Doe the Brain Like E-Books?
Kristi
The NY Times recently asked the above question to several different kinds of researchers/scientists/educators and provides their responses. I was provided this article by my cousin Sandra Aamodt, a neuroscientist, who provided a response. I found the response by Maryann Wolf to be very interesting, however, and I thought that some people here might be interested in her response (and possibly her research), which relates to how children learn to read and how the e-book revolution, and the up-and-coming vooks (video books) may impact the developing child brain.
Here is the link to her response:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/#maryanne
And the whole article:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/
Here is the link to her response:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/#maryanne
And the whole article:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/
Robyn L. Coburn
<<<<<<I was provided this article by my cousin Sandra Aamodt, a
neuroscientist, who provided a response. I found the response by Maryann
Wolf to be very interesting, however, and I thought that some people here
might be interested in her response (and possibly her research), which
relates to how children learn to read and how the e-book revolution, and the
up-and-coming vooks (video books) may impact the developing child brain.
around television in it's early days - "it'll rot your brain - maybe".
Plus what about these opening statements:
"We humans were never born to read. We learn to do so by an extraordinarily
ingenuous ability to rearrange our "original parts" - like language and
vision, both of which have genetic programs that unfold in fairly orderly
fashion within any nurturant environment. Reading isn't like that."
Except for unschoolers where reading is exactly like that.
"Each young reader has to fashion an entirely new "reading circuit" afresh
every time. There is no one neat circuit just waiting to unfold. This means
that the circuit can become more or less developed depending on the
particulars of the learner: e.g., instruction, culture, motivation,
educational opportunity."
Look what she puts first in the series of variables - "instruction".
So from this we can conclude that her concept of what reading is and how
learning it works is tremendously traditional and conservative. So maybe her
approach to new technologies that are part of the new text rich environment
is traditional and conservative too.
I like the comments from the next guy - e-book and vooks are not the only
choices and books aren't going anywhere.
I was interested in the comments by your cousin, Sandra Aamodt, based on
observations of the behavior of people reading different sources. Her book
sounds intriguing also (I constantly lose stuff in my house). However some
of the behaviors of adults that she cites as possibly being problematic,
especially in a working situation, are emphatically not problems for
unschoolers.
It doesn't matter if unschooling kids are mercurial in their activities.
It's OK for them to be going down a rabbit hole of connections. They aren't
being judged on their ability to stick to a task as they might be in school
(plus observation shows that they will when it's important to them.)
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
neuroscientist, who provided a response. I found the response by Maryann
Wolf to be very interesting, however, and I thought that some people here
might be interested in her response (and possibly her research), which
relates to how children learn to read and how the e-book revolution, and the
up-and-coming vooks (video books) may impact the developing child brain.
>Maryann Wolf's response sounds like a lot of the same scary fearmongering
> Here is the link to her response:
> http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/#maryanne
>
> And the whole article:
> http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/
> >>>>>
around television in it's early days - "it'll rot your brain - maybe".
Plus what about these opening statements:
"We humans were never born to read. We learn to do so by an extraordinarily
ingenuous ability to rearrange our "original parts" - like language and
vision, both of which have genetic programs that unfold in fairly orderly
fashion within any nurturant environment. Reading isn't like that."
Except for unschoolers where reading is exactly like that.
"Each young reader has to fashion an entirely new "reading circuit" afresh
every time. There is no one neat circuit just waiting to unfold. This means
that the circuit can become more or less developed depending on the
particulars of the learner: e.g., instruction, culture, motivation,
educational opportunity."
Look what she puts first in the series of variables - "instruction".
So from this we can conclude that her concept of what reading is and how
learning it works is tremendously traditional and conservative. So maybe her
approach to new technologies that are part of the new text rich environment
is traditional and conservative too.
I like the comments from the next guy - e-book and vooks are not the only
choices and books aren't going anywhere.
I was interested in the comments by your cousin, Sandra Aamodt, based on
observations of the behavior of people reading different sources. Her book
sounds intriguing also (I constantly lose stuff in my house). However some
of the behaviors of adults that she cites as possibly being problematic,
especially in a working situation, are emphatically not problems for
unschoolers.
It doesn't matter if unschooling kids are mercurial in their activities.
It's OK for them to be going down a rabbit hole of connections. They aren't
being judged on their ability to stick to a task as they might be in school
(plus observation shows that they will when it's important to them.)
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
Jenny Cyphers
by Maryann Wolf
***For my greatest concern is that the young brain will never have the time (in milliseconds or in hours or in years) to learn to go deeper into the text after the first decoding, but rather will be pulled by the medium to ever more distracting information, sidebars, and now,perhaps, videos (in the new vooks). ***
Even if that were true, which I doubt, because the human brain is pretty good at adapting, why would it be a bad thing to rely on many forms of information gathering over plain text? I get why reading is so highly prized. It's easy to teach classes if everyone can read on their own, but even more than that, and before that, reading, or the ability to read was at one time only given to a select few people. The masses remained illiterate.
The ability to read opened up more possibilies for the acquisition of knowledge for the general population, and now the internet and other media has expanded that even more. It seems like more choices are better. Maryann Wolf and the many folks like her, seem to get stuck on reading text being the "be all end all", best way to acquire knowledge.
Her own argument about connections in the brain being made to be able to read, IS what we do to adapt to our environment. Why would it be any different, better or worse, to make connections in the brain that are different or other than and more than reading text?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
***For my greatest concern is that the young brain will never have the time (in milliseconds or in hours or in years) to learn to go deeper into the text after the first decoding, but rather will be pulled by the medium to ever more distracting information, sidebars, and now,perhaps, videos (in the new vooks). ***
Even if that were true, which I doubt, because the human brain is pretty good at adapting, why would it be a bad thing to rely on many forms of information gathering over plain text? I get why reading is so highly prized. It's easy to teach classes if everyone can read on their own, but even more than that, and before that, reading, or the ability to read was at one time only given to a select few people. The masses remained illiterate.
The ability to read opened up more possibilies for the acquisition of knowledge for the general population, and now the internet and other media has expanded that even more. It seems like more choices are better. Maryann Wolf and the many folks like her, seem to get stuck on reading text being the "be all end all", best way to acquire knowledge.
Her own argument about connections in the brain being made to be able to read, IS what we do to adapt to our environment. Why would it be any different, better or worse, to make connections in the brain that are different or other than and more than reading text?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
Ever more "distracting" information? Now *there's* a prejudicial use of a word! If my own sometimes preference for audio or video over text are distractions, I want *more* distractions in *my* life.
Bob
>Well said. I think when Maryann Wolf writes "my greatest concern" it's a clue as to what her observations are really all about.
> by Maryann Wolf
> ***For my greatest concern is that the young brain will never have the time (in milliseconds or in hours or in years) to learn to go deeper into the text after the first decoding, but rather will be pulled by the medium to ever more distracting information, sidebars, and now,perhaps, videos (in the new vooks). ***
>
> Even if that were true, which I doubt, because the human brain is pretty good at adapting, why would it be a bad thing to rely on many forms of information gathering over plain text? I get why reading is so highly prized. It's easy to teach classes if everyone can read on their own, but even more than that, and before that, reading, or the ability to read was at one time only given to a select few people. The masses remained illiterate.
>
> The ability to read opened up more possibilies for the acquisition of knowledge for the general population, and now the internet and other media has expanded that even more. It seems like more choices are better. Maryann Wolf and the many folks like her, seem to get stuck on reading text being the "be all end all", best way to acquire knowledge.
>
> Her own argument about connections in the brain being made to be able to read, IS what we do to adapt to our environment. Why would it be any different, better or worse, to make connections in the brain that are different or other than and more than reading text?
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Ever more "distracting" information? Now *there's* a prejudicial use of a word! If my own sometimes preference for audio or video over text are distractions, I want *more* distractions in *my* life.
Bob
Kristi
Just catching up here, I've been immersed in learning of my own the last several days...
that explored the concept of the internet rewiring our brains. Sometimes I feel like that, like, if it weren't for this dang internet (and all the information I feel I must gobble up) I'd be doing things the old fashioned way. You know, reading, physically learning, contemplating, writing, doing. Not clicking, clicking, searching, clicking, reading, clicking, searching, thinking, clicking, typing...you get the idea. But then I realized I'm reading, reading, reading...and I just can't get enough! But then again, is that a bad thing??
Maryann Wolf said:
"Each young reader has to fashion an entirely new "reading circuit" afresh every time. There is no one neat circuit just waiting to unfold. This means that the circuit can become more or less developed depending on the particulars of the learner: e.g., instruction, culture, motivation, educational opportunity."
This, I thought, was the the gem. Like Robyn said, these are not a problem for the unschooler--just for those that think that learning needs to happen on a timescale. I would assume (although I might be wrong) that Wolf thinks learning should be left to schools, but her statement applies equally to kids stuck there...they may or may not learn to read well as a result of their environment.
I've been immersed in a 3-day intensive doula training workshop, and it has been made clear that this time schedule problem starts even before the baby is born. If one births in the hospital, the laboring woman is put on a time-schedule of how her labor is supposed to progress. Interestingly, I think this idea of timescale with regards to labor, to learning, to life, is an idea that's had its day...time to discard, move on, and live REAL life.
Just as a side note (totally off topic), I'm finding that all the amazing things I've been reading here and on Sandra's site are relevant to helping women have safe, natural births. I'll save that for another topic/site.
>Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@> wrote:I became interested in this idea a while ago when I read an article in Sun Magazine: http://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/399/computing_the_cost?print=all
> > by Maryann Wolf
> > ***For my greatest concern is that the young brain will never have the time (in milliseconds or in hours or in years) to learn to go deeper into the text after the first decoding, but rather will be pulled by the medium to ever more distracting information, sidebars, and now,perhaps, videos (in the new vooks). ***
> >
that explored the concept of the internet rewiring our brains. Sometimes I feel like that, like, if it weren't for this dang internet (and all the information I feel I must gobble up) I'd be doing things the old fashioned way. You know, reading, physically learning, contemplating, writing, doing. Not clicking, clicking, searching, clicking, reading, clicking, searching, thinking, clicking, typing...you get the idea. But then I realized I'm reading, reading, reading...and I just can't get enough! But then again, is that a bad thing??
> > Even if that were true, which I doubt, because the human brain is pretty good at adapting, why would it be a bad thing to rely on many forms of information gathering over plain text?That's what I totally get. The human brain is SO adaptable. And I find it intriguing that these "experts" still stick to these "old fashioned" ideas when it comes to learning to read or reading in general. It's kinda like that whole "lets burn the Harry Potter Books" idea that some people/groups have--they completely miss the point that kids/people are reading because they discovered a passion for it and thus will do it, and if we burn it/make it unavailable then a remarkable number of people will miss that experience of reading for the simple passion of it.
Maryann Wolf said:
"Each young reader has to fashion an entirely new "reading circuit" afresh every time. There is no one neat circuit just waiting to unfold. This means that the circuit can become more or less developed depending on the particulars of the learner: e.g., instruction, culture, motivation, educational opportunity."
This, I thought, was the the gem. Like Robyn said, these are not a problem for the unschooler--just for those that think that learning needs to happen on a timescale. I would assume (although I might be wrong) that Wolf thinks learning should be left to schools, but her statement applies equally to kids stuck there...they may or may not learn to read well as a result of their environment.
I've been immersed in a 3-day intensive doula training workshop, and it has been made clear that this time schedule problem starts even before the baby is born. If one births in the hospital, the laboring woman is put on a time-schedule of how her labor is supposed to progress. Interestingly, I think this idea of timescale with regards to labor, to learning, to life, is an idea that's had its day...time to discard, move on, and live REAL life.
Just as a side note (totally off topic), I'm finding that all the amazing things I've been reading here and on Sandra's site are relevant to helping women have safe, natural births. I'll save that for another topic/site.