News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Assumptions about how children learn to read have been di... by threatofrain on Saturday April 14, 2018 @12:11PM (#16837934)
But much of high school education in English involves reading ye olde public domain works, and I'm not sure they're actually that helpful for reading or writing. I feel like what kids are doing is practicing how to carry the pretense of intellectualism, but in a way that they, their peers, their teachers, or anyone else around them, feels is absolutely toy and obvious.

It's one thing to begin riding with training wheels, and it's another to keep them on even past high school. For some, indefinitely.

I feel what's important for future optimism is improvement on specifically scientific literacy and observational writing, and not Catcher in the Rye type assignments where nobody, you included, is expected to believe in anything you write. I don't think that's a healthy attitude for the next generation.

Re:Assumptions about how children learn to read have been di... by ghaff on Saturday April 14, 2018 @12:38PM (#16838074)
There's something to be said for learning the "canon" but high school English only does that in a very superficial way under the best of circumstances. There are fairly classic books--at least some of which are admittedly more recent than ye olde public domain--which are pretty readable today. But IMO Henry James, Bronte sisters, Tolstoy, etc. are going to be a pretty tough slog for most modern readers, especially at high school age.
Re:Assumptions about how children learn to read have been di... by skookumchuck on Saturday April 14, 2018 @03:43PM (#16839061)
They're boring, too. Why not read Tolkien instead? Or Asimov? or Clancy?
Re:Assumptions about how children learn to read have been di... by walshemj on Saturday April 14, 2018 @01:28PM (#16838320)
Not at say 17 or 18 though
Re:Assumptions about how children learn to read have been di... by projektir on Saturday April 14, 2018 @11:50PM (#16841087)
I generally enjoy reading but I had a lot of trouble with reading books in high school and it has pretty much killed my ability to read separately for about 5 years or so.

The problem, as I recall it, was twofold:

- I had no context, and no reason, to care about a particular work. It would be from some time period I know nothing about, regarding a subject I have no stake in;

- my opinion on the work was irrelevant, and the important opinion was that of literary critics. There was generally a fairly specific interpretation of the work and what it was saying, and one had to figure out what that interpretation was and arrive at it. Is it that surprising that everyone went for Sparknotes?

So it all felt rather disconnected.

In contrast, in college, I took a military simulation and gaming class. This was a programming class. But our initial assignment was to... read a few books on WW1 (i.e., Guns of August). There were lots of other materials, as well. We were engrossed in the WW1 period, which made all the reading we were doing much more relevant and interesting.

I generally found that background information, or some sort of hook (I.e., why I would care about it) is very important to my enjoyment of the book. And, over time, this also develops a sort of respect for books (and other forms of text, such as, hehe, video game lore), where even reading material from an unknown time period can be interesting.

But I am not sure why this would all be present for a high school student who's probably not getting enough sleep and has no idea who Emily Bronte is.

Re:Assumptions about how children learn to read have been di... by nxc18 on Saturday April 14, 2018 @12:32PM (#16838040)
This is a really good point. I agree that there are much more important things to learn, and reading old material (old enough that the English is barely recognizable) isn't generally valuable. More scientific literacy would be a great start!

I remember in high school freshman year science class involved reading and reflecting on science in the news. I thought it was bullshit at the time, partially because most science journalism that I was aware of was bullshit. I do think I could have read actual scientific papers at that time. Some students would struggle, but struggle = learning, imho.

Re:Assumptions about how children learn to read have been di... by jdietrich on Saturday April 14, 2018 @01:45PM (#16838415)
In Britain, the subject is split into "English Language" and "English Literature". The former focuses on the practical skills needed to communicate effectively, while the latter is based around the study of set texts. English Literature is entirely optional for pupils aged 14-16. Students from 16-18 have a free choice of three or four subjects, with no mandatory elements.
Re:Assumptions about how children learn to read have been di... by pbhjpbhj on Saturday April 14, 2018 @02:50PM (#16838797)
Some time ago I did Lang & Lit, without option to drop them. I think those who were in low[er] sets maybe just did Lang.

My eldest just took options and has both as compulsory subjects.

Also FWIW in "sixth form" (16-18) games/PE and general studies were compulsory in my high school. I had no time to fit in the general studies but was still put in for the exam. Other schools in the area didn't all do GS but lots did games.