Parents and their children's education

[CassinoChips]

So why learn sums when we have a calculator or phone? Why learn to spell when we have spell check? Why learn to draw with traditional tools when we can draw digitally?

This is certainly a perspective I'm familiar with and honestly I cannot fully give an answer that satisfies those who pose it. I see these concepts as a reliance which have knock-on and cumulative effects. I know that as a child, if my Mammy had always given me the answer to a questions immediately and hadn't encouraged me think on it to find one in my own way, there would have been aspects of my own capabilities I wouldn't have discovered. In a way I could liken the concept to a person who visits a foreign country to take photographs rather than just doing an online image search.

But that's a false dichotomy. You're not using any fewer skills by finding information online. Reading something in a book and reading something on the internet are virtually the same skill set. The source is the only difference, along with access to that source.

 

[Galadín]

CassinoChips
I'm not contrasting the two (i.e. using a calculator rather than learning sums and using the internet to find information rather than using books), I am comparing them. You stated that using the internet was a faster efficient method of obtaining information (which is true) as a better way of problem solving, so I compared this with other faster, efficient techniques in dealing with other subjects and applied the same logic that was previously stated.

Speed and quantity is the advantage of online sources and I have already said that that is a valuable tool. Books have something to offer to education too however, after all is it not better for a child to look up a word in a dictionary or read a newspaper to find out current events at least now and again (and I don't mean for them to completely avoid internet learning and/or sources)? I believe that the drive to replace textbooks is a shame since it not only deprives students from having the best of both worlds but also puts a heavier reliance on technology.

 

[Ethics]

Books themselves are technology, so I fail to see how it makes us rely heavier on it. If you mean to say it puts a heavier reliance on electronics or machines, I'd like an explanation as to why that's a bad thing, especially considering the electronics and machines needed to create books. Slippery slopes, these.

after all is it not better for a child to look up a word in a dictionary or read a newspaper to find out current events at least now and again

No, it isn't. Please explain how the child gains anything from this as opposed to an electronic source. 'dat book smell?


Opinions ahead of a non-parent: To actually return to the original topic, and considering the current back and forth, as a parent you need to be active in encouraging your kids with their education. Your child's education is as much your responsibility as it is the teachers, and are obligated to provide them the best TOOLS (not answers) for critical thinking, even if you lack the formal training yourself. At points, you will also need to realize your own biases and try to understand how they will help or hamper your kid, then ACT ACCORDINGLY based on the answer.

Do my prejudices hurt or help my case, my quality of life and the world around? Does my idea of this impact my perspectives in harmful ways? Do I REALLY want to potentially seed and encourage these same characteristics in my kids?

Obviously I don't expect anyone to consider and answer these on the fly and in the heat of the moment, but I've always felt like they give your parenting a goal to work towards besides "get 'em fed and all learned up before he's 18 and such."

 

[Galadín]

Books themselves are technology, so I fail to see how it makes us rely heavier on it. If you mean to say it puts a heavier reliance on electronics or machines, I'd like an explanation as to why that's a bad thing, especially considering the electronics and machines needed to create books. Slippery slopes, these.

This is a rather deliberately obtuse point which misinterprets the concept being presented.

Also, please remember that using either source is up to preference and each carry their own merit. Dismissing the value of books is a perspective not a fact. Books have more to offer than just their smell, which is a point that many parents, teachers and even scientists will acknowledge.

Below is an extract from Scientific American explaining the differences between on-screen reading and reading from a book:

Spoiler

Beyond treating individual letters as physical objects, the human brain may also perceive a text in its entirety as a kind of physical landscape. When we read, we construct a mental representation of the text in which meaning is anchored to structure. The exact nature of such representations remains unclear, but they are likely similar to the mental maps we create of terrain—such as mountains and trails—and of man-made physical spaces, such as apartments and offices. Both anecdotally and in published studies, people report that when trying to locate a particular piece of written information they often remember where in the text it appeared. We might recall that we passed the red farmhouse near the start of the trail before we started climbing uphill through the forest; in a similar way, we remember that we read about Mr. Darcy rebuffing Elizabeth Bennett on the bottom of the left-hand page in one of the earlier chapters.

In most cases, paper books have more obvious topography than onscreen text. An open paperback presents a reader with two clearly defined domains—the left and right pages—and a total of eight corners with which to orient oneself. A reader can focus on a single page of a paper book without losing sight of the whole text: one can see where the book begins and ends and where one page is in relation to those borders. One can even feel the thickness of the pages read in one hand and pages to be read in the other. Turning the pages of a paper book is like leaving one footprint after another on the trail—there's a rhythm to it and a visible record of how far one has traveled. All these features not only make text in a paper book easily navigable, they also make it easier to form a coherent mental map of the text.

In contrast, most screens, e-readers, smartphones and tablets interfere with intuitive navigation of a text and inhibit people from mapping the journey in their minds. A reader of digital text might scroll through a seamless stream of words, tap forward one page at a time or use the search function to immediately locate a particular phrase—but it is difficult to see any one passage in the context of the entire text. As an analogy, imagine if Google Maps allowed people to navigate street by individual street, as well as to teleport to any specific address, but prevented them from zooming out to see a neighborhood, state or country. Although e-readers like the Kindle and tablets like the iPad re-create pagination—sometimes complete with page numbers, headers and illustrations—the screen only displays a single virtual page: it is there and then it is gone. Instead of hiking the trail yourself, the trees, rocks and moss move past you in flashes with no trace of what came before and no way to see what lies ahead.

For the purposes of education and the fact that children also learn by association and mental imagery, textbooks would provide (and have provided for years) the best tools for this kind of learning (at the very least).

There is more evidence to suggest the merit of book learning, the study below states the results of comparing the comprehensive outcome of students when reading from a screen versus reading from paper:

Spoiler

At least a few studies suggest that by limiting the way people navigate texts, screens impair comprehension. In a study published in January 2013 Anne Mangen of the University of Stavanger in Norway and her colleagues asked 72 10th-grade students of similar reading ability to study one narrative and one expository text, each about 1,500 words in length. Half the students read the texts on paper and half read them in pdf files on computers with 15-inch liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors. Afterward, students completed reading-comprehension tests consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions, during which they had access to the texts. Students who read the texts on computers performed a little worse than students who read on paper.

Based on observations during the study, Mangen thinks that students reading pdf files had a more difficult time finding particular information when referencing the texts. Volunteers on computers could only scroll or click through the pdfs one section at a time, whereas students reading on paper could hold the text in its entirety in their hands and quickly switch between different pages. Because of their easy navigability, paper books and documents may be better suited to absorption in a text. "The ease with which you can find out the beginning, end and everything in between and the constant connection to your path, your progress in the text, might be some way of making it less taxing cognitively, so you have more free capacity for comprehension," Mangen says.

Supporting this research, surveys indicate that screens and e-readers interfere with two other important aspects of navigating texts: serendipity and a sense of control. People report that they enjoy flipping to a previous section of a paper book when a sentence surfaces a memory of something they read earlier, for example, or quickly scanning ahead on a whim. People also like to have as much control over a text as possible—to highlight with chemical ink, easily write notes to themselves in the margins as well as deform the paper however they choose.

Because of these preferences—and because getting away from multipurpose screens improves concentration—people consistently say that when they really want to dive into a text, they read it on paper. In a 2011 survey of graduate students at National Taiwan University, the majority reported browsing a few paragraphs online before printing out the whole text for more in-depth reading. A 2008 survey of millennials (people born between 1980 and the early 2000s) at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island concluded that, "when it comes to reading a book, even they prefer good, old-fashioned print". And in a 2003 survey conducted at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, nearly 80 percent of 687 surveyed students preferred to read text on paper as opposed to on a screen in order to "understand it with clarity".

As stated previously on numerous occasions, I believe that computer learning has its advantages but should be used in moderation. I think that for younger children especially, book learning has a lot to offer them which is why I wouldn't advocate the replacement of their textbooks (same as I haven't advocated the boycotting of online sources).

---

I also mentioned about misinformation and acknowledged that it appears in both printed and online sources. When I spoke of culpability for this incorrect information I was referring to that fact that on the likes of Wikipedia, people may edit articles themselves and virtually anonymously.

Spoiler

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain inaccuracies, according to new research.
The number of factual errors shows just how unreliable it can be to use the online resource as a sole means of digging up information.
Yet millions base everything from school homework to corporate presentations using facts and figures they have gleaned from the site.
A study into, specifically, company information on the massively popular website discovered 60 per cent of articles had factual errors.
Wikipedia pages are edited by the public and this leads to both human error in factual information as well as, occasionally, those who want to sabotage entries.
But the site’s administrators themselves add to the problem by being too slow to react to those who complain about the errors, it said.

CassinoChips said that vetting content online was important but not that hard, which I would not dispute particularly when it comes to teachers advising their students to what sources to consider when doing online research. Since my original point was that it is important to note that there is inaccurate content online, that's all there is to say about it.

 

[Ethics]

Ebooks vs textbooks is a discussion in and of itself (a good one) but considering the scope of the OP, this is nothing but semantics. I'd advise creating a new thread (if you can resist post gating it) to discuss it, because this really is a worthwhile topic that is unfortunately unrelated in this thread. I've tried on a few occasions to save face, but, meh, I figure I'll let you run the show. (and yes, the ad hominems are real.)

This is a rather deliberately obtuse point which misinterprets the concept being presented.

The "rather deliberately obtuse point" was made as you ventured into territory suggesting that we are relying on technology to much. Relying on electronics (even heavily so) is beneficial to our society as long as we are responsible with it. You need only point to advancements in medical fields to see this, and using them for reading is no different.

Also, please remember that using either source is up to preference and each carry their own merit. Dismissing the value of books is a perspective not a fact. Books have more to offer than just their smell, which is a point that many parents, teachers and even scientists will acknowledge.

No one claimed otherwise. I personally enjoy reading from paper books far more, but there is nothing I could not get from any digital source. I can dismiss the usefulness of books on simply how space intensive they are by comparison, skipping even mentioning how slow locating information is by comparison (more on that later, I'll readdress your points)

Beyond treating individual letters as physical objects, the human brain may also perceive a text in its entirety as a kind of physical landscape. When we read, we construct a mental representation of the text in which meaning is anchored to structure. The exact nature of such representations remains unclear, but they are likely similar to the mental maps we create of terrain—such as mountains and trails—and of man-made physical spaces, such as apartments and offices. Both anecdotally and in published studies, people report that when trying to locate a particular piece of written information they often remember where in the text it appeared. We might recall that we passed the red farmhouse near the start of the trail before we started climbing uphill through the forest; in a similar way, we remember that we read about Mr. Darcy rebuffing Elizabeth Bennett on the bottom of the left-hand page in one of the earlier chapters.

This is something that we have known for quite a while. As an artist you can mean any given thing (or just be a dick about it) but actually create a number of things. We interpret writing and information differently than other parts of the world, for example. We exist already in predetermined dispositions based on the culture we experience. Does it truly and honestly surprise you that we, as a society, find the common structure of a book more appealing still? I'm really interested in what the children of our children will be predisposed to (and make no claims to say they will prefer digital to physical) but I do find it very hard to believe that they will not be several steps ahead of us at an earlier age.

In most cases, paper books have more obvious topography than onscreen text. An open paperback presents a reader with two clearly defined domains—the left and right pages—and a total of eight corners with which to orient oneself. A reader can focus on a single page of a paper book without losing sight of the whole text: one can see where the book begins and ends and where one page is in relation to those borders. One can even feel the thickness of the pages read in one hand and pages to be read in the other. Turning the pages of a paper book is like leaving one footprint after another on the trail—there's a rhythm to it and a visible record of how far one has traveled. All these features not only make text in a paper book easily navigable, they also make it easier to form a coherent mental map of the text.

I see little in this that makes it superior for receiving any more or less vital information. I'm going to assume you left this paragraph here for the transition into the next paragraph.

In contrast, most screens, e-readers, smartphones and tablets interfere with intuitive navigation of a text and inhibit people from mapping the journey in their minds. A reader of digital text might scroll through a seamless stream of words, tap forward one page at a time or use the search function to immediately locate a particular phrase—but it is difficult to see any one passage in the context of the entire text. As an analogy, imagine if Google Maps allowed people to navigate street by individual street, as well as to teleport to any specific address, but prevented them from zooming out to see a neighborhood, state or country. Although e-readers like the Kindle and tablets like the iPad re-create pagination—sometimes complete with page numbers, headers and illustrations—the screen only displays a single virtual page: it is there and then it is gone. Instead of hiking the trail yourself, the trees, rocks and moss move past you in flashes with no trace of what came before and no way to see what lies ahead.

Please clarify this, because what I'm picking up here is "people can navigate easier because a book has a variable thickness, which you can gauge progress and position with." Which, again, is nothing but aesthetics and contributes little to the actual knowledge received.

For the purposes of education and the fact that children also learn by association and mental imagery, textbooks would provide (and have provided for years) the best tools for this kind of learning (at the very least).

I'm going to assume you have evidence that textbooks have, in fact, been the best tools for this kind of education for children group A, as opposed to children group B who were taught primarily/solely via electronic means with all other variables constant? or even a large sample size of people predisposed to ebooks compared comprehensively to those that are predisposed to textbooks? I'll wait, because you have mixed results for days.

Also, I've realized I have spent more time than planned here, so I'll try to give you the cliffnotes version for the rest of this.

At least a few studies suggest that by limiting the way people navigate texts, screens impair comprehension. In a study published in January 2013 Anne Mangen of the University of Stavanger in Norway and her colleagues asked 72 10th-grade students of similar reading ability to study one narrative and one expository text, each about 1,500 words in length. Half the students read the texts on paper and half read them in pdf files on computers with 15-inch liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors. Afterward, students completed reading-comprehension tests consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions, during which they had access to the texts. Students who read the texts on computers performed a little worse than students who read on paper.

Only a few points here, because this isn't the meat of it. Is reading ability the only shared quality? I'd like to see more information on this study. What was the average computer experience of each group? How do those who have more exposure to PDF readers, forum experience, software development experience etc. rate to the others? How was the ease of use of the software provided? etc. If you have a link, I'd like it.

Based on observations during the study, Mangen thinks that students reading pdf files had a more difficult time finding particular information when referencing the texts. Volunteers on computers could only scroll or click through the pdfs one section at a time, whereas students reading on paper could hold the text in its entirety in their hands and quickly switch between different pages. Because of their easy navigability, paper books and documents may be better suited to absorption in a text. "The ease with which you can find out the beginning, end and everything in between and the constant connection to your path, your progress in the text, might be some way of making it less taxing cognitively, so you have more free capacity for comprehension," Mangen says.

It would honestly be easier if I just highlighted the only sentence that seemed to actually offer support of the fact (the very last one here). I instead opted to only highlight the important bits. I'm not even going to comment on the first one I marked for you. Honestly, it's no wonder this was an issue.

The second bit is something that also makes me shake my head. This is noted as a "navigability" issue, whereas the points following it do not relate to navigation of the contents, but rather the "device" you are using. I bet you 10 out of 10 times an experienced ebook consumer could find the starting page of "Chapter 10" faster than an experienced textbook user; this is navigation of the contents. I could find the exact line with a specific quote I want faster, all I need to know is a fraction of the quote. Let us assume, then, that it is an issue with the flow of continuity...you know, I don't even see how I need to explain this. Have you ever used a properly formatted ebook? On an ereader? or even just a well done PDF page? Navigation menu listed in traditional table of contents fashion, "page turning", etc? Every single point listed for the "navigability" issue is addressed, giving you the same exact information as a book would....bar that smell.

Supporting this research, surveys indicate that screens and e-readers interfere with two other important aspects of navigating texts: serendipity and a sense of control. People report that they enjoy flipping to a previous section of a paper book when a sentence surfaces a memory of something they read earlier, for example, or quickly scanning ahead on a whim. People also like to have as much control over a text as possible—to highlight with chemical ink, easily write notes to themselves in the margins as well as deform the paper however they choose.

All addressed in the bit directly above this. Highlighting and note making (also in the margins) are default features, even in fucking Adobe Reader. You got me on the deforming papers, though, though I'm unsure how deforming it attributes to the learning process at all. Feel free to let me know if you have any ideas.

Because of these preferences—and because getting away from multipurpose screens improves concentration—people consistently say that when they really want to dive into a text, they read it on paper. In a 2011 survey of graduate students at National Taiwan University, the majority reported browsing a few paragraphs online before printing out the whole text for more in-depth reading. A 2008 survey of millennials (people born between 1980 and the early 2000s) at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island concluded that, "when it comes to reading a book, even they prefer good, old-fashioned print". And in a 2003 survey conducted at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, nearly 80 percent of 687 surveyed students preferred to read text on paper as opposed to on a screen in order to "understand it with clarity".

We learned to read and write from textbooks. We all (read most) used textbooks in school, not ebooks. We've written paper notes, reminders and ideas down for the vast majority of our lives. Even if I end up being wrong, this information here STILL does not offer ANY validation. The preferences of students who are finishing their education at the "dawn" (not birth) of the ebooks is far from any kind of actual value.

As stated previously on numerous occasions, I believe that computer learning has its advantages but should be used in moderation. I think that for younger children especially, book learning has a lot to offer them which is why I wouldn't advocate the replacement of their textbooks (same as I haven't advocated the boycotting of online sources).

I genuinely hope you do not have kids who are hampered by this because of a silly infatuation with aesthetics.

I also mentioned about misinformation and acknowledged that is appears in both printed and online sources. When I'm spoke of culpability for this incorrect information I am referring to that fact that on the likes of Wikipedia, people may edit articles themselves and virtually anonymously.

Perhaps you are missing out on the fact that they also contributed every once of accurate information, too, but I don't think that is the actual issue. Yes, Wikis have faults. They always have and always will if they maintain the current model. The issue as I see it is two fold, half even mentioned in your own article. Yes, staff is unable to reply to complaints of inaccuracies on time. It happens, but it is better than allowing information to be automatically pulled down because of various non-related issues. Trolling, boycotting, intentional attacks meant to slander or misinform, etc. It is the best model yet, and actually has room to grow and correct itself...unlike my old dictionaries I have laying around.

The other half of this issue is really pretty obvious. Users. Users do not check citations and sources, either because they don't know where/how or they just don't care too. It's good enough. The people who don't know how to is an issue that will have to resolve itself in time, just like traditional texts. (This is not an issue that is inherent ebooks, either. I will actually and literally puke the next time I read that Thomas-Fucking-Edison invented the majority of the crock he's attributed, but namely the light bulb.) We both know that if people believe it, it's vetted and remains until a mountain of evidence proves otherwise.

CassinoChips said that vetting content online was important but not that hard, which I would not dispute particularly when it comes to teachers advising their students to what sources to consider when doing online research. Since my original point was that it is important to note that there is inaccurate content online, that's all there is to say about it.

and my only aim was to show that this is both inaccurate and ridiculous. It's the equivalent of including children's books (such as Cliffard), the New York Times and Hustler with acadmic texts. They are different worlds with different purposes and as such are separated.

 

[CassinoChips]

Below is an extract from Scientific American explaining the differences between on-screen reading and reading from a book:

Stuff

That's all awesome research. Books certainly have their place, and I'm not dismissing their intrinsic value. But, as we become a more digital society, I think you're going to see kids retain more information digitally because it's what they're used to.

I will say I'm not convinced about the whole "taking a journey" thing with books. Turning the page isn't that monumental a thing.

 

[Ed Elric]

I remember as a child, I did very good in school except for math. My dad was very, very strict on grades and expected us to have an a/b honor roll every report card. I remember him always asking us for our test grades, making sure we did our homework before we went outside, etc.

I got commended and praised...back then we would take our good grades at our local Peter Piper Pizza, and they'd give us game tickets.

My old man pops hated the school system in Austin... he became an enemy to the higher ups of the school board. (I can't remember exactly why though)

We moved to a different county and started middle school/ high school there. My pops stopped caring though when we hit high school... which was really odd because good grades in high school determine college. He was always firm believer on going to college. I believe it was because my parent's marriage was failing and he was having a mid-life crisis so he stopped paying attention.

My mum was always laxed... after my parents split, my brother began slacking off... my dad was what pushed us to get good grades or we'd get punished...

I managed a 3.3 or so in higschool. I never had the brain activity to go in advance classes and my class was full of smart people!

Even now my pops occasionally asks how I'm doing in school and what I'm studying etc...

I don't have the funds to attend school atm... because I pay out of pocket. I appreciated my old man's efforts, but I always felt pressure to do school NOW and finish within a certain time. I never really cared for college, to tell the truth. I never applied for scholarships etc.

With how the economy is as of now with jobs, I'm in no hurry to finish. I'll go back when I'm ready.