READING IN THE BRAIN: THE SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION OF A HUMAN INVENTION. By Stanislas Dehaene. Viking Adult, 2009. 4oo pages.
This joins the go-to books on my shelf for anyone who cares about how we read and how we learn to do it. It's next to Maryanne Wolf's Proust and the Squid and the already-dated Understanding Dyslexia by Sally Shaywitz.
It's definitely denser matter than the other two, though, and taking it in requires effort. There were a couple of things that made the task harder than it needed to be. Since Reading in the Brain generally maintains a conversational tone and does not talk down to lay people, since it offers an intriguing and insightful theory of how and why the human brain adapted to what at first appears to be a completely artificial and arbitrary process--since, in other words, I liked it--I'll get my quibbles out of the way first.
I know scientists want to be exact and precise in their language, but for the popular audience it would be ever so helpful if, in describing where things are in the brain, directional words like anterior and dorsal could be replaced with front and upper. Especially since there are so many complicated names of parts that are needed. Appendices or footnotes could alert experts to the writer's competence.
And those part names and mapping them. It sometimes seems that every book on the human brain is filled with muddy black and white diagramming of cloudy cross-sections inconsistently viewed from a variety of angles and taken from a variety of sources.
It would be lovely if Dehaene had used clear color pictures done by one illustrator, with right and left where we usually suppose they are. After all, pictures are intended to make things more understandable. Here, I often became more confused.
OK, I've got that off my chest. Dehaene can be funny, engaging and down-to-earth. He loves puns, quotes Alberto Manguel, and is a guy who says stuff like, "Literacy drastically changes the brain--literally!" He tries.
Reading in the Brain presents a far more complex model for reading than Shaywitz did. At the same time, and this is the most fascinating thing about the book, Dehaene offers a straightforward, beautifully simple hypothesis to explain why our brains can so readily connect to a complicated activity for which evolution cannot have prepared us.
The origins of writing systems--Sumerians counting bushels of grain, for example--are just a tick away on the timeline of human history. When you think about it, reading and writing for the masses have only been around for five hundred years plus. (Thank you, Mr. Gutenberg.) Our brains are hard-wired for hunting and gathering, as well as for helping each other, and for the communication needed to do so. An innate structure for deciphering alphabetic code? Impossible.
Shaywitz and others pointed out that fMRIs show an area in the left, lower, back part of the brain that successful emerging readers use, and unsuccesful readers don't. It's where the distinct individual sounds that make up syllables are broken apart and analyzed. Once that happens, we can assign symbols--little black marks called letters--to those sounds.
That processing is the key, and the reason why whole language doesn't work. To break the code we have to break the code, not absorb it by some kind of osmosis induced through immersion. How and why were our brains able to do that?
Dehaene assigns a perfectly clear name to the back area of the brain that matches articulation to signifier--the letterbox. Then he looks back through evolutionary history, and finds a comparable area in primates that is the basic assembly area for shape recognition. Not just random shapes, but the kind of shapes we see most commonly in nature, like horizontal and vertical lines, half-circles, junctions. You can see where this is going--E's and I's, t's and y's (similar to shapes found in all writing systems).
The question shouldn't be how we adapted to printed text, Dehaene says. It should be how we created a solution to a natural desire--increasing our capacity for knowledge with a tool that allowed us to record language--with the equipment we had. He coins another jargon-free term for this--neuronal recycling.
The equipment we had enabled most of us (there is growing evidence of dysfunction in the letterbox area of dyslexics) to mash together drawing and speech, and then hold onto this relationship between basic shapes and basic sounds long enough to translate a string of markings into words.
Dehaene's hypothesis leads him to all kinds of interesting stuff. For example, we are equipped to recognize objects as they turn. But it is much easier to remember an upside-down tiger than the mirror image of that tiger. Our ancestors needed to instantly identify an erect tiger whether it was coming from the right or left.
Our brains usually don't remember which side Jefferson faces on the nickel. As far as we're concerned, either way it's still a nickel. All children have to 'unlearn' this tendency to ignore reversals in order to learn to read.
On a deeper level, looking more closely at neuronal recycling might help us to better understand other cultural inventions besides literacy. Science. Math. Art. Religion. Given that brain 'structure keeps a tight rein on cultural constructions' doesn't make those constructions any less wonderful. Really, it's all the more amazing.
We are, Dehaene tells us, "a truly singular species in the cultural sphere" because we have the capability not only to learn, but "to invent and to transmit cultural objects." Those sometimes difficult transmissions make our brains struggle to cope with concepts that are not innate. That's a good reason to respect the hard work that children put into learning to read.
Those powerful inventions--like reading--are sublime in their intricacy and ingenuity. That's a good reason to read Reading in the Brain.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
WORLD OF LEARNING: SCREEN INVASION
"Digital Overload: Your Brain on Gadgets" NPR/Fresh Air 8/24/10
I've been linking to the New York Times series of articles titled "Your Brain on Computers" both here and on my website, but even if you have read all the stories, this interview by Terry Gross with their author, Matt Richtel, is worth listening to or reading.
Together, Richtel and Gross not only synthesize the information in the Times, but put a fresh spin on it.
Most exciting to me, though, in this conversation about "the screen invasion" and its effects on our brains, was what Richtel could not talk about. When Gross asked if her brain is different than children's brains today, given their increased exposure to screen technology in their formative years, Richtel demurred with his own question. "Can you stay tuned until early December?" That is, apparently, when the Times will begin delving into the issue of child brain development and new technology.
Tantalizingly, Richtel said that the "frontal lobe question" is "really the center of this conversation."
Something we know now that we didn't in the past is that the brain is plastic, even into old age. However, there is no doubt that it is most plastic in childhood. An essential difference between humans and the rest of nature is that a large portion of our brains are formed after birth. The frontal lobe, Richtel told Gross and her listeners, "evolves last. It sets priorities. It helps us balance between and make choices. It essentially says, here's where I'm going to direct my attention at any given time. And it's kind of long-term thinking, long-term goal-setting."
Richtel continued: "But it is constantly...under bombardment from other parts of the brain. The sensory parts that...send a message to the frontal lobe that says, should I pay attention and how much? When we have an onslaught of data coming in, the sensory cortices of the brain are now constantly bombarding the frontal lobe, saying, what should I pay attention to?"
That onslaught of data, according to Richtel is "three times the amount of information we consumed in 1960."
"And on some level, all this modern technology, what it winds up doing is kind of playing to a very primitive clash between the sensory cortices and the frontal lobe....almost like we get little tiny lions, little tiny threats or...little tiny rabbits that you want to chase and eat, you get little tiny bursts of adrenaline that are bombarding your frontal lobe asking you to make...very hard choices a lot."
That can affect sleep, attention, memory. Scientists are working to find out how much. If we use Richtel's analogy to food--it is good for you, but not if you eat junk, or go overboard--where is the line between nutritional and detrimental? In the interview, Richtel said there's "growing evidence that that line is closer than we've imagined...."
Richtel is no Luddite screaming about the end of the world. "I can now look things up on the computer with great ease that I couldn't do before," he told Gross. "I can make calculations that I wasn't able to do before. I can save information and organize it in ways I couldn't do before."
The danger, he implied, is trying to do that all the time. In the past, "a screen meant...something in your living room...now it's something in your pocket."
We, and kids, probably especially kids, are drawn to those "tiny burst of adrenaline" we get from screen time. Like the threat of a large animal or the promise of captured prey that our ancestors experienced, they thrill and excite us, so that "when you get a buzz in your pocket, when you hear a ring you get...a dopamine squirt." Dopamine, of course, is a chemical that regulates emotion, and "is also thought to be involved with addiction."
Because of that dangerous attraction, I believe we've got to make sure that we, and children, have down time--time away from the screen invasion.
I've been linking to the New York Times series of articles titled "Your Brain on Computers" both here and on my website, but even if you have read all the stories, this interview by Terry Gross with their author, Matt Richtel, is worth listening to or reading.
Together, Richtel and Gross not only synthesize the information in the Times, but put a fresh spin on it.
Most exciting to me, though, in this conversation about "the screen invasion" and its effects on our brains, was what Richtel could not talk about. When Gross asked if her brain is different than children's brains today, given their increased exposure to screen technology in their formative years, Richtel demurred with his own question. "Can you stay tuned until early December?" That is, apparently, when the Times will begin delving into the issue of child brain development and new technology.
Tantalizingly, Richtel said that the "frontal lobe question" is "really the center of this conversation."
Something we know now that we didn't in the past is that the brain is plastic, even into old age. However, there is no doubt that it is most plastic in childhood. An essential difference between humans and the rest of nature is that a large portion of our brains are formed after birth. The frontal lobe, Richtel told Gross and her listeners, "evolves last. It sets priorities. It helps us balance between and make choices. It essentially says, here's where I'm going to direct my attention at any given time. And it's kind of long-term thinking, long-term goal-setting."
Richtel continued: "But it is constantly...under bombardment from other parts of the brain. The sensory parts that...send a message to the frontal lobe that says, should I pay attention and how much? When we have an onslaught of data coming in, the sensory cortices of the brain are now constantly bombarding the frontal lobe, saying, what should I pay attention to?"
That onslaught of data, according to Richtel is "three times the amount of information we consumed in 1960."
"And on some level, all this modern technology, what it winds up doing is kind of playing to a very primitive clash between the sensory cortices and the frontal lobe....almost like we get little tiny lions, little tiny threats or...little tiny rabbits that you want to chase and eat, you get little tiny bursts of adrenaline that are bombarding your frontal lobe asking you to make...very hard choices a lot."
That can affect sleep, attention, memory. Scientists are working to find out how much. If we use Richtel's analogy to food--it is good for you, but not if you eat junk, or go overboard--where is the line between nutritional and detrimental? In the interview, Richtel said there's "growing evidence that that line is closer than we've imagined...."
Richtel is no Luddite screaming about the end of the world. "I can now look things up on the computer with great ease that I couldn't do before," he told Gross. "I can make calculations that I wasn't able to do before. I can save information and organize it in ways I couldn't do before."
The danger, he implied, is trying to do that all the time. In the past, "a screen meant...something in your living room...now it's something in your pocket."
We, and kids, probably especially kids, are drawn to those "tiny burst of adrenaline" we get from screen time. Like the threat of a large animal or the promise of captured prey that our ancestors experienced, they thrill and excite us, so that "when you get a buzz in your pocket, when you hear a ring you get...a dopamine squirt." Dopamine, of course, is a chemical that regulates emotion, and "is also thought to be involved with addiction."
Because of that dangerous attraction, I believe we've got to make sure that we, and children, have down time--time away from the screen invasion.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
WORLD OF LEARNING: LATEST INSTALLMENT OF "YOUR BRAIN ON COMPUTERS"
"Your Brain on Computers: A Side Effect of Digital Devices: Brain Fatigue" New York Times 8/24/10
Another in a Times series about the ways computer time is changing us, and what some people are doing to ameliorate negative effects.
Another in a Times series about the ways computer time is changing us, and what some people are doing to ameliorate negative effects.
Monday, August 23, 2010
RECENT NEWS: ARE YOU READY?
You can feel it in the quality of the air and light. Summer is ending. Children go back to school. Are you ready?
How well prepared children will be depends in large part on how they spent their summers. If those long days became a dead zone for learning, it will take that much longer to gear up. Students who have been reading and thinking will be far better prepared for the rigors of the educational system.
If we are concerned with the ongoing nature of learning, though, we need to not only connect the school year to summer vacation, but to go the other way. There is an element of learning during summertime that is applicable to the classroom: fun.
Adults often put more effort into making learning engaging and entertaining when kids are on vacation. Summer camps, family trips, and reading choices are opportunities for broadening knowledge and deepening understanding that children enjoy.
As children enter the classrooms, we should keep these sorts of creative learning experiences in mind.
There surely has to be a link between enjoying education and educational success. What makes learning an enticing prospect? What makes kids successful in school? Can we connect answer those two questions and then connect the answers?
One way is to use a framework for thinking about tutoring suggested by Stanford professor Mark Lepper. He puts forth five C’s as guidelines: control, challenge, confidence, curiosity and contextualize.
If students have some control over learning, they will be more invested in the process. During the summer, that comes with reading what you want and being given a say in camp and vacation agendas. There are many areas in education where kids can choose. Books and projects come to mind immediately.
Challenging learners can be difficult. The trick is finding at a level that is attainable. I often use the metaphor of the high jump. If a coach raises the bar a foot she’s probably not going to see the effort an inch might produce.
Another way the high jump works as a metaphor is that feedback is immediate and concretely measured. Kids love to see their progress charted in a way they understand. Doing so sends a message that the most important competition is against yourself.
Being willing to challenge yourself means having confidence. If you think you can jump over the bar, and don’t make it the first time, you’re going to try again. We need to recognize and acknowledge what kids have accomplished, and let them know that their efforts will lead to improvement.
Confidence empowers curiosity. In Po Bronson and Ashley Merryweather’s excellent essay on creativity in Newsweek, they point out, “Preschool children, on average, ask their parents about 100 questions a day.” However, by middle school “they’ve pretty much stopped asking.”
“They didn’t stop asking questions because they lost interest,” Bronson and Merryweather write. “It’s the other way around. They lost interest because they stopped asking questions.”
If educators and parents tap into children’s natural curiosity, those children will learn more. We should look for ways to present information that are novel and a little mysterious, and allow students to solve mysteries on their own.
Finally, we should seek out connections that make what students learn relevant to their lives. If kids can contextualize information by seeing how it connects to their lives and their communities, they will retain and understand it better.
But contextualizing goes beyond the personal. Kids need to connect to the big picture. What led up to new information? What is coming after? What else can you look at or listen to that will enrich your understanding?
In his easy-to-read primer on the science of cognition, Brain Rules, John Medina notes “a counter-intuitive property” of learning: “Extra information given at the moment of learning makes learning better.”
Control, challenge, confidence, curiosity, contextualize. By being aware of the sorts of methods that help students to learn, parents can offer a solid support system as the school year begins, and be better advocates for their children.
Which brings me to a last piece of advice. Don’t wait until the first parent-teacher conference to communicate with teachers. Getting in on the ground floor will not only let teachers know about your child’s strengths and weaknesses, it will help you to know about the teachers, so you can help your child develop good relationships.
One constant I have found since I started working with kids is that the first parent-teacher conferences can bring unpleasant surprises. Symptoms of low motivation and a lack of success—failure to hand in homework and poor test performance—are more problematic if they have become entrenched.
'
Parents should make sure their children have well-structured times and places for doing school work, and should be checking in with their children on a regular basis. But they should also check in, if only briefly, with teachers, to insure accountability and transparency.
Learning is a team effort. Kids who know that they have a team they can depend on are kids who will be more dependable, and eventually, more independent.
Create a good environment for learning. From the start, make sure to get feedback on how effective it is. You will be on the way to a great school year.
How well prepared children will be depends in large part on how they spent their summers. If those long days became a dead zone for learning, it will take that much longer to gear up. Students who have been reading and thinking will be far better prepared for the rigors of the educational system.
If we are concerned with the ongoing nature of learning, though, we need to not only connect the school year to summer vacation, but to go the other way. There is an element of learning during summertime that is applicable to the classroom: fun.
Adults often put more effort into making learning engaging and entertaining when kids are on vacation. Summer camps, family trips, and reading choices are opportunities for broadening knowledge and deepening understanding that children enjoy.
As children enter the classrooms, we should keep these sorts of creative learning experiences in mind.
There surely has to be a link between enjoying education and educational success. What makes learning an enticing prospect? What makes kids successful in school? Can we connect answer those two questions and then connect the answers?
One way is to use a framework for thinking about tutoring suggested by Stanford professor Mark Lepper. He puts forth five C’s as guidelines: control, challenge, confidence, curiosity and contextualize.
If students have some control over learning, they will be more invested in the process. During the summer, that comes with reading what you want and being given a say in camp and vacation agendas. There are many areas in education where kids can choose. Books and projects come to mind immediately.
Challenging learners can be difficult. The trick is finding at a level that is attainable. I often use the metaphor of the high jump. If a coach raises the bar a foot she’s probably not going to see the effort an inch might produce.
Another way the high jump works as a metaphor is that feedback is immediate and concretely measured. Kids love to see their progress charted in a way they understand. Doing so sends a message that the most important competition is against yourself.
Being willing to challenge yourself means having confidence. If you think you can jump over the bar, and don’t make it the first time, you’re going to try again. We need to recognize and acknowledge what kids have accomplished, and let them know that their efforts will lead to improvement.
Confidence empowers curiosity. In Po Bronson and Ashley Merryweather’s excellent essay on creativity in Newsweek, they point out, “Preschool children, on average, ask their parents about 100 questions a day.” However, by middle school “they’ve pretty much stopped asking.”
“They didn’t stop asking questions because they lost interest,” Bronson and Merryweather write. “It’s the other way around. They lost interest because they stopped asking questions.”
If educators and parents tap into children’s natural curiosity, those children will learn more. We should look for ways to present information that are novel and a little mysterious, and allow students to solve mysteries on their own.
Finally, we should seek out connections that make what students learn relevant to their lives. If kids can contextualize information by seeing how it connects to their lives and their communities, they will retain and understand it better.
But contextualizing goes beyond the personal. Kids need to connect to the big picture. What led up to new information? What is coming after? What else can you look at or listen to that will enrich your understanding?
In his easy-to-read primer on the science of cognition, Brain Rules, John Medina notes “a counter-intuitive property” of learning: “Extra information given at the moment of learning makes learning better.”
Control, challenge, confidence, curiosity, contextualize. By being aware of the sorts of methods that help students to learn, parents can offer a solid support system as the school year begins, and be better advocates for their children.
Which brings me to a last piece of advice. Don’t wait until the first parent-teacher conference to communicate with teachers. Getting in on the ground floor will not only let teachers know about your child’s strengths and weaknesses, it will help you to know about the teachers, so you can help your child develop good relationships.
One constant I have found since I started working with kids is that the first parent-teacher conferences can bring unpleasant surprises. Symptoms of low motivation and a lack of success—failure to hand in homework and poor test performance—are more problematic if they have become entrenched.
'
Parents should make sure their children have well-structured times and places for doing school work, and should be checking in with their children on a regular basis. But they should also check in, if only briefly, with teachers, to insure accountability and transparency.
Learning is a team effort. Kids who know that they have a team they can depend on are kids who will be more dependable, and eventually, more independent.
Create a good environment for learning. From the start, make sure to get feedback on how effective it is. You will be on the way to a great school year.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
WORLD OF LEARNING: MAKE EDUCATION A PRIORITY
"How to Close the Achievement Gap" Newsweek 8/16/10
As schools in the United States cut back the school year and increase class sizes, Newsweek ranks us 26th in the world as far as education goes. Not very encouraging. In this short sidebar in an issue devoted to ranking the quality of life by country, two educational consultants offer common-sense advice--advice we aren't following, for the most part. Make sure that every child gets a basic education. Give kids an early start. Increase the length of the school day, and the length of the school year. Spend more on training and evaluating teachers. Help struggling kids with one-on-one support.
As schools in the United States cut back the school year and increase class sizes, Newsweek ranks us 26th in the world as far as education goes. Not very encouraging. In this short sidebar in an issue devoted to ranking the quality of life by country, two educational consultants offer common-sense advice--advice we aren't following, for the most part. Make sure that every child gets a basic education. Give kids an early start. Increase the length of the school day, and the length of the school year. Spend more on training and evaluating teachers. Help struggling kids with one-on-one support.
Monday, August 16, 2010
WORLD OF LEARNING: COMPUTERS CAN HINDER LEARNING PART THREE
"Your Brain on Computers: Outdoors and Out of Reach, Studying the Brain" New York Times 8/15/10
The Times returns to this series after a couple of months. The article follows a group of neuroscientists on a rafting trip down the San Juan River trying to determine if the time spent away from the plugged-in world really does help with attention, memory and cognition in general. No definite conclusions, but all of them seem to feel the down-time helped them personally. I find it ironic that I'm rushing to read the article, view the accompanying videos, and link to it here and on my website in the very busy week before school starts. Time to get outdoors and out of reach for me.
The Times returns to this series after a couple of months. The article follows a group of neuroscientists on a rafting trip down the San Juan River trying to determine if the time spent away from the plugged-in world really does help with attention, memory and cognition in general. No definite conclusions, but all of them seem to feel the down-time helped them personally. I find it ironic that I'm rushing to read the article, view the accompanying videos, and link to it here and on my website in the very busy week before school starts. Time to get outdoors and out of reach for me.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
LARS'S LIBRARY: THREE RECOMMENDATIONS
For fifth graders and up:
After Tupac and D Foster by Jacqueline Woodson
A name only tells us the title, not the story. That depends on who's telling it. Jacqueline Woodson is a virtuoso story-teller.
In her After Tupac and D Foster, Tupac Shakur is a name that means different things. To a judge, it's the name of a hoodlum with "Thug Life" tattooed on his stomach. To the three girls whose lives Woodson traces from the time they are eleven to the age of thirteen—1994 to 1996—it's the name of a hero.
Certainly, it's a name of renown. The narrator of After Tupac—never named—says the reason Tupac is so popular is "because we black and we kids and he's black and he's just a kid...." She and her neighbor Neeka have comfortable and secure lives in Queens.
D enters that neighborhood from somewhere else, somewhere without a name, somewhere hard and dangerous. D, a name that is an alibi, says, "I see Tupac rapping and I see he got the same look that I got—like we both know what it feels like to be that hungry...."
In two years while Tupac's career rockets to massive success, while his personal life plummets through courts, jails, and bullets until his life is snuffed out, the girls search for their own identities. D's two close friends discover that D is more than what she is named, and that they are, too.
Race is all about naming. We can see we are different, so we put a name on it. Black kids might see themselves in After Tupac, and white kids might not. Telling a powerful and compelling coming-of-age tale in an eloquent and insightful manner, Woodson shows us that however we are named, we have stories that are universal.
For third graders and up:
Keepers of the School, Book One: We the Children by Andrew Clements
Coming in at under 150 rapidly-paced pages, We the Children, the first of the Keepers of the School series, will grab hold of hesitant literary types and leave them anxious for more.
The illustrations that break up those pages truly complement the novel. Adam Stower's three-toned drawings are reminiscent of Clements’s frequent collaborator, Brian Selznick, with a retro feel not unlike the work of Marla Frazee in the Clementine books.
Just because We the Children's volume is slight and easy to read does not mean it is superficial. Its hero Ben Pratt—and he is a hero—is a complex sixth-grader, savvy but not always sure, measured but sometimes mercurial. His friend Jill Acton is the perfect foil, down-to-earth, practical, and a serious scholar, yet ready for adventure.
Even minor characters are three-dimensional. The book kicks off with a bang—a mysterious death—and doesn't stop moving until it ends with a life saved.
Weaving through it all is a theme of appreciation for old things—balustrades and newels, brass hinges, and, critically, a beautiful compass rose inlaid into the hardwood floors of Oakes School. On the flyleaf, Clements comments on the "satisfying and sort of comforting" connection he has to these "little chunks of history." It's a marvelous way to unobtrusively ground a story that fairly rushes along.
For first graders and up:
Elephant and Piggie series by Mo Willems
If you know Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus—and it would be hard not to if you know a little one—you know that Mo Willems is a master of minimalism. He effortlessly packs a wealth of comedy into the simplest text and illustration.
Now he gone one step further with text that is accessible to emerging readers. Using mostly phonetic, one-syllable words, and lots of repetition, the Elephant and Piggie stories are delightfully witty—for children, and for their parents, too. There are twelve so far, and each one is a winner.
Look for the nod to the pigeon on the back inside covers.
After Tupac and D Foster by Jacqueline Woodson
A name only tells us the title, not the story. That depends on who's telling it. Jacqueline Woodson is a virtuoso story-teller.
In her After Tupac and D Foster, Tupac Shakur is a name that means different things. To a judge, it's the name of a hoodlum with "Thug Life" tattooed on his stomach. To the three girls whose lives Woodson traces from the time they are eleven to the age of thirteen—1994 to 1996—it's the name of a hero.
Certainly, it's a name of renown. The narrator of After Tupac—never named—says the reason Tupac is so popular is "because we black and we kids and he's black and he's just a kid...." She and her neighbor Neeka have comfortable and secure lives in Queens.
D enters that neighborhood from somewhere else, somewhere without a name, somewhere hard and dangerous. D, a name that is an alibi, says, "I see Tupac rapping and I see he got the same look that I got—like we both know what it feels like to be that hungry...."
In two years while Tupac's career rockets to massive success, while his personal life plummets through courts, jails, and bullets until his life is snuffed out, the girls search for their own identities. D's two close friends discover that D is more than what she is named, and that they are, too.
Race is all about naming. We can see we are different, so we put a name on it. Black kids might see themselves in After Tupac, and white kids might not. Telling a powerful and compelling coming-of-age tale in an eloquent and insightful manner, Woodson shows us that however we are named, we have stories that are universal.
For third graders and up:
Keepers of the School, Book One: We the Children by Andrew Clements
Coming in at under 150 rapidly-paced pages, We the Children, the first of the Keepers of the School series, will grab hold of hesitant literary types and leave them anxious for more.
The illustrations that break up those pages truly complement the novel. Adam Stower's three-toned drawings are reminiscent of Clements’s frequent collaborator, Brian Selznick, with a retro feel not unlike the work of Marla Frazee in the Clementine books.
Just because We the Children's volume is slight and easy to read does not mean it is superficial. Its hero Ben Pratt—and he is a hero—is a complex sixth-grader, savvy but not always sure, measured but sometimes mercurial. His friend Jill Acton is the perfect foil, down-to-earth, practical, and a serious scholar, yet ready for adventure.
Even minor characters are three-dimensional. The book kicks off with a bang—a mysterious death—and doesn't stop moving until it ends with a life saved.
Weaving through it all is a theme of appreciation for old things—balustrades and newels, brass hinges, and, critically, a beautiful compass rose inlaid into the hardwood floors of Oakes School. On the flyleaf, Clements comments on the "satisfying and sort of comforting" connection he has to these "little chunks of history." It's a marvelous way to unobtrusively ground a story that fairly rushes along.
For first graders and up:
Elephant and Piggie series by Mo Willems
If you know Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus—and it would be hard not to if you know a little one—you know that Mo Willems is a master of minimalism. He effortlessly packs a wealth of comedy into the simplest text and illustration.
Now he gone one step further with text that is accessible to emerging readers. Using mostly phonetic, one-syllable words, and lots of repetition, the Elephant and Piggie stories are delightfully witty—for children, and for their parents, too. There are twelve so far, and each one is a winner.
Look for the nod to the pigeon on the back inside covers.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
LARS'S LIBRARY: LITERARY LINKS: YA FOR OAs
Monday, August 2, 2010
WORLD OF LEARNING: ORIGINALITY AND AUTHENTICITY
"Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age" New York Times 8/1/10
The line from Helene Hegemann, teenage author of the famous-for-fifteen-minutes cut-and-paste novel Axolotl Roadkill, sums it up: "There’s no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity."
Of course, Hegemann could be accused of inauthenticity, or at least disingenuousness. She didn't bother to announce her technique until after the fact. But appropriation can be creative, I think, as in sampling and mashups or maybe works like David Shield's Reality Hunger. In a world where copying is so easy and ubiquitous, that's an issue that will take a while to resolve.
Upstream from the college students mentioned in the Times article, though, I see other potential problems. Younger students who lift from the internet not only fail to find their own voice, they don't understand others. Middle school students sometimes don't even bother to read their pasted-in material.
The line from Helene Hegemann, teenage author of the famous-for-fifteen-minutes cut-and-paste novel Axolotl Roadkill, sums it up: "There’s no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity."
Of course, Hegemann could be accused of inauthenticity, or at least disingenuousness. She didn't bother to announce her technique until after the fact. But appropriation can be creative, I think, as in sampling and mashups or maybe works like David Shield's Reality Hunger. In a world where copying is so easy and ubiquitous, that's an issue that will take a while to resolve.
Upstream from the college students mentioned in the Times article, though, I see other potential problems. Younger students who lift from the internet not only fail to find their own voice, they don't understand others. Middle school students sometimes don't even bother to read their pasted-in material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
