|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 24, 2020 23:00:49 GMT
In older days, they used to plonk them in front of the tv. Or send them outside to play (had benefits, sure) so that "they won't be bothered by them".
Still different, TV was vastly limited by comparison, especially comparing the whole internet and social media today, to our parents' time when TV had THREE channels, AND it went off at night and didn't come back on until the morning, unlike the kids who don't sleep because they're on their phones all night. I find it disturbing I'm about the only person bothered by the fact they're advertising melatonin supplements for kids because *that's* easier than *not* letting them be on their smartphone all day and night.
That's totally horrible. People are being conditioned to be good consumers, even when the cost is their mental health... then they can be good consumers of anti-depressants, which they ironically advertise during the news since much of the news these days seems designed to increase anxiety and cause depression.
|
|
mmexis
Sophomore
@mmexis
Posts: 860
Likes: 732
 
|
Post by mmexis on Mar 25, 2020 0:50:09 GMT
Isn't this the ultimate goal?
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 25, 2020 17:43:06 GMT
Still different, TV was vastly limited by comparison, especially comparing the whole internet and social media today, to our parents' time when TV had THREE channels, AND it went off at night and didn't come back on until the morning, unlike the kids who don't sleep because they're on their phones all night. I find it disturbing I'm about the only person bothered by the fact they're advertising melatonin supplements for kids because *that's* easier than *not* letting them be on their smartphone all day and night.
That's totally horrible. People are being conditioned to be good consumers, even when the cost is their mental health... then they can be good consumers of anti-depressants, which they ironically advertise during the news since much of the news these days seems designed to increase anxiety and cause depression.
Of all the things people SHOULD be reading, they definitely need to make Dr. Victoria Dunckley's book "Reset your Child's Brain" a #1 priority. Especially now that in some areas schools are closed until further notice and kids are going to be spending more time than before on their phones and computers. It explains how overexposure to digital screens affects hormone levels and can literally damage the frontal lobe for small children, hence no impulse control, hence they never think before they act, they just act. What we used to think was just bad behavior, bratty kids etc., there's actually a scientific explanation for it, that even APP DESIGNERS are aware of, even the people whose careers rely on you using your phone all the time and buying their products, even they know this is damaging children's thought process. That should be telling us something.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 25, 2020 17:55:16 GMT
In order to get the percentage up, students need to be given the chance to read during the school day. They need to be given a choice in what they read. Teachers need to lighten up on what they read - especially if they are reading for pleasure and the desire is to take pleasure in what they read. Rant over. Good rant. The assigned readings that I had in school were so agonizingly dull that I associated books with boredom for decades.
I didn't have that problem, or rather I had HALF that problem. In school I read The Prince and the Pauper, Swiss Family Robinson, Wuthering Heights, Lorna Doone, Robinson Crusoe, David Copperfield, to somebody else these might've been good books, I struggled so much to remember ANYTHING I ever read, to this day I cannot remember how I got through Around the World in 80 Days, it was a summer reading project so I'd be a little ahead when we went back in the fall, I remember bits and pieces but only from the beginning. And all logic says I HAD to have finished it, but I have NO memory of it.
Did this put me off reading? No. Did I think of books as boring? No, THESE books were boring, but I knew there were other books out there that weren't, I just didn't have any access to them. Once I was a teenager and I got a library card, I read so many books that for a lot of people, fall under school assigned reading: Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Catcher in the Rye, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, Lord of the Flies, Dracula, Phantom of the Opera, Inherit the Wind, The Phantom Tollbooth, Of Mice and Men, Huckleberry Finn, I wanted to know what was in these books and why they were so famous, some of them I also found boring and hard to get through, but most of them I thoroughly enjoyed reading them.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 25, 2020 19:25:37 GMT
There is a immense difference between reading on a screen and reading on paper.
Paper: You keep the overview over the whole thing
Paper: no distraction with other possibilites (gaming, skypeing, porn, ... )
Paper: Every information has a physical place -
that's very helpful for anchoring information in Your inner mental landscape
There had been a Scandinavian (or Finnish) study on these and similar findings
I do still buy printed newspapers!
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 25, 2020 22:56:52 GMT
There is a immense difference between reading on a screen and reading on paper. ... There had been a Scandinavian (or Finnish) study on these and similar findings - as You liked my post, I did a little research, here You are The study had been from Helsinki, Finland Students in higher education with reading and writing difficulties(from 2015) www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/edui.v6.24277You can read the whole thing if You click on the green PDF button, but You have to print it in case You want to understand it fully  ...
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 25, 2020 23:54:46 GMT
not surprised.
|
|
mmexis
Sophomore
@mmexis
Posts: 860
Likes: 732
|
Post by mmexis on Mar 26, 2020 0:43:11 GMT
Good rant. The assigned readings that I had in school were so agonizingly dull that I associated books with boredom for decades.
I didn't have that problem, or rather I had HALF that problem. In school I read The Prince and the Pauper, Swiss Family Robinson, Wuthering Heights, Lorna Doone, Robinson Crusoe, David Copperfield, to somebody else these might've been good books, I struggled so much to remember ANYTHING I ever read, to this day I cannot remember how I got through Around the World in 80 Days, it was a summer reading project so I'd be a little ahead when we went back in the fall, I remember bits and pieces but only from the beginning. And all logic says I HAD to have finished it, but I have NO memory of it.
Did this put me off reading? No. Did I think of books as boring? No, THESE books were boring, but I knew there were other books out there that weren't, I just didn't have any access to them. Once I was a teenager and I got a library card, I read so many books that for a lot of people, fall under school assigned reading: Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Catcher in the Rye, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, Lord of the Flies, Dracula, Phantom of the Opera, Inherit the Wind, The Phantom Tollbooth, Of Mice and Men, Huckleberry Finn, I wanted to know what was in these books and why they were so famous, some of them I also found boring and hard to get through, but most of them I thoroughly enjoyed reading them.
I'm glad that you got turned on to reading later on. Again, I go back to you got to CHOOSE what you wanted to read later, and were assigned readings (which you don't remember) in school. Most of the books that I HAD to read in school, I hated. And I refuse to teach them, too. That's why I do literature circles so that students have choice. It's not that I don't trot out Lord of the flies, or To kill a mockingbird, but I also bring out newer materials and they are free to suggest titles.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 26, 2020 3:10:57 GMT
There is a immense difference between reading on a screen and reading on paper. ... There had been a Scandinavian (or Finnish) study on these and similar findings - as You liked my post, I did a little research, here You are The study had been from Helsinki, Finland Students in higher education with reading and writing difficulties(from 2015) www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/edui.v6.24277You can read the whole thing if You click on the green PDF button, but You have to print it in case You want to understand it fully ... Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 26, 2020 23:48:50 GMT
I didn't have that problem, or rather I had HALF that problem. In school I read The Prince and the Pauper, Swiss Family Robinson, Wuthering Heights, Lorna Doone, Robinson Crusoe, David Copperfield, to somebody else these might've been good books, I struggled so much to remember ANYTHING I ever read, to this day I cannot remember how I got through Around the World in 80 Days, it was a summer reading project so I'd be a little ahead when we went back in the fall, I remember bits and pieces but only from the beginning. And all logic says I HAD to have finished it, but I have NO memory of it.
Did this put me off reading? No. Did I think of books as boring? No, THESE books were boring, but I knew there were other books out there that weren't, I just didn't have any access to them. Once I was a teenager and I got a library card, I read so many books that for a lot of people, fall under school assigned reading: Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Catcher in the Rye, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, Lord of the Flies, Dracula, Phantom of the Opera, Inherit the Wind, The Phantom Tollbooth, Of Mice and Men, Huckleberry Finn, I wanted to know what was in these books and why they were so famous, some of them I also found boring and hard to get through, but most of them I thoroughly enjoyed reading them.
I'm glad that you got turned on to reading later on. Again, I go back to you got to CHOOSE what you wanted to read later, and were assigned readings (which you don't remember) in school. Most of the books that I HAD to read in school, I hated. And I refuse to teach them, too. That's why I do literature circles so that students have choice. It's not that I don't trot out Lord of the flies, or To kill a mockingbird, but I also bring out newer materials and they are free to suggest titles.
I got to choose what I read later because my school stopped issuing books to read in the 8th grade so it was no longer an issue.
I agree with letting kids suggest titles because then you'd have a real menagerie of stuff to pick from.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 28, 2020 16:52:33 GMT
It is sad but I think a lot of the problem lies with their parents. How many of them read to their children? Reading to children can get them to love books. How many of them give them a phone so they won't be bothered by them? It doesn't help that even adults are being hyped into the notion that books have to either be digitized or on tape to be worth the experience of reading. It's being implied that the notion of actually picking up and scanning physically an object as archaic as a book is something that today's 'with-it', busy adult has neither the time nor inclination to fool about with; either flick up text on one's Kindle or download an audiobook into whatever handy media receptacle, that's how today's reader gets the job done. With this attitude becoming so prevalent among grownup readers, is it any wonder that children are absorbing the message that old-fashioned, analog 'reading' is something that holds very little appeal?
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 28, 2020 16:55:36 GMT
Still different, TV was vastly limited by comparison, especially comparing the whole internet and social media today, to our parents' time when TV had THREE channels, AND it went off at night and didn't come back on until the morning, unlike the kids who don't sleep because they're on their phones all night. I find it disturbing I'm about the only person bothered by the fact they're advertising melatonin supplements for kids because *that's* easier than *not* letting them be on their smartphone all day and night.
That's totally horrible. People are being conditioned to be good consumers, even when the cost is their mental health... then they can be good consumers of anti-depressants, which they ironically advertise during the news since much of the news these days seems designed to increase anxiety and cause depression. An even greater irony is that some of these drugs can actually increase the depressive conditions they were intended to treat--not to mention the idea of simply drugging away real and genuine worldly problems as opposed to actually attempting to help the sufferer from depression find meaningful ways of coping with, and possibly even solving, those very real worldly problems.
|
|
... 
