Bookshelves and Broadband Access

David Brooks writes a column today that brings together two of my favorite topics: education and technology. First, let me fish out the important facts that he throws in his column.

He points to one study that found that disadvantaged kids who were given 12 books of their own choosing had higher reading scores than kids who didn't have these books. They were also less affected by "summer slide."

Another study found that the spread of home computers and high speed Internet access was associated with a decline in math and reading scores. 

So, kids that have books in their home do well in school. Kids that have computers do badly.

After I finished my PhD, I did some freelance education research on the use of computers in schools in Northern Wisconsin. I interviewed teachers about how they were using the computers in the classroom and how they were being trained and all that. The conclusion was that computers weren't helping the teachers at all. They didn't need them to teach the kids about Shakespeare. The teachers found them useful for doing e-mail.

Our high school provides students with their own laptop. They get to take them home and keep them for the whole year. They kids use them for taking notes in class. Their textbooks are all online. They use them for reports. Sounds good, right? Well, not so much. After the school gave out the computers, test scores for the district went down. Instead of taking notes on the computers, students are on Facebook. Parents complain that the kids are too distracted to pay attention to the teacher in the classroom.

Brooks' conclusion.

These different cultures foster different types of learning. The great essayist Joseph Epstein once distinguished between being well informed, being hip and being cultivated. The Internet helps you become well informed — knowledgeable about current events, the latest controversies and important trends. The Internet also helps you become hip — to learn about what’s going on, as Epstein writes, “in those lively waters outside the boring mainstream.”

But the literary world is still better at helping you become cultivated, mastering significant things of lasting import. To learn these sorts of things, you have to defer to greater minds than your own. You have to take the time to immerse yourself in a great writer’s world. You have to respect the authority of the teacher.

For a while, I made a concerted effort to divide up my day between the Internet and the non-Internet. Blogs and online newspapers in the morning, books and research in the afternoon. But it didn't work out all that neatly. I do a lot of research on the Internet. I locate the books on Amazon and request them from the library on the town website. It's often good for me to burn through printer cartridges and print stuff out to read in the backyard, because life is too short to spend in my office. Like right now, I'm going to google this Joseph Epstein and print out some of his essays. 

The problem isn't the Internet. The problem is what you do on the Internet. Sure, Facebook and Twitter are fun little diversions. But a tweet on Twitter pointed me to the Christie article. Brooks' online article alerted me to Joseph Epstein. There are days when I squander time on the Internet for sure -- I do love my Perez Hilton. However, there are other days when I find inspiration as well.

Back to what's good for kids. It's possible to have a home with lots of bookshelves and broadband access. We do. The Internet and computer games require policing of content and placing of time limits, but there's nothing horrendous about it. My kids have replaced Saturday morning cartoon viewing with CartoonNetwork.Com. We have manditory book hours. I think we have a good balance in this house.

These studies left me with a few conclusions:

One is that bookshelves are a good thing. I haven't seen any data that shows that people have less bookshelves, since the Internet was born. Distribution of hard cover books to kids is a worthy cause. And I just googled a group that does this.

Two is that kids need to learn about where the good stuff is on the Internet. They need to be shown where the online newspapers are and where they can read books online. They also need some time limits and supervision.

Three is that I've spent enough time in front of a computer screen this morning. I'm going to finish reading a crappy book that a publisher sent me to review. Actually, I think I would learn more from my RSS feed, but I'm determined to finish this book, because I relish the chance to write a really blistering review.

Comments

[Western Dave]

You nailed it. Test scores are up across the board at my school (an independent K-12) since we've made huge investments in technology that included a one-to-one laptop program being phased in in Upper School. But, unlike your district, we teachers got a lot of training on how to integrate technology. We spend a fair amount of time talking about how to use various programs and modeling them. ("Okay today you and your notetaking partner will take notes using two different programs. One will use word, one will use Smart Ideas. At the end of class your hw is to a) do the reading on the assignment sheet and b) compare notes; what are the strengths and weaknesses of each program for notetaking. What contexts/subjects would be good for which program?"). We also feel very comfortable taking a computer away from a kid if they are in fb/web/etc. in class. Kids are getting better and some have even found some cool programs that turn off web or sites for specific time periods so they can't access them until they are done with their work for the day.

[Kai Jones]

If you had a nook or Kindle or the like, you wouldn't need to print off reams of paper to read in the backyard. You could just create PDF files and sideload them to your e-reader. I do that all the time.

[Madeleine]

Or an iPad.

Kindle or other eInk is probably best for reading in sunlight, though.

[lmc]

I think there's a problem with simply combining both of those studies, because I'd bet you the Venn diagram of "houses that can afford a lot of bookshelves" and "houses that can afford a lot of broadband" has very little unoverlapped space in the former circle.

Actually, that might be an urban/rural distinction, given how hard it is to get cable once you go a certain distance into the farming area here.

[bj]

The iPad hasn't replaced paper for me. I don't know if it's the screen (what the kindle users say). But, I'm inclined to think that there's something different about reading on paper (not the least of which is the willingness to read where one's children are making mud rivers or having water gun fights).

I think this concept is intriguing, but I'm not sure I find the data convincing. It'd be great if giving children 12 books could produce significant effects, but it just seems so unlikely. But, I'd like to see the idea pursued. It's a pretty inexpensive intervention.

In our neck of the woods, they send newborns home with a book from the hospital. It seemed silly to me at the time, but I'm intrigued by the idea of a home without a book in it, and how one might change that.

[laura]

I also think that there is a problem with combining these two studies, lmc.

I wonder if you sent disadvantaged kids home with a Kindle, instead of a book, their test scores would go up, too. I wonder if you sent disadvantaged kids home with a fluffy toy, their schools would go up, also, because they felt happy that they were getting attention from an adult or because they felt special.

[Marya]

The study may be interesting, but Brooks's description of what book reading is like is just insane. Does anyone here go to the library in order to be engaged in a hierarchy of greatness and learn the importance of what is important? What?

If reading were that boring I would advise my children to avoid it and play Super Mario Brothers exclusively.

I wondered that too about the toy, laura. My friend who volunteers in the school library told me though that there are a lot of kids who have never had a book of their very own and are thrilled to bits when they get to take discards and extras home.

[MH]

I wonder if you sent disadvantaged kids home with a fluffy toy, their schools would go up...

If you can produce a Hawthorne Effect for an intervention that costs $.75/unit (wholesale), you should conclude that whoever you are studying has big problems.