Terminalcoffee discussion

How about David Brooks' op-ed column about children and reading ?





My favorite line: It’s the change in the way the students see themselves as they build a home library. They see themselves as readers, as members of a different group.

Now, I'm not saying I disagree with Brooks here, but some of what he's saying sketchy at best from a research perspective. For example, if you look at the brief summary in the link to one of the study he cites, you find this:

Does differential access to computer technology at home compound the educational disparities between rich and poor? Would a program of government provision of computers to early secondary school students reduce these disparities? We use administrative data on North Carolina public school students to corroborate earlier surveys that document broad racial and socioeconomic gaps in home computer access and use. Using within-student variation in home computer access, and across-ZIP code variation in the timing of the introduction of high-speed internet service, we also demonstrate that the introduction of home computer technology is associated with modest but statistically significant and persistent negative impacts on student math and reading test scores. Further evidence suggests that providing universal access to home computers and high-speed internet access would broaden, rather than narrow, math and reading achievement gaps.

If I'm reading this correctly, standardized test scores were used as evidence. I support standardized tests as valid measures of some learning, but Sallers, I don't mean to sound snotty, and I know you're not saying the internet is all bad, because you're, uh, on it now, but didn't you say yesterday you hated them? If one was to assert standardized tests are not valid measured of learning, one can't (assuming I'm right and standardized test data were used) assert this study is valid. Second, while this is an interesting introductory study, the broad data leave too many other factors loose (it has to do so, with this scope) to be able to assert, "computers bad". Notice the abstract uses the phrase "associated with" to describe the findings. That's not a causal relationship, necessarily.

I have a feeling we're headed for the same back-and-forth with computers/internet as we've been with television the last twenty years. One week a study will come out saying it's awful, the next one will come out saying it's helpful. Rarely, in my eyes, can broad generalizations of that nature help the dialogue...one has to consider the measurement devices, the outside factors, etc. and those aren't going to be summarized by one or two studies. For example, one question I would raise is, "Would computer reading in addition to text interaction have any effect?" Or is it the idea that kids are playing on the computer instead of reading?

Also, this Brooks guy says this:

Right now, the literary world is better at encouraging this kind of identity. The Internet culture may produce better conversationalists, but the literary culture still produces better students.

How does he define "better students"? One argument we've heard in education for years is that the "old" way, or to quote Brooks, one which "slowly studies the works of great writers and scholars" isn't as effective for training students in the "new" world, e.g. process and collaborate in previously unheard of ways...all the "21st Century Skills" that are unavoidable in educationese.

I agree with Brooks in that this isn't an "either/or" issue for me...books and computers are not mutually exclusive, as we prove on goodreads every day. He's got a good last line here...

It could be that the real debate will not be books versus the Internet but how to build an Internet counterculture that will better attract people to serious learning.

I have a lot to say in response, but only one arm at the moment. Stay tuned.

That's a very good dissection of David Brooks, RA.

I read Brooks's dispatches from the planet Vulcan twice a week online at the NYTimes.com. He is obviously intelligent and interested in compelling social questions, but I generally feel that he starts his thought process with a particular conclusion already in mind and then cobbles together an argument to support it. His references to academic studies, etc., are mostly window dressing and usually obscure a lot of one-sided assumptions and cherry-picked (second-hand) research.

Then again, Brooks is better than Thomas Friedman, whose research on world affairs often consists of talking to cab drivers in Mumbai, Djakarta, Paris, Berlin, etc. He's a chronic cabby quoter.

I pulled this from one of my favorite professor's Facebook feed, and her comment was that it was the second time she'd ever agreed with him, or found his perspective compelling, or somesuch. Honestly I'd never heard of him or thought of him before.
But I think he raises interesting points, yes, from a "then is better" perspective, or "books are superior to this newfangled internet" perspective. But I think this is a conversation that should be happening, as it is happening.
Bear with me.
Of course there are good parts of the internet, thinking communities like this one. And it does lead to new ways of thinking and communicating, researching and learning. And of course it is going to impede on some territory that used to be the domain solely of books and libraries.
But eventually the worlds will settle, mesh, make room for each other, just like, as you say RA, television and books did.

What I found particularly interesting about this article was the intro part, about how students began to see themselves as readers, and thus found reading more important and worthy of their time, when they had a book collection at home.
Sending books home with disadvantaged kids = kids respect books and spend more time in them. Sending computers home with kids = same effect, with computers , and thus internet communications reaping increased affection and attention.
Of course some things will decrease when something new is adopted. In the case you find fault with, math and science scores were seen to drop when students spent more time on the computer. There are faults with that study, of course, as there are faults somewhere in every study ever done. What is good is that the study are done, results were compiled, and people are talking about how it can be used to help students learn better.

What I don't like about standardized testing, and I failed to say this yesterday when laying down my position, is that schools are accordingly rewarded or punished with funding depending on the scores of students. I think that is bullshit. now in Colorado teachers will keep or lose their jobs depending on students' scores. I think that is even stinkier, stickier bullshit.

I have a ton of issues with the educational realm. I'm not as learned as you when it comes to dissecting studies or responding to columnists discussing studies, but I'm interested and aware, and will soon be looking for a job in this arena, so I'd better get my armor shined up, etc.

Thanks, Jonathan! I don't read the NY Times much, I probably should, but I agree, columnists often will latch on to that one study that supports their argument...Maureen Dowd drives me nuts, by the way, but I agreed with her column today on, of all things, Lebron James.

Now, if I'm reading this article correctly, he has two assertions that he tries to twine together:

1) Putting books in kids' hands is good or at least not bad.
2) The internet may keep kids from reading, and that's bad.

I would agree with the first assertion. I'm not surprised he leads with it, because I think everyone would agree with it. It's the second where he runs into problems.

A) I'll go back to that "associated with" comment. For example, consider these two statements:

* The weather got cold
* People exchanged presents

Well, the weather getting cold every year doesn't cause people to exchange presents. They just happen at the same time. The same may be true for high-speed internet access and reading scores. In this case (and I can't tell how much the researchers controlled for factors, because I can't see the whole study) my guess is that the researchers were pretty clear about this in their "limitations" section. What about other factors? Hell, if the argument is that kids are spending more time on computers when they should be reading, let's not build any baseball diamonds or swimming pools or basketball courts, because kids might use those instead of reading books, too. Or is the argument that computers impact kids' brains, changing their very neurological structures, so they don't perform as well on standardized tests? That's really interesting.

2) The author touches on the idea that there may be skills that aren't measured by standardized testing that are strengthened by computer use (and as we all know "computer use" could mean a zillion things). Isn't that a standard debate strategy? Acknowledge your opponent's argument? But then he swerves wildly into supporting his own argument with "one interesting observation made by a philanthropist who gives books to disadvantaged kids." That's his backup? I don't know enough about other studies in internet use, etc., to say how they impact learning, but he seems to be saying that using public funds for high speed internet may hurt reading scores. On the other hand you hear people say broadband access should be considered a basic right. Finland just did, and, if I remember correctly, their literacy rate kicks ass:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/...

I don't know how to reconcile these two perspectives but to say, again, that "either/or" doesn't seem to be the answer. What the hell are the Finnish doing from which we can learn, if what they're doing fits in our cultural construct? Who wants to go to Helsinki and find out? I hear Finnish girls are hot...

To be fair, it's probably not a columnist's job to analyze data, present research, etc., but I struggle in that they sometimes seem to be pretend that's what they do. Columnists get this free pass to stir up weird shit by stating largely unsupported ideas in a public forum. They're like us with editors and bigger audiences. It's when people take their views as truth, without further analysis, that they cause problems...and, to be fair, how people take their work isn't necessarily the columnists' fault. And I agree with you, Sallers, that continuing the conversation is important, not just swallowing whatever some guy in the NY Times is saying. This is what I don't think a lot of people understand about education. People way smarter than us have been struggling with the best way to educate kids for centuries and we're still not agreeing even how to measure what we mean. It's not hopeless; you look at Marzano's meta-analysis, etc. and you can see some strategies are more effective in impacting student learning (how Marzano defines it) than others. So that conversation has to continue, sure.

Anyway, this is my off the cuff, columesque commentary. I sure as hell don't have all the answers, as I tell my students all the time, esp. when I spell words wrong on the board.

This is such an interesting topic. As educators, what do you Sally and RA, feel would be a fair measure of teacher performance? I agree Sally that a teacher should not lose or keep their job solely on their student's scores, but shouldn't student achievement be a part of the formula? Isn't there a way to grade that say over a five year period? I remember taking the Iowa tests as a kid. We were not taught the test from what I remember. It seems that there are many different tests being used now, each with it's own standards and objectives. How can those be compared nationally to see where students stand? Chloe just graduated from the only DPS charter high school. It was a blessing because the teachers were not bound to all the bureaucratic bullshit and were very dedicated to the students and their success. Also what do you think of E.D. Hirsch and Core Knowledge teaching? BTW, I don't own a lot of books. I use the library. I did buy a lot of children's books, read to, and made up stories for Chloe when she was younger. She is not a reader to my dismay. She is much more visual and an abstract thinker (math, art, music). So even when the parent has the means and the will to make their children readers, it doesn't always work out that way.

I want to think about this before I answer, Petra...I'm not blowing you off.

Poop.

Well, someone had to do it.

RA, didn't you write once before that you're not a fan of Core Knowledge (when I mentioned my son's school used it as its basis)?

Yes, I think I did use the phrase, Phil, but I hope I didn't offend...I apologize. I think I also added that teachers make the curriculum, though, so if you trust your kids' school and teachers, any curriculum can work.

I'm honestly surprised Core Knowledge has come up twice on this board. I thought its popularity had waned.

I want to touch on something Buns said really quickly...

So um, reading is better because it teaches you respect and deference for received authority, and intiates you into a literary meritocracy by means of an apprenticeship in which you move up gradually from Grisham novels step by step until you are ready to peruse Junot Diaz in a learned fashion. While, I assume, stroking the beard that you will have had time to grow during the process?

This is really fascinating, and I agree...it's like he wants to reinforce the hegemony...I do think those classics have value, but when they're used as bait for people to join an exclusive club or whatever, I'm reminded of when people couldn't read the Bible and only a few people "got" what it really meant, if you will...

I'm sorry to post and disappear, y'all. I want to return to this thoughtfully too.

I'm finding this all very interesting. I think, whatever the new technology is, whether it's fancy calculators or cell phones, or computers, it will draw extra scrutiny for awhile.

I can see computers, with their interactive nature, being real competition for other activities. I think they may exacerbate a bad situation, like a home with no books, and not much reading, but not create one on their own.

So all day today I've been at a meeting with my match up teachers for this fall. I'm going to be student teaching with two teachers who have never used technology or blogs in their classroom, so they picked me because that is what I put on my application as my chosen area, focus, preference, whatever, I'm hungry.

Having just graduated from school this year, I'm full of ways to use new technologies in the classroom. Things change so fast, you're right Jackie.

Everything David Brooks writes just reads like mush to me.

Sally wrote: "So all day today I've been at a meeting with my match up teachers for this fall. I'm going to be student teaching with two teachers who have never used technology or blogs in their classroom, so t..."

I think our program does a shitty job of preparing students for using tech in the classroom. A lot of our instructors aren't interested or play the "oh, it changes all the time, how are we supposed to keep up?" card, or the "the students already know the technology better than us" card. But there's a difference between "using the technology" and "using the technology to help students learn" so I'm not surprised that's a big plus for you, Sally. I suck at it myself.

Yeah, but in my time in a high school class last spring and what I know my freshmen could/couldn't do in my technology-seeped classes, we assume everyone else knows how to do these things, we generalize that "all teens" text, so on an so forth. But only about 20% really are proficient. 20% have no idea at all. That leaves...some...who are just sort of getting by. Like with reading. So teaching digital and technology literacy will be fun.

Sally wrote: "we generalize that "all teens" text"


I'm not trying to derail this thread, but this just floored me. I was talking to the mother of one of my daughters' friends and she told me her soon-to-be high-school freshmen daughter racked up over 15,000 text messages during May.

Anyway, carry on...

So Goodreads is gathering metadata on books now. In the book review page, there are questions such as:

-What is the tone of this book (bleak, romantic, upbeat, violent, etc)?
-Do you think there is a strong male character in this book?
-What are the subjects of this book (sexism, hackers, financial scandals, etc.)?
-What literary devices are used in this book(flashback, footnotes, logical fallacy, epistolary)?
-What is the perspective of the narration?
1st person ("I never thought I'd be the one...")
2nd person ("You wake up in the club...")
3rd person ("He was born into nobility...")
shifting perspectives
-Is this book fiction or non-fiction?
-What is the genre of this book (romance, thriller, historical fiction, etc.)?

What do you think, does this indicate Goodreads has jumped the shark?

I'm glad. I'll be able to use it even more for the purposes I already enjoy. I love reading reviews of a book I'm on the verge of reading.

I'm not sure how I feel about the metadata and the lit-class lite questions. I've skipped answering on one book, and answered for another.

I don't see the point of cataloging that information. I'm never going to decide to read my next book based on whether it's a 1st or 3rd person narrator.
My guess is that maybe they'll use it for a recommendation tool like the one on Netflix. "Based on your love for Tomb Raider, here are some other Action Movies Based on Video Games with Female Protagonists."

I don't know that I totally understand the concept of "meta" anything but why is that information even important to a book? Are there people who will only read 1st person narrative with shifting perspectives and weak male character books?

I prefer not to read books in the present tense.

Barb wrote: "Hmmm ... that sounds like an awful lot of work. Have I mentioned that I'm intellectually lazy? Hell, I have to force myself to write the little shitty reviews I do give, because I feel obligated ..."

I second that.

Interesting article ! But just because a child loves reading doesn't mean they'll be great in school . I loved reading as a child , but barely survived academically in high school . No learning difficulties involved , I was just plain ole lazy about homework . LOL !

From another group:

Just a heads up- someone on my other book club has just posted a notice that there have been reports of bed bugs in library books across the country.

She recommends that if you are borrowing books, check the edges for dark spots and look through the pages for signs of bug spots. If you find anything suspicious, take it to a librarian- do not take them home! They multiply like crazy and are hard to get rid of.

A rumor spread on campus that we had them in the library, but it isn't true. Hope it stays that way.

Gross. A hotel we stayed at in Hawaii had bed bugs and it was the grossest thing I've ever encountered.

I grew up in a working class family in the '50's & '60's. Both my parents worked in factories: my dad as a milk truck loader and my mom as a shoeworker. When my younger sister was born, he bought a set of "Childcraft" books which I loved and read and re-read over the years. When I went to high school he bought us the Encyclopedia Britannica. Other than that, he did not buy books but he did buy magazines and newspapers and read them a lot. H read to us on weekend nights: it was our treat. I grew up loving to read and started buying paperbacks when I started making money by babysitting or with my allowance money when I was younger. My dad was a big believer in libraries and encouraged my sister and I to read as much and as often as we could. He was often criticized for letting me sit "with my nose in a book" but told people I wasn't hurting anyone or anything and if that's how I chose to spend my time, he could live with it. I found out later, when he was dying and living in my home that as a young boy, he read detective and western "dime novels". I would get him a western every time I went to the library (once a week). At the end, I would read them to him. Reading even dime novels is not a waste of time. It is harmless and cheap entertainment that exercises the imagination. I bought my son books when he was growing up. Now, he reads & buys his own books: several each month. Too bad he does not have children of his own to pass along the love of reading. As for standardized testing, I was fortunate: I had a gift for taking and passing them (usually 98 percentile). Some children just do not test well.

I'm so pleased that Books is now the 8th most important category.

You should become a moderator Lobstergirl, then you could really stamp your mark on this group.

[image error]

Tee hee hee.

Sad times,LG.

Martin Amis is moving to Brooklyn.

Also, he won't be writing children's books. "People ask me if I ever thought of writing a children's book," Amis told interviewer Sebastian Faulks. "I say, 'If I had a serious brain injury I might well write a children's book', but otherwise the idea of being conscious of who you're directing the story to is anathema to me, because, in my view, fiction is freedom and any restraints on that are intolerable."

god bless the author's of children's books because children need to read about their own age group on occasion. I read Jay a lot of Kipling or Robert Louis Stevenson. Anything with boys in it doing things. Once he started reading himself, I got him his own library card and took him there once a week. Plus I bought him one paperback a month. As for children's attention span: I do not think it accidental that problems with ADD started shortly after Sesame St. and their 11 second bursts of information.

I never watched Sesame Street, and the few times I happened to see images of it at other kids' houses I found it hideous. I still do.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Martin Amis is moving to Brooklyn.

Also, he won't be writing children's books. "People ask me if I ever thought of writing a children's book," Amis told interviewer Sebastian Faulks. "I say, 'If ..."

Oh, puhleeze. What an arrogant asshole.

I thought it was sweet. Sesame Street, not Martin Amis's move.

I liked Sesame Street too. Sally you will get the opportunity soon to catch up on all the old favourites, plus plenty of new ones.

Gail, did/does Australia have its own Sesame Street version, or was yours the same as ours? I know about the foreign language ones, but I don't really know about which version airs in other English speaking countries.

the american version of sesame street confused me, because your big bird is yellow. our big bird is called pino and is blue.

Sarah Pi wrote: "Gail, did/does Australia have its own Sesame Street version, or was yours the same as ours? I know about the foreign language ones, but I don't really know about which version airs in other English..."

We get the American version.

Increasingly books are being sold at nonbookstores....like Kitson, Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, Lowe's, Cracker Barrell, Bass Pro Shops, Michael's, Coldwater Creek, and Bookmarc, a Marc Jacobs' store.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/bus...

Netflix uses a software algorithm to recommend movies and Zappos uses one to recommend shoes. Now Goodreads, the social network for book lovers, is introducing an algorithm to recommend books.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03...

On Thursday, Goodreads will announce that it has acquired another start-up, Discovereads.com. It uses machine learning algorithms to analyze which books people might like, based on books they’ve liked in the past and books that people with similar tastes have liked.

So it's like 'your next read' then (which has a plug in for GR)...

www.yournextread.com

Lobstergirl wrote: "On Thursday, Goodreads will announce that it has acquired another start-up, Discovereads.com.

that one r would drive me crazy.

I never watched SS either, never liked it. I preferred The Electric Company. Though, since my niece came along (3 yrs. now) I have to say that I would chose it over MOST programming for her age group. There are two Australian guys who run around the room making noises and talking with their hands (not like sign language, like a talking hand), then there's caillou...ugh. There's one really awful one that was a favorite for at least a year with a skinny black guy with orange fur for hair. That was was particularly torturous.

They were actually pretty cute, clever idea. She didn't watch them for very long though. Also Mrs. Spider's Sunny Patch wasn't so bad.

The lost art of editing

The long, boozy lunches and smoke-filled parties are now part of publishing's past, but has rigorous line-by-line editing of books been lost too, a casualty of the demands of sales and publicity?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/...