TV and Education Re-visited

When television first became popular around 1950, it was dominated by such shows as the Milton Berle comedy hour, “I Love Lucy,” and professional wrestling. Those who missed out on the halcyon days of early television might enjoy reading about its history.

The potential for a damaging impact on education was recognized at the outset. In 1950 Boston University's President Dr. Daniel L. Marsh warned that “if the [television] craze continues with the present level of programs, we are destined to have a nation of morons.” Well here we are. Just look at how voters re-elect incompetents, panderers, and demagogues.

Quick to jump into the breach anticipated by the brain-eating monster of TV, a new movement of “educational TV” sprang up. National Educational Television was born on May 16, 1954 and was a non-profit effort to bring educational programs to the masses. The network was not sustainable as such and was transformed into the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in October, 1970, which continues to the present. Many of the stations are university affiliates that have in modern times made some attempts at education, but the programming now  is devoted largely to music and news. In the early days, if you got up at five AM you might learn a foreign language or something else educationally useful. I remember around 1965 seeing my 5-year-old son looking at test patterns and then a college physics course, while waiting for the cartoons to come on. I’m sure he didn’t learn much physics. Today, educational efforts can still be found on television, but most such programming is distributed over the Internet.

I, among numerous others, am most concerned about how television affects childhood brain development and capability for learning. It steals time away from doing things, such as interacting with others and playing with objects. Language and communication abilities are stunted because TV communication is unidirectional. Kids don’t generate communication, they just receive it. The Raise Smart Kid website cites scholarly reports showing that TV viewing takes away time from reading and improving reading skills through practice.  Kids watching cartoons and entertainment television during pre-school years have poorer pre-reading skills at age 5.

The corrosive nature of television’s effect on childhood intellect has only grown in recent years. The Online College Course’s website has a telling info-graphic titled “This is your child’s brain on television.” Can you believe it―by the age of three, 1/3 of children have a TV in their room. The average child watches 1500 hours of TV a year, but only goes to school 900 hours a year. Only a few of the shows that young children watch have much educational value. There are a few exceptions: Sesame Street and Mr. Robert’s Neighborhood got 5-apple ratings for educational usefulness. But a lot of the other stuff is just plain junk. Moreover, a lot of what kids see is not age appropriate, commonly with sex and violence.

The website points out some of the deleterious effects on attitudes and behavior when young children spend too much time watching television. I want to focus on two issues related to learning to learn. One area of concern is learning to read. Reading, for those who do it well, is the most efficient way to learn. But kids these days tend not to read well. Many don’t want to read, and they were probably conditioned that way by watching too much television. TV is the easy way to get information: you don’t have to do anything―just sit there like a lump and watch.

A study reviewed in the Huffington Post revealed that American high-school students, when they do read, read books that are at the fifth grade level. Of the top 40 books teens in grades 9-12 are reading in school, the average reading level of that list is grade 5.3. Another study established that 67% of U.S. students are reading below grade level. I know these are real problems. I interact with dozens of teachers at professional development workshops, and every teacher I have asked say their students are two or more years behind grade level.

The other problem that nobody seems to talk much about is the learning passivity imposed by television. Young people are being conditioned, much like Pavlov’s dogs, to be passive learners. Learning how to learn well requires active engagement. Good learners must train themselves to generate and sustain interest, to pay attention, to grapple with ideas, and integrate knowledge into ever-evolving learning styles and thinking schema. Reading does that. Good learners do things with their learning: they grow the depth of understanding, they hone creativity skills. “Hands-on” learning activities can help young people develop such skills, although “minds-on” activities are much better. In any case, promoting such skills is something that TV, even educational TV, does rather poorly.

So the next time you get up in arms about our failing schools, remember that a childhood filled with TV is probably a big part of the problem.

* * * *

My new book, Memory Power 101 can be ordered now. It should be at your Barnes and Noble bookstore or you can order online. Power-packed with 298 pages of information, it’s a great bargain for only $14.95.

Children Still Not Reading Well

For the last 15 years, official data indicate there have been almost no increase in reading scores, despite the fact that the main purpose of No Child Left Behind. Look at these data:

The graph data, which came from the U.S. Dept. of Education, also shows the gap between reading scores of whites and blacks. There is no change in the gap.We can argue all day on the causes of this lack of improvement, but it is hard to defend all the increased government spending for education or for NCLB programs.

These data were presented by Mark Seidenberg at the University of Wisconsin at the Neuro-Education conference in Aspen, Co. that I attended. His talk aimed to explain the lack of change in the gap, which he attributed to incompatibilities between African-American English with traditional English. To me, the real issue that neither whites nor blacks are improving. Whatever the government is doing, it is not working! And the answer is MORE federal intervention?

New e-book on Better Grades, Less Effort

Better Grades News Release, Sept. 20, 2011
From: Benecton Press

Dr. Bill Klemm, "Memory Medic," has just released a new e-book, Better Grades, Less Effort. The book is available from Smashwords.com IN ALL E-FORMATS for only $2.49 (order from http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/24623). Read the 5-star reviews there. Amazon has it for Kindle.

The book explains the memory tips and tricks he used to become valedictorian, an Honors student in three universities -- including graduating with a D.V.M. degree, and to secure a PhD in two-and-a-half years. He shares what he has learned about student approaches to study over 47 years as a professor. Klemm claims that poor memory is what holds most students back from superior achievement.

Dr. Klemm has priced the book so that every student can afford it. He argues that this book can change a person's life, as his own experience with learning how to learn changed his life. He says, "If you won't invest the cost of a burger in your future, what does that say about your future?"

The ideas in the book are directed to students in high school or college. Parents are urged to explain these ideas to their elementary-school children.

This book is also for any working professional engaged in on-the-job training programs. Dr. Klemm claims It will also help workers master their field and become more competent -- and more likely to be successful.

Reading comprehension: role of eye movements

The capacity of working memory, for example the number of digits in a phone number you can hold long enough to dial it, determines how well you can think and the ability to form lasting memory. I have explained this in my book, Thank You Brain For All You Remember. New insight into working memory capacity has recently been reported by Paul Bays and Masud Husain in a research report in Science. They studied the capacity for visual memory, that is, the number of visual objects a person can hold in working memory. In the study, the emphasis was on the role played by eye fixation.

The design was to display four geometric shapes on a screen, each with a different color. The subjects viewed the screen without moving their eyes, and then the screen was blanked. Next, one of the items was redisplayed, but in a different location and rotation. The working memory task was to remember the original orientation and location. The objects were then withdrawn. Typically, subjects recalled well as long as the set size was no larger than four and as long as the probe object was not changed much. But precision of recall fell off drastically, even with only two or three objects, if the probe object was moved significantly.

Next, they wanted to explore the effects of moving the eyes across the stimulus field. Actually, this presents a major challenge to the brain, because more information has to be held in working memory. Even so, the results when eye movement was allowed and when it was not seemed about the same. The decline in accuracy depended mostly on the number of objects in the set. This suggests that the brain parcels out the task so that memory resources are assigned proportionately to each item. But eye movements are important. In another study, subjects made a series of eye movements to fixate on each item in a five-set display, and the screen was blanked just before the fifth item was fixated. Then subjects were tested to report the location and orientation of the objects. Accuracy was greatest for the fifth item, presumably because the brain had allocated more of its memory resources to registering the item the eyes were about to fixate. This, of course, is being done at the expense of remembering all of the previous four fixations.

These facts must have profound implications for reading comprehension. Certainly, these data seem to support the value of “whole reading” theory, which emphasizes fixing eyes on whole words, preferably where one eye fixation takes in several words.^* The point is that if brain allocates more of its memory resources to each upcoming eye fixation, then reducing the number of fixations ought to increase comprehension, as indicated by working memory of what is seen with each fixation. In other words, the brain can process the meaning of multiple words in an upcoming fixation because the brain is devoting more memory resources to the next fixation task.

------------------

^*This is not to denigrate phonics, for there is compelling evidence that phonics is the best way to learn words in the first place. But once learned, remembering the words you read is probably best achieved by reducing the number of eye fixations.

Source:

Bays, P. M., and Husain, M. 2008. Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science. 321: 851-85