Why demand research for computers but not textbooks?

Weren't one room schools just a bit of educational heaven? Corporal punishment. Easily intimidated poorly-paid teachers. Terminal educational level of 8th grade. Short terms interrupted by farm labor. Long walks to school, uphill both ways. Oh for the days...

In Evidence for Textbooks? Evidence for Classroom Computers?, Larry Cuban argues why textbooks don't need research to demonstrate their effectiveness, while computers do. In part, he argues that textbooks are just a historical staple of the classroom, and don't demand scrutiny:

Two hundred years ago, the most basic tools for teaching reading, math, writing geography, and history in mostly one-room public schoolhouses with students ranging in age from four to twenty-one were in very short supply. Before children had individual textbooks filled with the knowledge and skills they were expected to learn, the teacher had a book–the Bible, Webster’s Speller, or similar texts–and told students everything that was on the page that they had to learn. Initially before the Civil War, parents had to buy books for their children to attend school before some city schools (e.g., Boston, New York City) began to buy textbooks for all children attending school. From the 19th century until the mid-20th century,  textbooks were the computers of the day giving students access to basic knowledge.

Textbooks were computers of the day? Larry, aren't computers the computers of the day today? Might a educational historian, even 20 years from now, write:

In the early 21st century the most basic tool for teaching reading, math, writing, geography, and history in public classrooms with students ranging in ability level from four to twenty-one was in very short supply. Before children had individual computers linked to the knowledge and skills they were expected to learn, the teacher had sets of dull, out-dated textbooks–and told students everything that they had to learn was in them. Initially, parents had to buy computers for their children to attend school before some schools and states began to buy computers for all children attending school. From the 21st century onward, computers were the textbooks of the day giving students access to basic knowledge.

If textbooks don't need effectiveness research, neither do computers. Let's just accept them as a basic modern tool (of at least the affluent) and evaluate not their presence, but their distribution and effective use.

Image source

Holier than thou

Yes, I have a standup desk at work. I am up to about 2 - 2 1/2 hours of working standing, which is really about all the time I have outside meetings in my current job.

According to this (pretty darned funny) New Yorker piece by Tom O'Donnell, you should have a standup desk too.

According to an important WebMD article that my friend Tony described to me, every minute you spend sitting shaves several years off your life.

Fact: the average person sits for more than nineteen hours a day.

Fact: sitting for long stretches interferes with your body’s production of an enzyme called L.P.L., which you need or something.

Fact: even regular exercise isn’t enough to counteract the damage from all this sitting, meaning that regular exercise is stupid and pointless. (I don’t exercise.)

Fact: if you were to remain seated for the amount of time it takes to read this article, you would develop Type 2 diabetes long before reaching the end.

Indeed, sitting has been called the new smoking. The only difference is that smoking looks cool and is a great way to meet people and isn’t actually that bad for you. (I smoke.) Sitting, on the other hand, looks ridiculous and shameful—like you’re afraid to admit exactly how tall you are—and is terrible for you. The human body simply wasn’t meant to be folded up for long stretches, like a sad pretzel. It was meant to be held ramrod-straight at all times, like a noble pretzel stick.

I was once a standing-desk skeptic, too. But, after I made the switch four days ago, I could immediately sense a difference in how I felt: way more self-righteous.

OK, so I quit smoking (mostly) many years ago. It was tough. And now I have to quit sitting as well in order not to look morally suspect? And red meat? And alcohol too, I suppose. No more sugar, catsup, or soda pop. Swearing? Ole and Lena jokes? No more "pull my finger" with the grandsons.

In an effort to become healthy and polite life gets pretty damn boring as well. I wish our culture would do a better job of separating bad health choices from moral failings.

Reading is good for you

Image source

I own a t-shirt decorated with the Edward Gorey cartoon shown above. It is black and I wear it to the YMCA* as part of my exercise togs. It engenders more comments than either of the other two black t-shirts I wear - one with a University of Iowa Hawkeyes logo and the other with a New Orleans's aquarium poison frogs design.

"What do you read?" is the most common question asked (and always by other old farts like me) and discussion ensues. I always found this curious. Why does a shirt about men reading deserve comment? Men do read. A lot of them. Me included.

Reading has always been so much a part of my life that I've never really stopped to think about the benefits. Like fresh air, clean water, and good health, an engaging book has always just been present. Lucky me. In Why we all need books: The benefits of reading for pleasure, Baroness Gail Rebuck, reports (and if you can't believe a baroness, just who can you believe?) that: 

Adults who spend just 30 minutes a week reading are 20 per cent more likely to be satisfied with their lives.

Amongst the many benefits experienced by regular readers were higher self-esteem and greater self-acceptance.

... reading, although paradoxically a solitary activity, actually helps us feel less isolated.

One in four readers say that a book has helped them realise that other people have shared their life experiences.

Readers also find it easier to make decisions and are 10 per cent more capable of planning and prioritising. ...

With just 30 minutes of reading a week, two thirds of readers report a better understanding of other people’s feelings.

Readers were also found to have a stronger and more engaged awareness of social issues and of cultural diversity than non-readers.

Regular readers reported 57 per cent greater cultural awareness and 21 per cent more general knowledge.

...  readers reported higher levels of creativity than non-readers

...readers were more comfortable with strangers, reporting not only that they find it easier to start conversations but also find greater enjoyment in these interactions.

I would like every child who graduates from our school district to be a reader. Not just a proficient reader. Not just a student who has passed a reading test. But as a person who reads - for pleasure, for enlightenment, for greater satisfaction with life.

I am not sure public schools are producing readers, at least not in the sense of people who voluntarily read on a regular basis because it satisfies them.

If there is anything we as educators should be ashamed of and should cause us to lose sleep at night, it is because in the pursuit of getting kids to pass a reading test, we are killing the joy of reading.

All children should be given the opportunity to learn to love to read.

* OK, it doesn't look it, but I do hit the weight machines 2-3 times a week. Just trying to slow the deterioration...