« December 2004 | Main | June 2005 »
May 31, 2005
Unschooling
I hate the term "unschooling." All it means is self-directed learning. We all do that. All the time. Even kids in school all day spend part of their day "unschooling." If you breathe, you unschool part of your day. It's how life works.
Several of us who have read "A Thomas Jefferson Education" lately have been thinking about how to implement DeMille's ideas into our lives. In practice, it seems as though most people who use ATJE as the basis of their education tend to do a great deal of "unschooling." Y'all know what I mean by that: They let the kids decide what to study, and when.
I'm of two minds about that. On the one hand, it's obvious how much kids learn from self-directed projects, and it's obvious that they may or may not learn from parent-directed projects. It's thrilling to watch them take off on some area of interest and go with it.
The biggest problem with "unschooling" in this family is Mom. Mom has four young children. Mom is a very introverted person. Four children taking off in four different direction, each requiring some level of enthusiasm, engagement and facilitation from Mom, DRIVES MOM STARK RAVING MAD!
What good is this unschooling thing if it leads to a cranky Mom?
I like to think we have a good balance right now. I require math, Latin, and piano practice, whether they like it or not. I do try to make these things engaging and appealing, but they're non-negotiable.
For everything else, I guide them. Guiding means that I introduce a subject, or an idea, and we run with it. If it doesn't catch their interest, they've at least been exposed to the idea and we can move on. If they become enthusiastic, we stay there. But we're all on the same basic page, in the same basic direction.
I'm listening to Core and Love of Learning, which is a recording of one of the DeMille's seminars on how to implement the ideas in ATJE with small children. I'm only one disc in. I have found some useful ideas so far, and I'll talk about them more when I've listened more. I like their ideas, but I've got to structure things so that I am happy and sane.
Posted by lynx at 7:30 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Politics
Jeff wrote a political manifesto, and as a couple of my readers share very similar political views, I thought you'd be interested in reading it. I know that many of you do not share these views, and you might be interested as well. I agree with pretty much all of it, and I tend to call our views libertarian-conservative or conservative-libertarian, depending.
Posted by lynx at 7:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 30, 2005
Oh, the Technology!
So I have a cassette I'd like to listen to. However, there is no cassette player in our stereo. Nor is there one in my car. I had to buy a cheap walkman from Radio Shack.
My two younger kids just found it. They both exclaimed in wonder: "Mom, is this your new iPod? Can I play on it?"
Posted by lynx at 11:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Scared by Science
This post title is actually a song title. If anyone out there gets it, I'll be amazed and terribly, terribly impressed. I'm not at all scared by science - I just wanted to use the title.
The first time I read "The Well-Trained Mind," I fell in love. Except for the science parts. It seemed to me as if the wonderful Susan Wise Bauer managed to suck the very life out of science, and turn it into just another content area with which we can practice our outlining and writing skills.
Ugh. No. Even though I was enamored with the rest of her program, I knew we'd never do science like that.
And we haven't. In fact, through reading "Climbing Parnassus" and "A Thomas Jefferson Education," I don't believe that formal science is necessary in the elementary years at all. I'm not convinced it has a place in the middle grades, either. I am convinced that it has a very important place in high school, preferably after a child has grappled with algebra.
We all love science, though, so of course we're going to "do science." It's not science that I have a problem with, it's a formal course. To begin with, at the elementary level these courses are largely composed of inane content. These are a waste of everyone's time, and teaching them does not create scientists.
I flirted with the ideas in "Nebel's Elementary Education" for awhile. Dr. Nebel's science chapters are superb, packed with information I never knew; his approach is to teach science experientially, and only as the child shows interest. I still use Nebel's as a reference, but it didn't turn out to do much for us otherwise.
Last year I stumbled across this free workshop: How to Teach Science. Teresa, the brains behind the workshop, has a different approach to science. She says we should start with chemistry, and teaching the skills of observation and accurate description. She says we start with chemistry because chemistry is the basis for so many other things, such as biology, and much of physics. Nebel, for contrast, believes that young elementary students cannot grasp something as abstract as atoms and molecules, and suggests leaving chemistry alone until later.
I liked Teresa's workshop, so I have decided to give her ideas a try. My kids beg for a formal science program. By happy coincidence they beg for chemistry, and Teresa suggests starting with chemistry. So far so good.
Next problem: Have you ever looked at elementary-level chemistry programs? Ninety-nine percent of them are crap! Most of them don't get more advanced than combining vinegar and baking soda. Oooh. They discuss the three states of matter, but that's often it. Then they wrap up with a bunch of experiments that have ooh, shiny results, but don't teach ANYTHING.
I decided on Real Science 4 Kids chemistry, Pre-Level 1. RS4K is a solid program that presents actual, good scientific information in a way young children can understand. It turns out that Pre-Level 1 is a little young for my kids, but still, the information is good and the experiments actually teach something.
I want to strike a balance, though, between my kids' need to feel like we are "doing a chemistry program" and teaching via the ideas in Teresa's workshop. So like everything else (except math and Latin), we are approaching this casually.
Last week we read through the chapter that teaches about how atoms combine into molecules. The experiment had us taking large and small marshmallows and toothpicks, and making molecules. The instructions had us combine them according to different rules, teaching the kids that atoms only combine according to certain rules. I brought out a periodic table for them to look at, as well.
Voila! That afternoon we were the homeschooling poster family. They made molecules for hours (except for the three year old who, predictably, ate all of his). Then they discovered the periodic table.
"Mom, what does 'atomic number' mean?"
"Mom, does this table tell me how many connections an atom can make?"
"Mom, what does 'element' mean?"
"Look, platinum is on here. Does that mean there are platinum atoms?"
"What happens if I put hydrogen and chlorine together?"
Heh heh heh.
How about that: the little kids do grasp this abstract chemisty stuff. Set 'em up with a periodic table and turn 'em loose. Who knew?
Since then I've ordered this Molecular Model Set (though I was disappointed; I thought it would come with some kind of pamphlet or activities, but it doesnt), and Teresa's version of the periodic table. Now I need to find a good chemistry reference so we can look up the answers to their questions. I remember a little chemistry, but not enough!
Posted by lynx at 10:08 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
May 28, 2005
Conversations with a Four Year Old
Griffin: I didn't see the red thing.
Me: What red thing?
Griffin: The red thing i didn't see.
(Ah, of course.)
Tonight he was asking questions about molecules (science post forthcoming). I told him that he is made of molecules. He asked me: "Did the molecules decide to make me themselves?"
All I could do, at first, was laugh. What a question! What a profound, fantastic, wonderful question!
Unfortunately, the rest of the kids chose that moment to pounce upon us and play. (And that's unfortunate only in that I didn't get to finish the conversation with Griffin.)
I will never tire of hearing how they think the world works.
Posted by lynx at 9:26 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 27, 2005
Stupid Judge Update
The Wild Hunt has a roundup of opinions on the judge vs. Wicca case in IN, including a statement from the father in question.
My prayers will go toward helping that judge find alternative means of employment. Fast.
Posted by lynx at 8:19 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 26, 2005
I have no words.
And it doesn't matter. Jeff will have enough words for both of us.
Think about this carefully, folks. Very carefully. How would you feel if a judge told you that you were under a court order forbidding you to expose your children to your religious beliefs?
Hopefully this will be overturned quickly, and the judge disbarred or whatever it is they do to throw judges out on their nether parts. Maybe he can be replaced with a judge who has heard of that First Amendment thing.
I never drink during the day (unless someone invites me out to a nice lunch, and someone else keeps my kids ... sound good, anyone?), but this might have to be a beer lunch.
Hat tip to Chris.
Posted by lynx at 12:04 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Of Food and Fandom
Unfortunate Star Wars Costumes
Posted by lynx at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Gosh, that's a relief!
Hat tip to Daryl: Socialization is no longer an "issue" for home-schooled kids.
So there. Don't you feel better now that an expert said it?
Funny socialization note: Earlier in the week we went to a birthday party at the Build-A-Bear Workshop. The party attendees were all homeschooled kids. The poor party facilitator had no idea what to do with us. She tried to start up a game in which the kids had to guess which "Sponge Bob" character they were. The trouble was that not one child there had ever seen "Sponge Bob." Not. One.
Really, the lady was disheartened and confused. It didn't seem to perk her up that all the kids had a fair knowledge of Disney characters. I think we just reinforced the "homeschooled kids are weirdos who don't watch TV" stereotype. I don't forbid the kids from watching Bob, though - they just don't. They prefer Scooby. Rebels.
Posted by lynx at 7:24 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 25, 2005
And the Morning Flies Right By
We've been terribly successful at doing Latin and math first every morning. It works beautifully, especially because it means we can do a Right Start lesson before the smaller children are up. I can get up, exercise, look at the web, do a little reading or housework, and eat; then I get the big kids up, give them breakfast, let them watch a morning show to bring them to full consciousness. They get dressed, etc., and we do a Right Start lesson. After that we discuss the Latin for the day and Connor works on his worksheet, puzzle or quiz while I get the little ones up. It works! It works!
I can even (gasp) get to the gym by 10:30, if I wish. That's what we did today. I am pleased to report better music: Today's music included Roxy Music, Evanescence, Limahl and the Lovin' Spoonfull. Much, much better.
The we did a quick swing by Target to pick up medication for burns, since we had a bit of a boo-boo. Injured child is upset by the pain, but pretty darned happy about being excused from piano practice for the week (he burned the tip of his finger). Target includes Starbucks, where the same nice lady works every day, and knows us pretty darned well by now.
Those affogato style frappuccinos are yummy.
Last night the older boys and Daddy went to a Cub Scout look-at-the-projects-we-did-don't-you-want-to-join-us? type meeting. The boys are hooked. Scouts, here we come! So in the fall we'll have a Tiger and a Webelos. I think it will be a very, very good thing for them. I'm nervous about how busy we'll be, especially if Connor wants to play baseball again. But we'll see, we'll see.
(Connor says he doesn't want to play baseball. He wants to start a Pokemon league. Oof. Can any of you tell me how to do that?)
They'll be with boys, and working towards accomplishing goals. Those are the important things. This pack seems to set a high priority on earning badges and doing things well.
On another note, I have lost my Henle answer key. This is not funny. Now I don't know the difference between "in silvas contendebat" and "ad silvas contendebat." Not to mention the difference between "eos in provinciam misit" and "eos ad provinciam misit."
Help?
Posted by lynx at 12:26 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
And speaking of poetry ...
Since I'm relying on Sarah to come up with an age-appropriate, engaging, Germanic mythology source, I think I'll also rip off use her poetry reading schedule. Ah, there's nothing like having someone else do the work, is there?
Posted by lynx at 12:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Goals and Plans
Is it that time already?
Next year, by ps standards, Connor will be in 4th grade and Aidan in 2nd.
For math, C will work through Singapore 3 and Right Start C. A will work through Singapore B and Right Start C.
For Latin, C will continue to work in Latin for Children. Our goal is to finish Primer C by about the end of 5th grade. A ... who knows? I'll let him choose between LC and LFC. I believe he'll choose LC. As long as we work at it daily, I have no particular goal for him. I'd like both kids to be out of the primer programs and onto something meatier by about 6th grade.
The boys will take piano lessons and practice daily.
We will work through Classical Writing Aesop.
We will all read "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" together.
I will read to them every morning, Greek myths and fairy tales. I'll add in Germanic myths once Sarah finds a good resrouce. Connor will keep reading from "Tanglewood Tales," and either "Famous Men of Rome" or "D'Aulaire's Greek Myths." I imagine it will be FMOR, as he'll be getting enough of the Greek myths elsewhere. I might even get very ambitious and read poetry as well.
I will either read "Farmer Boy" to them, or ask them to read it. Other than that I will offer suggestions and advice, but will largely allow them to choose their own books.
I will read to the little ones every morning, and help them learn to read if they're ready.
I'll say words in Spanish, whenever I remember to.*
We'll also do some history (SOTW 4), some spelling, some science (they boys have requested chemistry and electronics). We'll take swimming lessons. We'll play at the park. We'll do crafts. The older ones will start Cub Scouts.
We're also planning some Texas history field trips: the Alamo, San Jacinto, Austin, etc. And of course, Houston, to see both NASA and the LOTR exhibit.
Sound good?
* I found a fun resource: "Kids Stuff Spanish." It is filled with phrases to use with the kiddos. Yesterday they made wooden boats, so our phrase for the day, from the book, was "El barco se está hundiendo!" (The boat is sinking!) I also especially appreciate knowing the Spanish for "There's seaweed on your back!" and "Your glands are swollen."
Posted by lynx at 8:27 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 23, 2005
Mornings that Work
It's 10 am. I have exercised, I have read, everyone has eaten, everyone is happy, and we've done a solid hour of math and Latin.
Nice.
I have found that if we can put in some good time on math and Latin in the morning, I can fail to stress about anything else that may or may not "get done" that day. As long as the rest of the day includes reading, piano practice and some form of academic study or discussion, we're good. We're evolving, again, relaxing more in most areas while working hard at those subjects Mom deems most important.
This is good, because my little ones need more of my time. I can give the older ones about an hour of concentrated Mom time first thing after breakfast; after that I need to have them manage themselves, mostly, for awhile while I give concentrated time to the younger ones - just so they don't grow up thinking they were raised by TV. (Notice how I didn't call them "babies?" I'm getting better.)
This relaxation is also an act of rebellion. We're not having enough fun.
Math and Latin are all we're doing today. We're going to a party all afternoon. Sugar high! Woo-hoo!
I didn't read Nock while I was sick; I retreated into O'Brien (yes, again) and Card ("Memory of Earth"). This morning's Nock chapter was mainly about politics. I don't like his political talk nearly as much as I do his views on education. On politics I find him entirely cynical and depressing. However, I don't know enough about politics or history myself to debate his views. (By the way, I realize now that my in my last Nock entry I was operating under some beautiful illusion about fairytale world leaders. I apologize for that. My ideal ran away with me.)
Nock thought that everything that can be done, and will be done, has been done. Whatever happens how has happened in antiquity. In general that makes sense to me, because humans operate in a cyclical manner, always have and always will. But Nock's view seems to be that there can never be any progress. Not only do the same political cycles endlessly repeat, but humans will never be any better for them. Progress is an illusion. We have more technology, and the trappings have changed, but nothing essential. I disagree. I think he's mostly right, but I think that progress is possible. We can learn from history. True, we don't do it often, but I have to believe we can. The alternative is too depressing.
Posted by lynx at 10:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 20, 2005
For the At-Home Moms
Jeff sent this to me a few weeks ago, and I forgot to post it. If you need a laugh, here is one of Suburban Blight's Real Moments in Motherhood.
Posted by lynx at 10:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hanging On
Thanks for all the well-wishes. We've got drugs and are beginning to feel better. The doctors are talking about a tonsillectomy for my oldest son, though. I remember my tonsillectomy. It wasn't terrible. There's a big difference, however, in something done to you and something done to your child.
Between that and the dental work that we still need to have done, we could end up having three of our children going under general anesthesia this year.
Thank goodness we homeschool. We would have missed an incredible amount of public school this year.
Okay, I'm off to see what kind of a day we can have. First I'll leave you with this website: NutritionData. This site has nutrition information on just about every food you can think of, allows you to analyze your recipes for nutritional composition, and will track your daily caloric consumption.
And if you haven't already seen it, Darth Vader has a blog! I'm guessing it won't have any more entries, now that the movie has opened. Still it's a fun read, and in many ways more insightful about the character of Anakin Skywalker than Lucas has proven to be.
Posted by lynx at 8:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 19, 2005
And Again
What? You were being productive? You were having fun? Well, we'll see about that!
That was the voice of God.
Strep again. I begin to suspect that one of my small ones is a carrier. The night before last, as I was getting really sick, we watched another Hornblower movie. Later that evening I read most of "Mr. Midshipman Hornblower." That night I had the most bizarre, semi-hallucinatory dreams about rigging and frigates and managing a crew.
So, this is life back in Texas. The museums are too far away, and we're sick all the time. Joy.
Posted by lynx at 10:35 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
May 17, 2005
And now for some fluff!
It's not quite 9 am. I haven't had any coffee, and I've already done far too much pre-caffeine thinking this morning.
The kiddos have been studying the War of 1812 and Napoleon via "Story of the World." Well, what is that but the perfect excuse to get out the Hornblower DVDs? That's a fine week of family viewing, that is. After watching it this time, I have decided that the award of "Best Sea Captain in any Cinematic Work" goes to Robert Lindsay's Sir Edward Pellew. Lindsay does such a fabulous job in that role that I'm dying to see him in anything else. Luckily he just happens to have played Benedick in "Much Ado About Nothing" (a favorite); it is available on DVD and I am waiting for the ILL to come in.
Speaking of movies, a couple of weeks ago we watched "2001: A Space Odyssey."
You remember "2001," don't you? It's long. It's quiet. It's full of classical music and stretches of silence, or silence and breathing. It's not exactly action-packed. It's gorgeous, and it's slow. And my 7 and 9 year old boys watched the whole thing.
When it was over, they asked if there was a sequel.
My boys are cool.
Posted by lynx at 8:53 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
On Being Superfluous
Yes, it's Nock week at the ol' One Sixteenth. Chew on this one:
So when it comes to all, I doubt that a study of translations has enough carrying-power to encourage much hope of a "return to the classics." I do not find this altogether lamentable, however, because I am by no means sure that a return to the classics, even if it were practicable, would be desirable. I am not sure that the post-revolutionary frame of mind is so awry, not sure that any more should be done with education, properly so called, than is being done; or that the final end and aim of education, --the ability to see things as they are,-- should any longer be taken into account. The question at issue, obviously, is whether the educable person can any longer be regarded as a social asset; or, indeed, whether in time past his value as a social asset has not been overestimated. ... In a society essentially neolithic, as ours unquestionably is at the moment, --whatever one may hold its evolutionary possibilities to be,-- there can be no place found for an educable person but such as a trainable person could fill quite as well or even better; he becomes a superfluous man; and the more thoroughly his ability to see things as they are is cultivated, the more his superfluity is enhanced.
Certainly, in most social circles being highly educated is not necessarily an asset. I think he's wrong, though, about the educated person being superfluous in our society. If society is neolithic and largely uneducable, and only the educable/educated ones will be able to "see things as they are," aren't those people the ones who will be the leaders? The changers? Isn't that, to a large degree, how it's always been?
Earlier in the book Nock makes the distinction between education and training. He feels that his education was purely formative, and those with a formative education are able to turn their hands to anything. Someone who is instead trained can fulfill certain roles in society and industry, but cannot necessarily step outside of those roles. Well then, won't a classical, formative education, an education that prepares the student to "see things as they are," be a safeguard against becoming superfluous? I can understand how and why he would feel so. In actuality, though, such a person would be essential, desperately needed.
Posted by lynx at 8:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 16, 2005
This Is A Test
I'm just testing my stylesheet. Blah, blah, blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! If only we had a wheelbarrow, that would be something. I'm in the market, as it were. The lesser of two weevils. I don't know - it's a mystery.
Posted by lynx at 11:35 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
For Mungo - Nock on Classical Education
At twelve or thereabouts, for my sins I was sentenced to do time over the "standard authors" which a schoolboy at my stage of progress was supposed to read, -- Caesar, Xenophon, Homer, Virgil, Cicero, -- and God wot it was the dullest, dreariest, most unrewarding task I ever set my hand to. If the language-difficulties attendant on it had been even a shade more obstructive than they were, I would have thrown Greek and Latin to the winds forever. These were the least of my troubles; my tribulations rose from the substance of what these wretched men wrote about; it was all so far over my head. I was not interested in bridge-building, in Ariovistus or Vercingetorix, or in what the father of the gods and king of men had done for Aeolus. ...The schools in our town were somewhat worse than none, and I did not attend them, but had hitherto gone on with my studies in the same happy-go-lucky-fashion as in Brooklyn. My readings in Greek and Latin had consisted of scraps culled from various works; they were mostly short, and all were appropriate to my age. They dealt with matters well within the compass of a child's understanding, affairs of ordinary life, ordinary experience; many of them were light, amusing, humorous. This slipshod curriculum was invaluable to me in one respect. It set me on my way to see the men and women of antiquity as I have always since then seen them, not as story-book heroes and heroines, but as people exactly like us. ... This may seem a commonplace observation, perhaps a stupid commonplace; yet it does point straight to the enormous difference between knowing history and understanding history. ... Nine-tenths of the value of classical studies lies in their power to establish a clear commonsense, matter-of-fact view of human nature and its activities over a continuous stretch of some twenty centuries.
I wish he went into more detail about those casual scraps of Greek and Latin. Later he mentions "Aulus Gellius's scrapbook, Pliny's letters, bits from Cornelius Nepos and Eutropius; epigrams of Martial, Ausonius, the Anthology; fables out of the Graeca Minora, stories out of the Vulgate ..."
Er ... whatever those are. I know the words "Pliny" and "Vulgate" and "Graeca Minora."
He continues:
The authors whom tradition has lebelled "preparatory" have a great place in literature, but that is far out of a child's reach. My notion is that Caesar and Cicero come in with Tacitus, Sallust and others, far along in one's course, as topical reference-reading in a critical study of Roman political history, and Homer and Virgil should in a critical literary study based on Aristotle's Poetics. Taken thus, the student will read and re-read them with understanding and pleasure, but taken as a corpus vile of "preparatory" material he will detest them.
Thoughts? Mungo?
I would certainly like my kids to read Latin and Greek that they find interesting, at least at first - though I would guess that my particular children would actually like Caesar. It's frustrating to not be able to make these judgments myself; through my own ignorance I have to depend on what others hand me as appropriate for teaching. Yes, yes, I'm working on it. Where did I put that Henle grammar?
Posted by lynx at 8:55 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
May 15, 2005
Smart, Dumb, Literacy, Elitism and Albert Nock
I've long wanted to read Albert Nock's Theory of Education in the United States. It's not in our library system, and while waiting for ILL I decided to read his autobiography, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man.
I'll have to find a copy of my own, because of course I can't fill the library book with scribbled notes and highlightings. I find something to copy down on every page. This is delightful reading, even though I only understand about half of it; one day I will go through it again and track down the allusions, the foreign quotes, all the references I don't understand. Still, his ideas are clear, especially as he speaks on education.
Do our more complex TV and computer games make us smarter? What about the fact that vastly more people are literate today than in the mid-1800s? Doesn't that alone make us smarter?
Maybe.
Sure, more of us can read. Most of us can read. I've always wondered how much better off we are for our high rate of literacy. It ought to be a no-brainer. The goal of universal literacy has always been a goal of democratic levelling: when we can all read, we will all be that smart. But of course there's more to reading than being functionally literate.
Here is what Albert Nock had to say about literacy in the early 1900s:
One might assume that as the level of literacy rose, the level of general intelligence would rise with it, and consequently that the economic demand for good literature would also rise. This, roughly, was Mr. Jefferson's idea, and indeed it has always been at the root of our system of free public instruction for everyone. It has, however, somehow failed to work out according to expectation. ... On the contrary, as I discovered as long ago as my undergraduate days, very few literate persons are able to read, very few indeed. ... I do not mean that the great majority are unable to read intelligently; I mean that they are unable to read at all -- unable, that is, to carry away from a piece or printed matter anything like a correct idea of its content. They are more or less adept at passing printed matter through their minds, after a fashion, especially such matter as is addressed to mere sensation, but this is not reading. Reading implies a use of the reflective faculty, and very few have that faculty developed much beyond the anthropoid stage, let alone possessing it at a stage of development which makes reading practicable.
Ouch. He's elitist and hyperbolic, but he does have a point.
Well, that would be me. Anthropoid. Scarier still is that as I don't have a well-developed reflective faculty, I certainly don't know how to go about getting my kids one. That's not true. I have ideas of how to learn to read reflectively, and pass the skill to my sons. It's stunning that I have a degree in literature, and I can just barely read. At least I know it. That's something.
Posted by lynx at 3:09 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
May 14, 2005
What's bad for us makes us smarter?
I'm moving this post over from the backup blog, because it has generated some interesting comments. I've moved the comments over as well, using the linked Blogger profiles and any email address on that site as the url/email for the comments here. If no email was linked, I used an email address that goes to me, as I have not yet reconfigured my comments to not require some email address. If anyone would like me to change the url/email to something else, just let me know.
Check out this review of a book called "Everything Bad is Good For You" by Steven Johnson. The book talks about how we are in general smarter today, even with our indulgence in video games and TV. In fact, he thinks that it is the TV and video games that are making us smarter.
It's an interesting idea. I quit worrying about my kids and computer games long ago. They play on the computer every day. They play games like "Civilization," in which they game historical scenarios, over and over again. For instance, while we read about the Revolutionary War, Connor went to his computer every day and gamed the war from different angles. Sometimes he was the Americans. Sometimes the British. Sometimes the French. Sometimes Cornwallis would be killed early in the game. Sometimes key battles would go to the other side. He got to play with ideas, to see one version of "What would have happened if ...?"
Is this bad for my child's brain? Hardly.
(Conversely, "Civilization" has at times paved the way for our historical studies. "Napoleon? We have a scenario about him! He was French ...")
I had never thought about TV helping us to be smarter, though. Johnson's theory is that TV is so much more complex these days, demanding more and more from the viewer, that it helps our brains to make connections and stay active. I'm sure that doesn't hold true for my kids' daily dose of Cartoon Network (Or does it? Someone tell me it does, quick!), but he makes an interesting point. TV is far more complex today than it used to be. The viewer is often asked to keep track of multiple, shifting plotlines, to form hypotheses, and to generally be mentally engaged in the story. "Lost" is a prime example of this type of show. (And by the way, did anyone notice that Kate and Tom made that tape on 8/15? Hmmm??)
I'm not ready to say that TV can help my children's brains, but he makes some good points. I don't know, though, how kids with extremely limited TV/video game access compare. Maybe we're all just getting smarter because we have plenty of nutritious food, good medical care, and leisure time, and as a result we seek/create more complex entertainment. Or both.
Posted by lynx at 12:44 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
I'm back! I'm back!
It works! Now to just ... redo everything.
Posted by lynx at 11:55 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack