Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#41

Post by zhemao »

Code_Poet wrote: post #3

Even if YOU don't have children, this is a big deal—this essentially means a highly-illiterate work force for the future. As an educator, I can read with students in a classroom, have them read aloud, and even assign reading outside of class (which they generally don't do, mind you), but it doesn't help if adults and parents aren't making an effort to encourage by example. If I'm a kid who wants to be a web developer…

It would be worrying if reading ability was actually getting worse, but the article mentions that this is not the case.

> Reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s.

> The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#43

Post by greggman »

Xdes wrote: post #5

I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those peopl…

I was similar to you? When I was ~19 I had never read a novel except stuff required by school. I hated it. I only read non-fiction stuff about Space and computer manuals/books/reference.

I asked my best friend that loved to read what book would get me to like reading. He recommended H.Beam Piper's "Little Fuzzies" and I couldn't stop reading until I finished. I think his next recommendation was Ender's Game which I also couldn't stop reading. I never quite got addicted to reading but when something does catch me I can't stop, often not getting enough sleep until I finish.

I agree with you, The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, are not for everyone. They weren't for me either. Many "classics" seem very out dated to me. But, I'm going to guess if you found the right books you'd at least really enjoy them even if like me you never become an avid reader

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#44

Post by [deleted] »

the_af wrote: post #30
Xdes wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? I have never read a novel. I was curious whether I could finish one, so I tried to read the first Harry Potter book. I did not continue after the fifth chapter since it felt like work.

Reading for pleasure is a skill that works like a muscle that must be exercised. The more you train it, the easier it becomes. If you never read as a kid, I can understand why you'd find it difficult as an adult. I'm curious, though: do you watch TV for fun, i.e. not to learn something but just to enjoy the story?

[deleted]

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#45

Post by abledon »

msluyter wrote: post #4

It's not just kids. About 6 months ago, I started reading "Constellation Games," a really fun and clever sci-fi novel. Yet it now sits on my desk about 2/3 complete. I didn't lose interest or anything -- I simply find it increasingly difficult to set aside time for pleasure reading, for a variety of reasons. Even though I enjoy long form reading, it's now something I have to schedule and force myself to do. I'm not s…

tldr; Our ability for deep reading is being affected by the internet medium we are operating in.

[Coming from a person who grew up without internet]

In this internet age, there is SO much text that we are forced to skim over, deciding whether it is relevant or not. If we didn't , and devoted 100% attention to every article/tutorial we came upon, we'd never get our tasks done.

We're retraining our brains from the slow-paced deep reading required of an offline novel.

Kids have no previous neural wiring that required deep immersive concentration into a static simple book of tatooed dead tree leaves. The first thing they are encountering is swaths of internet text, flashing, changing, interaction - too much stimulation for a developing brain. No wonder they can't concentrate, let alone, sit still and be engaged with a single text for a half hour or so.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#46

Post by segmondy »

msluyter wrote: post #4

It's not just kids. About 6 months ago, I started reading "Constellation Games," a really fun and clever sci-fi novel. Yet it now sits on my desk about 2/3 complete. I didn't lose interest or anything -- I simply find it increasingly difficult to set aside time for pleasure reading, for a variety of reasons. Even though I enjoy long form reading, it's now something I have to schedule and force myself to do. I'm not s…

We are reading more crap. I read tons of blogs, HN, reddit, and useless stuff every day. Seems important, but not. We are overloaded with shallow information. When I was young and there was no internet, getting access to information, especially one with depth was a delight. It opened up a new world, where your imagination went to work. Today, there are very few things that wow and have my mind racing as it did when I was much younger. The same applies to kids today, with TV/Internet they have somehow seen it all, even if it's just at the surface level, so very few get drawn to dig in deeper.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#47

Post by mephi5t0 »

ap22213 wrote: post #26
johnchristopher wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure if this is good or bad (who can really say?). Actually, there are many people who can say whether it's good or bad. > Didn't Marshall McLuhan predict this back in the 60s? The 'book' as we know it has only been around for a few hundred years. And, certainly it's been quite important to our progress and exchange of information. But, information has been communicated for thousands of years, in different…

What I mean is: who can predict the future? The 'book' had certainly impacted the structure of Human thinking, and McLuhan suggested that this resulted in things that weren't necessarily 'good' (maybe some good? some bad?). Likewise, new technologies will again change the structure of Human thinking. But, we can't presume to know how this will turn out.

Exactly, nobody can. When we were drawing in horse crap - a car was a life saver. Now everyone complain it's killing us with cancer and drawing us in the future melted ice caps. Nobody can tell what impact it will have on human brains in 100 years... I deff know that watching cartoons all day is bad. And a lot of parents do just that - here is an iPad, just shut up and let me be. But if it used for study... Who knows?!

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#48

Post by sitkack »

segmondy wrote: post #46
msluyter wrote: post #4

It's not just kids. About 6 months ago, I started reading "Constellation Games," a really fun and clever sci-fi novel. Yet it now sits on my desk about 2/3 complete. I didn't lose interest or anything -- I simply find it increasingly difficult to set aside time for pleasure reading, for a variety of reasons. Even though I enjoy long form reading, it's now something I have to schedule and force myself to do. I'm not s…

We are reading more crap. I read tons of blogs, HN, reddit, and useless stuff every day. Seems important, but not. We are overloaded with shallow information. When I was young and there was no internet, getting access to information, especially one with depth was a delight. It opened up a new world, where your imagination went to work. Today, there are very few things that wow and have my mind racing as it did when I…

I find my active creativity is _much_ higher when reading well thought out print material like the New Yorker, fiction OR non-fiction book. My mind races with new creations and combinations. This rarely happens with online material which favors the NOW instead of the good. One cannot subsist off of newspapers and blogs along, they are deficient in all the nutrients the mind needs.

The thoughts are shallow and hurried with repetitive easy to digest truisms. A single sentence expanded to fill an entire article.

Reading something deeply takes work. Writing it even more.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#49

Post by sitkack »

Beliavsky wrote: post #37

Doesn't the following quote from the article contradict the title's assertion that kids are not reading as well? "Despite the large percentage of children with below-basic reading skills, reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability. The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s."

This should have been communicated in some sort of chart.

Maybe children are progressing at a slow rate in their earlier years but making it to the same plateau as 17 year olds? Our reading proficiency might have been more of a step function / trapezoid, arrived early and then grew slowly, vs constant slower growth.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#50

Post by sitkack »

Xdes wrote: post #13
j2kun wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard assigned readings may not interest you precisely because they're assigned. You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? Not Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, nothing?

>You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? I have never read a novel. I was curious whether I could finish one, so I tried to read the first Harry Potter book. I did not continue after the fifth chapter since it felt like work.

That is only one data point.

You like non-non-fiction movies? Take a director of a movie you like and go read a story that they used for a movie you haven't seen.

Post reply on HN