| |
Hi all,
First, thanks Suz for the great thread idea and sorry for pointing it away from
the main point. Second, I'm replying to myself because I thought it would be
the lowest-impact way to respond to a bunch of comments. Third, I'm leaving
.general in this note, but including .o-t.debate and setting FUT there since
we've strayed.
In lugnet.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.general, Ben Ellermann writes:
> > reading is extremely important for developing young minds
>
> How so?
First, I'd like to comment that the meaning of the above sentence changes
significantly with the insertion of a comma between 'developing' and 'young.'
I'm not sure if it matters, but it might.
Jeremy Scott wrote:
> they are wayyyyyyyyy beter than those computer games
This doesn't really address the question of how. Reading and computer games
have each played a fairly important role in my development. I would attribute
more importance to reading, for my life. But that doesn't mean that the same
results apply to everyone. Nor does it mean that the same would happen for me
if I'd been substantially younger. I'm quite confident that computer games are
an important learning tool for the future. Significantly, the two are not
completely inextricable. _Call to Power II_ did more for my son's reading
skills than any other single factor. How does that affect the reading vs.
computer games debate?
Ben Ellermann wrote:
> First, reading introduces new ideas and subjects.
So is it the reading per se that you are placing importance on, or the
introduction of new ideas? Surely you don't think that reading is the only way
for ideas to be introduced..?
> This leads to a strong desire to learn throughout life.
This sounds like one of those common sense assertions, but can you back it up?
I studied education at university for seven years and I don't recall ever
reading demonstration of such a correlation. (Though my personal annecdotes do
suggest that as well.)
> Next, reading requires a person to think (unlike television
> which does not require much thought).
I would say that once you are competent enough at reading to really enjoy it,
thinking about it is a natural outcome. But I see little kids reading without
much thought about the content. I also see kids (and adults) thinking long and
hard about viewed media.
> A person also has time to step back from the book and
> contemplate about what is being written.
Like a television series, right?
> I also believe that reading can make people more openminded to
> learn new ideas and thoughts which may be different from their own.
Can? Can...I agree.
> Overall, reading can lead to a well rounded person with many
> different interests.
I doubt the direct causality. Again you say 'can.' I certainly agree that
reading is a valuable tool for information intake, but I know people who are
acceptably well read and do not have diverse interests or open minds. And I
know people interested in many subjects because they seem to be tapped into
their cable TV 24x7.
Allan Bedford wrote:
> Chris.... you're joking. Right?
No. I'm very interested in the beliefs about education held by the laity.
> reading is not only important for developing minds, but for
> all minds regardless of age.
But the question remains -- how so? Is it the act of reading or is it the
association with new ideas? If we were geared up to explore new ideas through
other media, would that be just as good?
> I personally find that people who don't enjoy reading (and
> therefore don't do it on their own, without prompting) are
> generally less able to comprehend complex ideas, possess a
> less developed vocabulary, are more likely to use the words
> they do know incorrectly. Reading isn't just important for
> a healthy mind, it's essential.
For what? Since many people do seem to get along quite nicely without advanced
reading skills, I'd say that the reality is that reading is obviously not
essential. I'm not being obtuse here either. I prefer to spend time with
people who do read. I see the same things you see about non readers. But that
just means that _I_ _prefer_ certain people, not that they're better than the
others.
Not to anyone in particular:
I value reading. A lot. Really! But that's me. Not everyone does and that's
OK. Some people learn really powerfully by reading and others have a hard
time without discussion. People are different. Reading has been placed on an
educational alter largely because it was the primary way that we passed
information around for a long long time. But it doesn't deserve, in my
opinion, that place of honor over other methods and media. Not only are there
other technologies now that didn't exist a lifetime ago, but by placing reading
in a position of primacy, we tilt the educational balance in favor of those of
us (including me) who do read well and away from those who do not.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
