, I got in towards the late-end of a district's adoption into an all "leftist" exploratory K-12 math curriculum. I'm sure most of you are familiar with at least one series that falls into this category. We had "Math Investigations" in grades K-5, "CMP" 6-8, and Core-Plus 9-12. The core concept of this series was that teachers were not supposed to teach rote-learning of math facts. Calculators would supplant that "old-fashioned" method of learning. Kids grew up learning how to "explore" math, rather than memorize addition & multiplication tables, practice procedures repeatedly, and churn out page after page of "drill n' kill" problems.

I got these kids in high school. When we ended Core Plus and reverted back to a traditional textbook, they couldn't do 40% of what you would find in an Algebra I textbook, because they did not have these basic math facts. They couldn't divide, so they couldn't factor. They couldn't calculate powers, so they couldn't understand square roots. They could not see patterns in numbers, because they had never learned to calculate. When they let the calculator do all the calculations, their brain never stopped to watch the patterns that were emerging.

Now we want to give iPads to kindergartners. Has anyone stopped to think about what basic skill sets we'll be depriving these children of that we adults take for granted? The ones we take them for granted because we grew up w/o iPads to impede learning basic skills...skills like social interaction, self regulation, dialog and public speaking... Forgive me, it's been a while since I've studied child psychology, but there's a significant amount of neurological development that occurs in elementary school and continues on though middle and high school. Has anyone really stopped to examine and consider the long-term effects of significant exposure to this technology, especially at such young ages?

I may have grown up with a computer, as well as most slashdot readers out there. But it's mere empirical evidence to say, "Look at me, I turned out fine." (Besides, your concept of "fine" may include living in your parent's basement at the age of 35.) Are there any real studies (rather than some questionable poll) that have examined this subject?

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[rtb61]

The autism exaggeration (in reality a tablet is more likely to leverage an autistic child into a more interactive state, if done properly) to counter a straight up marketing plant by Kids Industries for Apple http://www.kidsindustries.com/clients/ , just look at that list if ugly clients, mega corporations focused on manipulating as much children's pocket money into the hands of the greediest adult sacks of shite.

Tablets provide a simpler interface than a smart book. Once the child is capable of reading and writing out goes the tablet and in comes the smartbook. Want the child to learn, than they must be producing content, tapping away at those keys, writing essays, creating art, drawing simple plans (when will we finally switch to alphabetic keyboards from bloody stupid qwerty, please stop lumbering the next generation with stupid stuck in the mud) thinking).

The stupidest possible mistake will be trying to turn children into content consumer locked into iTunes to feed Apple's greed. The purpose of computers is for children to create content not consume, computers give them the ability to creative like never before and creative active thinking is what your after. Not mindless drones sucking up content feeding their pocket money to worms in the Apple.

Did they jailbreak it yet?

[Brannon]

How are they able to get any value out of a computer that you can't compile on?

Re:Well then are better then text book in some way

[cookiej]

But sadly the problem is that is EXACTLY what often happens, they become fancy electronic babysitters. I have gone in houses where there isn't a single book, not a one, but they make sure the kid has an X360 or PS3 because that keeps little Billy out of their hair.

Yes, yes. It seems bad parents can use devices too. However, the OP wasn't about bad parenting--more about the usefulness and/or hazards of these new-fangled devices for learning.

As for the tablet i don't see anything the tablet could do that a cheap netbook or desktop could do, except maybe cost more. ...

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. My first grader is using an app called "Teach Me First Grade". She sits on the couch with me and is still learning to read. She uses her finger to WRITE her answers on the tablet that is accurately interpreted. When she writes a letter or number wrong, the app gives her help on how to write it correctly. Strangely, this sort of thing wasn't as intuitive on my laptop. Compared to a tablet, a laptop is bluky, uncomfortable and requires a level of abstraction (hit key here, comes up there.. slide finger her, mouse moves there) that presents one more barrier to learning. Educationally, the software is excellent and is helping her with addition, subtraction, spelling and sight words -- in addition to honing her ability to print.

There are always those who feel that because something is new and/or different, it can't replace "how I did it, back in the day." I'm not suggesting that all new tech is automatically good but it isn't automatically bad, either. I've been in the educational software industry for over 30 years (TUTOR was my first language after HP BASIC) and have seen tech come and go -- mostly for good reason. The tablets? They're here to stay. What I see being developed really does fulfill much of what was promised so many years ago. They are truly the "flying cars" of education.. and they're here.