This article discusses what many of us have noticed--students have increasing difficulty reading complex texts. It suggests we need to keep giving them complex texts that require deep thinking and teach them how to read critically. I think we are in a good place here because that is exactly what we do. We are striving for a balance between teaching kids to use the new technologies to communicate effectively while still being able to read and write effectively in the traditional modes
I think the writer here draws a false distinction between the printed word and the displayed word. Writing a 100 words on a screen to help you think through a complicated text is functionally equivalent to writing it with a pen. Yes, different areas of the brain are activated by hand-writing as opposed to by typing, but neither has the edge as a "better" way to write. Neither screen nor keyboard is to blame. They make easy targets, because they're new, but a skill of critical thinking is to recognize that correlation does not prove causation.
Nor is the ready access to information new or bad. Would we look at a student reading Hardy with a dictionary at hand as a student interrupting himself and preventing himself from accessing a difficult text? Quite the contrary. So why should we fear "traditional texts—novels, speeches, science articles, and so on—in digital format with embedded links, hypertext, word-search capability, and other aids"?
The reasons we have students increasingly unprepared for college are dizzyingly complex, but the fact that they read off screens and have easier access to information aren't major factors. A kid can read Shakespeare off his iPad and get just as much or more out of it than if he read it out of a paperback.
The question is really what he's asked to do with it. Is he asked to confront the text to understand its literal level and question its deeper meanings? Or is it spoonfed to him? Or is it substituted for something more directly preparatory for a standardized test?
I agree that we need to teach students the critical reading skills necessary to comprehend and savor a rich text. I think blaming the computer screen for the problem demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the role technology can and should play in a kid's education.
This article discusses what many of us have noticed--students have increasing difficulty reading complex texts. It suggests we need to keep giving them complex texts that require deep thinking and teach them how to read critically. I think we are in a good place here because that is exactly what we do. We are striving for a balance between teaching kids to use the new technologies to communicate effectively while still being able to read and write effectively in the traditional modes
ReplyDeleteI think the writer here draws a false distinction between the printed word and the displayed word. Writing a 100 words on a screen to help you think through a complicated text is functionally equivalent to writing it with a pen. Yes, different areas of the brain are activated by hand-writing as opposed to by typing, but neither has the edge as a "better" way to write. Neither screen nor keyboard is to blame. They make easy targets, because they're new, but a skill of critical thinking is to recognize that correlation does not prove causation.
ReplyDeleteNor is the ready access to information new or bad. Would we look at a student reading Hardy with a dictionary at hand as a student interrupting himself and preventing himself from accessing a difficult text? Quite the contrary. So why should we fear "traditional texts—novels, speeches, science articles, and so on—in digital format with embedded links, hypertext, word-search capability, and other aids"?
The reasons we have students increasingly unprepared for college are dizzyingly complex, but the fact that they read off screens and have easier access to information aren't major factors. A kid can read Shakespeare off his iPad and get just as much or more out of it than if he read it out of a paperback.
The question is really what he's asked to do with it. Is he asked to confront the text to understand its literal level and question its deeper meanings? Or is it spoonfed to him? Or is it substituted for something more directly preparatory for a standardized test?
I agree that we need to teach students the critical reading skills necessary to comprehend and savor a rich text. I think blaming the computer screen for the problem demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the role technology can and should play in a kid's education.