Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:19:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1380 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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.)
>
> So you're saying you agree, because you've seen this as a person..... but
> you disagree because there is no academic proof? :)
No. I'm saying that I can see how one would come, through a non-rigorous
examination, to believe that stance. But even when a correlation is shown
(which we haven't pointed to) it says nothing of causality.
> If you studied education at a university that didn't tell you that reading
> is fundamental to learning...... then you should ask for your money back.
Well, they tell you that as an undergrad. As a grad student they let you think
for yourself. (Danger! Danger!) It does make them (you know, _them_, right?)
uncomfortable when you suggest that maybe the "three R's" aren't as important
as we've been culturally led to believe. So they try to help you discover why
they actually are that important. The problem is...<shhhh>...they aren't!
> > > A person also has time to step back from the book and
> > > contemplate about what is being written.
> >
> > Like a television series, right?
>
> This is a personal opinion, backed up by no facts whatsoever.......
>
> You can never 'see' as much on TV as you can in a book. The very act of
> reading involves making gigantic connections between abstract symbols and
> abstract concepts. It is inherently more difficult and engaging than visual
> media. The exception, which is difficult to compare, would be music, which
> is inherently visceral. Although while it's tough to learn to build a house
> by listening to music, with a book it can be done.
Your stance on music is interesting but I'm not enough of a music person to
really get into it. I would say that you can never 'see' as much in a book as
you can on TV. The connection of abstracts that you mention WRT reading...do
you mean the deciphering of text symbols into meaningful words and ideas?
Surely you realize that's what happens when you hear an utterance, right? Or
are you addressing the difficulty in teaching abstract notions with documentary
film as the medium rather than books? I bet I could design a one hour program
on irrational numbers that would convey the idea to John Q. Public much better
than any one hour of reading would.
Further, you are surely not suggesting that you can't learn to build a house by
watching videos...right?
> The importance of reading may be lost on the well-educated as they know no
> different. But when you see the difference that reading makes in the lives
> of average people, you stop wondering why reading is important and simply
> accept that it is.
I think that it is rather...you grow up accepting that it is (I'm pretty sure
that most people, even those who read poorly accept that reading is important)
and then if you examine it deeply enough you begin to question it.
> Perhaps we are confusing ourselves with the difference between reading (as
> in actively engaging in it) and the ability to read at all.
>
> Reading is so fundamentally critical to our everyday existence that you can
> hardly function without it. How would someone read this debate if they had
> never learned to read? How would they fill out a job application? Or a
> form in a doctor's office?
I'm not suggesting illiteracy as a way of life. People should be (and
basically are) familiar enough with the written word to get along, filling out
forms and ordering at McDonalds. We're (at least that's what you were
taling about earlier) talking about people who choose to read recreationally.
> > > Reading isn't just important for a healthy mind, it's essential.
> >
> > For what?
>
> Perhaps you're not a reader. I think anyone who's ever made that intimate
> connection with a special novel can answer this question in their own head.
I am. So you're basically saying that making a connection with a favorite
novel is essential for a healthy mind?
> It may not be possible to express it in words, but it's possible to feel it
> none-the-less.
Let's keep working on it.
> > 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.
>
> You can 'get along' but you can rarely advance.
Advance?
> You stretch your mind by
> creating the pictures that accompany the words; by filling out the details
> of what isn't written about, not just taking in what's actually on the page.
I enjoy that activity too. But I'm not sure how it affects the ability to
thrive.
> You'll have to help me. You have said at least twice now that you agree
> with some of the things being said, but you again insist that reading isn't
> all that important. I'm confused.
I think there are lots of things you can spend time doing. Virtually all of
them are instructive. Reading is but one of many ways of taking in
information. I object to the place reading occupies in our common educational
paradigm as and end in itself.
Further, I don't think that reading should be taught as a subject in school.
All the research (John Holt, Daniel Greenberg, A.S. Neil, etc.) that I can find
suggests that kids who are not pressured at all to learn to read, but are in a
literate environment, learn to read when they are ready and all of them choose
to read for the rest of their lives. The act of teaching reading creates balky
readers who think of it as a chore.
> It is O.K. But some people also don't value brushing their teeth everyday.
> Should we accept that habit? Or should we try to encourage them to do
> something that is probably good for them. Reading is like flossing your mind.
It stands unproven that reading is so much more valuable a mental exercise
than e.g. conversation that it should be strongly encouraged. And everyone
presented with the facts does value brushing their teeth and reading too. Even
if they sometimes have better things to do.
> > 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 if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Oh but before the technology of the written word was invented information was
quite handily passed down through oral traditions. That wasn't broke(en)
either. Why fix it?
Because an advance in technology allowed us to do more! And that keeps
happening.
> How do you learn to use these advanced technologies if you can't read the
> user's manual? ;)
The emoticon suggests that this was a throw-away line, but I think it's a
good question. Have you ever read the manual for your computer? I
haven't...at least not since ~1982. I don't read the manuals for my VCR, DVD
player, Laser Disc player, Blender, Toaster or Microwave. And my son (who's
seven) hasn't either. Yet we can use all of those devices just fine.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
