One of the standard homilies of teaching is that we should strive to create “a lifelong love of reading” in our students. But what if we can’t?
“While virtually anyone who wants to do so can train his or her brain to the habits of long-form reading,” writes Alan Jacobs an English professor at Wheaton College, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “in any given culture, few people will want to. And that’s to be expected.” Over the past half century, “far more people than ever before in human history were expected to read, understand, appreciate, and even enjoy books,” Jacobs writes. But historically speaking, he insists, this is an anomaly. “Rarely has education been about teaching children, adolescents, or young adults how to read lengthy and complicated texts with sustained, deep, appreciative attention—at least, not since the invention of the printing press,” he observes.
“One of the most widely quoted sentences of Sir Francis Bacon—it comes from his essay ‘Of Studies’—concerns the reading of books: ‘Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.’ This is usually taken as a wise or sententious general comment about the worthiness of various texts, but Ann Blair shows that Bacon was making a very practical recommendation to people who were overwhelmed by the availability of books and couldn’t imagine how they were going to read them all. Bacon tells such worried folks that they can’t read them all, and so should develop strategies of discernment that enable them to make wise decisions about how to invest their time. I think Bacon would have applauded Clay Shirky’s comment that we suffer not from ‘information overload’ but from ‘filter failure.’ Bacon’s famous sentence is really a strategy for filtering.”
The liberal arts ideal is about “providing students with navigational tools—with enough knowledge to find their way through situations that they might confront later in life,” Jacobs argues. “All this is to say that the idea that many teachers hold today, that one of the purposes of education is to teach students to love reading—or at least to appreciate and enjoy whole books—is largely alien to the history of education,” he concludes.
I’ve been persuaded for many years of the value of Core Knowledge. I’ve read all the Hirsch books, and more importantly, seen CK in practice in my two kids’ school. CK is a great K-8 foundation for high school.
The education issue I ponder most these days is related to the matter brought up in the Chronicle article. Is it possible to stimulate intellectual curiosity, or is such curiosity a personality trait that you either have or don’t have?
This is a personal issue for me. I’ve read serious books avidly since my teenage years, and I loved reading even as an elementary student. Few kids see a father read more than mine see me. But my 13 year old son is at best a reluctant reader. He does well in school and does what is required, but he rarely reads anything for pleasure and says that he “hates” to read.
He will enter 8th grade this fall at an excellent charter school that uses Core Knowledge for grades K-8, and a splendid classical curriculum for grades 9-12. The humanities program for high school is especially strong: Plato, Dostoevsky, Virgil, the Federalist Papers, etc. Lots of great reading and plenty of required writing. I picked this school specifically for its curriculum; I liked it better than the AP courses at the nearby traditional public high school.
I wonder if – I hope that – this rich curriculum will spark a lifelong love of serious learning in my son.
CK blog commenters, what are your thoughts? What’s the best way to spark intellectual curiosity? Is it even possible?
Comment by John Webster — August 1, 2011 @ 7:42 pm
It’s a great question. Intuitively (I know of no empirical evidence for this) I would imagine a kid is more likely to happen upon something that sparks his or her imagination when they are exposed to as broad a curriculum as possible. I remember falling in love with science in 6th grade when exposed to the periodic table for the first time. An interest in geology came with my 9th grade earth science class that persists more or less to this day. My lifelong love of history in general and American history in particular began with 8th grade social studies. But truth to tell, I didn’t become much of a reader until I was well into my 20s. I’m grateful that I went to schools with strong curriculum. Left to my own devices, I might never have had the opportunity to be exposed to interests that have lasted more or less a lifetime.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — August 1, 2011 @ 7:51 pm
If the curriculum honors the best of the subject, and if the teacher knows and loves it, then the two together (subject matter and teaching) can indeed spark student interest.
I see no contradiction between this and Sir Francis Bacon’s point. Schools should teach students selection by practicing good selection. Students should have a chance to read excellent works slowly and carefully. That will lead to much more appreciation than a rushed reading.
Also, deep enjoyment is not the same as fluffy enjoyment. A love of learning can coexist with frustration, reluctance, and much more. If you persevere with something, you’re likely to find more in it than you would otherwise, and that in itself is conducive to a love of learning.
So, yes, a love of learnig can be imparted. But one does not do it by trying to do it. One does it by focusing on the subject matter itself.
Comment by Diana Senechal — August 1, 2011 @ 7:55 pm
[...] But a professor argues that a love of reading just can’t be taught. (Chronicle of Higher Ed via Pondiscio) [...]
Pingback by Remainders: Study finds city’s exam schools add little value | GothamSchools — August 1, 2011 @ 8:17 pm
[...] But a professor argues that a love of reading just can’t be taught. (Chronicle of Higher Ed via Pondiscio) [...]
Pingback by Online Education in America » Blog Archive » Remainders: Study finds city’s exam schools add little value — August 1, 2011 @ 9:07 pm
I think a father ’s modeling reading is very important and is bound to have an effect, though maybe a delayed one. Some people, especially boys, come to reading later in life. Some people (most people, to be honest) never do, and that is fine, too. People have to follow their own paths. But what parents consider important is bound to have a profound effect on their children, even if a negative one, sometimes. Hopefully, that will not be the case with your son.
We tried to encourage reading in our kids by reading to them every night, by having books around the house (well, we didn’t have to try, because we are both bibliomanes), by listening to books on tape in the car and at home, and most important, by going away for several weeks every summer to a place with no other media, including TV.
I think children have a great drive for autonomy, especially, when in their teen years. Your son may feel overwhelmed and unable to compete with his father — he may want to develop an area of expertise that is all his own. Our son’s interest in reading really took off when he discovered Japanese literature on his own at about the age of fifteen. This was something neither of his parents knew much about and he could take ownership of it. He was also stimulated by taking pre-calc and atro-physics for high school students at a summer course in Cornell. This got him interested in popular books on science, such as “The Sleep Walkers” by Arthur Koestler.
Comment by Harold — August 2, 2011 @ 1:33 am
That part about “taking ownership” is insightful, and it might be the key to loving reading. I read a lot about Abominable Snow Men when I was in grade school. I barely even discussed it with anyone, and I never “used” the experience, but it was a blast. My sons really loved the Cartoon History books by Larry Gonick. We had to buy replacement copies.
The sense that you have discovered something seems to be essential to becoming an avid reader.
Comment by gallowshillbilly — August 2, 2011 @ 7:48 am
Love of reading. Why not “love of speaking a foreign language” or “love of building electrical motors?” For those activities, reading is instrumental, not central. For many people, the reason to read is so that they can do something else worthwhile. I think we should be aiming towards “willingness to read” more than “love of reading.”
Comment by JB — August 2, 2011 @ 11:07 am
It has been my observation that those families I know who claim their kids “don’t like reading” are also those that are heavy visual media users (TV, DVD’s, video games, etc.) while those families I know who strictly limit screen time tend to have kids that love reading.
If schools truly wanted to foster a love of reading in their students, they could adopt the policy of many Waldorf schools & require parents to sign contracts promising to abstain from media use completely during the school year.
I don’t ban screen time completely, but I would gladly give up the DVD’s and Wii during the school year if it meant that my kids would have less secondhand exposure via peers to inappropriate media (I’m constantly appalled at what other parents let their ‘tweens watch).
Comment by Crimson Wife — August 2, 2011 @ 11:21 am
@JB I do think we romanticize reading. I have often wondered why we privilege a love of reading over, per your point, science, math, foreign languages, etc. It has long seemed to me that developing a deep love or interest in virtually any subject virtually assures a need to be a deep and careful reader. At some point, once you commit to learning as much as possible about virtually any subject, all roads lead to reading as the de facto storehouse of knowledge on that topic. If there is a subject whose expertise is not ultimately best captured and shared in print, I can’t think of it.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — August 2, 2011 @ 11:24 am
“Long-Form Reading”: that has got to include books, right? Perhaps even history books? But now that we have national standards calling for “informational texts,” perhaps books can join the rubbish heap, even if they are not burned in those heaps during night anti-intellectual rallies. How long will American academics keep running away from academic work? Until all our students fail basic tests of literacy, perhaps. Disgusting.
fitzhugh@tcr.org
Comment by Will Fitzhugh — August 2, 2011 @ 11:24 am
Mark Twain was kind enough to remind us that: “The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.”
Nonreaders are candidates for any underclass they can find.
Will Fitzhugh
fitzhugh@tcr.org
Comment by Will Fitzhugh — August 2, 2011 @ 11:26 am
Well, music and math are not captured in print in the same way that literture is. Even poetry and fiction are captured differently in print.
If you are learning an instrument, the point ultimately is to get away from the print–you want to be able to play the pieces by heart, or at least to rely on the sheet music as little as possible, especially if you are playing solo. (But you should also be able to sight-read, read music in rehearsals, etc.) Some musicians play without any sheet music whatsoever.
As for math, the print is obviously important, but it often doesn’t come down to “reading.” One can spend a long time puzzling over a theorem contained in a few lines. Math is a kind of shorthand; if each of the steps were explained in prose, it would often make for tedious and cumbersome reading. That said, you do need some degree of print–it’s just condensed.
Poetry is often best heard, not read; as with music, one reads it to get it in the ear and in the mind. (This is not always the case, but it often is.) So “reading” poetry is only a starting point; memorizing it, reciting it, pondering it come afterward.
I see no reason to love reading–but I do see reason to love reading particular things. Not all subjects require a great deal of reading–in fact, incorporating “literacy” in every subject may serve to kill some of them. Let’s have literature and history and philosophy, not literacy.
Comment by Diana Senechal — August 2, 2011 @ 11:36 am
I agree with Robert, but I would go even further. I think we do our children, students, and society a great disservice when we talk about reading as though it were inherently good or an end in and of itself. It leads, among other things, to praising kids for reading junk novels because “at least they’re reading”. We should be just as interested in keeping kids away from bad books as bad television shows–in fact, bad books invite kids to lose themselves in imaginary worlds in ways that can make them even more dangerous than mindless TV shows.
Reading isn’t enough. And the goal of education oughtn’t be to inspire “a lifelong love of reading.” The goal of education is to help people become good so they can become happy. As educators, we ought to be concerned with instilling “a lifelong love of the good,” whether or not a particular student finds his or her good through literature.
Comment by Alison F. Solove — August 2, 2011 @ 12:29 pm
I read to my son every night till the age of nine whereupon he declared he could take care of his own reading from there. At 26 he still reads incessantly and has no television in his own house (with wife and daughter). While he was growing up I read a great variety of books to him and believe this developed his passion for reading and his relatively eclectic taste in what he reads now as an adult.
What worries me regarding this topic is all the kids in this country who are never read to growing up, for whatever reasons. Sadly, many of these kids’ chances of developing a love of reading in their lifetime appear limited, at best.
Yet another tragedy of poverty? Perhaps, but I ran into more than my share of middle and lower middle class kids who were never read to growing up and they suffered the same consequences.
Great series in the LATimes last decade entitled “Reading By Nine” which chronicled all the problems associated with youngsters who were weak/non-readers when they left third grade. Heartbreaking especially when you consider reading has essentially no costs associated to it, especially for children. Public libraries and schools have an abundance of FREE books kids have access to simply for the asking.
Comment by Paul Hoss — August 2, 2011 @ 4:42 pm
I think we should devote more resources to adult literacy, myself. Children learn by example and if their parents are involved in learning it will help to motivate them. We should strive to be a country that views life-long learning as important for everyone.
Comment by Harold — August 2, 2011 @ 9:54 pm
What an interesting discussion, which serves to illustrate the many segments of our society, differences in family background and the consequences of these differences. For 20 years, I have taught students from low socio-economic backgrounds, many of whom come to school at age 5 without ever having owned a book. For them, reading is a tool to a better life, and I would guess that few of them ever became adults with a “lifelong love of reading,” except that it enabled them to get a job…no small accomplishment for many. I recall some students who became “infected” with a quest for knowledge, often because a beloved teacher led the way through a particular topic of interest. I fear that many of our discussions have little to do with the real-world needs of our neediest students, whose futures will ultimately decide the future of our country.
Comment by Lynn Dorr — August 2, 2011 @ 9:55 pm
I don’t need to love to read medical articles, but I need to be able to read a general article to help decide my political position on stem cells, the same on support for NASA or immigration. To me thier is a confusion within the educational system about the need to love reading versus have sufficient knowledge to do a job or be an informed citizen. My problem with our educational system and reading is that they kill books by doing these whole class or reading group over 6 weeks time. I also think too many teachers loose opportunities to teach by trying to do something that is popular. A freind recently told me her 3rd grader was reading for class over 6 weeks the first book in the 39 clues series. This in one of the more highly regarded Ward 3 DC schools. What a waste. Yes we need to support high interest reading but it should not be center stage to books that can teach a greater depth of content.
Comment by Charlotte Osborn — August 5, 2011 @ 7:31 pm
The article is probably right – we can’t TEACH students to love reading, but we can, I believe, INSPIRE them to love reading, by surrounding them with books, by introducing them to a wide variety of subject matter, and by letting them see adults who read with a passion.
Comment by Mia Munn — August 5, 2011 @ 9:18 pm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504150539.htm
Excerpt:
ScienceDaily (May 9, 2011) — Reading books is the only out-of-school activity for 16-year-olds that is linked to getting a managerial or professional job in later life, says an Oxford study. The findings, presented at the British Sociological Association on May 4, show that girls who had read books at 16 had a 39 per cent probability of a professional or managerial post at 33, but only a 25 per cent chance if they had not. For boys who read regularly, the figure went up from 48 per cent to 58 per cent.
None of the other activities, such as taking part in sports or activities,, going to museums or galleries or to the cinema or concerts, or practical activities like cooking or sewing, were found to have a significant effect on their careers. Mr Taylor also found that playing computer games frequently did not make it less likely that 16-year-olds would be in a professional or managerial career at 33, but this was linked to a lower chance of going to university.
Comment by Harold — August 6, 2011 @ 3:12 am