Perhaps it is because children these days are more interested in movies and television than in written word. Since movies and television do not require them to use their imagination it seems more appealing to the current generation. Or it could be children are not learning to even read when most information can be gained from visual providers and American schools are pushing children through their classes without teaching them how to read.
Why do certain kids hate reading?
- Thread starter mrjoe94
- Start date
My theory? It's because reading makes you actually think. Reading any type of books that don't containing pictures is intellectually stimulating. Think about it. When you read, your mind fills in the gaps and puts pictures to descriptions. Have you tried to read with your brain switched off? A lot of kids nowadays don't like that. They like to sit in front of a tv or computer and switch off their brain. And this is coming from a big gamer. I've always loved reading. Of course, this is just my theory. That and an overall lack of focus and a "i want to be entertained now" attitude.
Are you an editor or... ?Erana said:
As for me, although I really don't spend very much time, if at all, reading, I really do love it. It could replace video games for me. Probably not that effectively but there you go. The thing though is that the brunt of my reading is done on the internetz reading articles and top 10 lists and forums and the like.
to a kid I supose movies/TV/video games are more stmulating and easyer to get intoJoesshittyOs said:
but books have their own advantages, not ony because you can fit in alot more detail (like usually when you watch a film adapation your always thinking of the stuff they miss)but also they are cost effective for the amount of content your getting vs price (depending on how long it is)
and theres just somthing relaxing about it, especially when the book is good
I think people are correct in that as a kid who isnt already pre-disposed to it...being forced to rread boring tedious books will put you off
LostSoulInTheOcean said:
I dont think the "them kids today!!" thing is enitrly fairBerithil said:
I mean ok, I can get behined the Idea that perhaps our fast paced, insntant stimulating aproach to entertainment may have an effect
but I also think "we must get the children to READ!!!" thing has been around for a long time (as with movies/TV) and some have always enjoyed reading, some havnt..and kids still read today, even if it is shitty vampire books
I mean seriously would you rather try and struggle through lord of the rings or some artsy thing your teach is telling you read..or play an epic fantasy game? (dont get me started on that fucking book)
I think liek any medium finding the right stuff is the main thing..like when somon says hey dont liek gaming you'll often recomend them somthing good wont you?
If the schools didn't force it, most of those kids would never get some damn culture. I didn't like it when I was forced to read books I was uniterested in, but now I'm thankful for it.
Personally, I think all schools should have as required reading a list that includes Poe, Carroll, Dickens, Tolkien, Doyle, White, Wells, Orwell, Dumas, and a bunch of other authors that nobody I work with at Walmart have ever heard of.
Personally, I think all schools should have as required reading a list that includes Poe, Carroll, Dickens, Tolkien, Doyle, White, Wells, Orwell, Dumas, and a bunch of other authors that nobody I work with at Walmart have ever heard of.
While there may certainly be a component of what you said, I think the foremost reason kids often hate reading is because reading a book requires more active intellectual investment than most other media. One can just sit back and watch TV or a movie without doing anything at all, but to read a book you must actively and attentively focus on the words in order to comprehend what you're seeing. Further, books tend to provide no visual feedback, so for children raised on visual media, text can be very un-engaging.
I like your idea, though, of having children pick their own book to read, maybe just a few times right around that 10-12 bracket to nurture an appreciation of reading in them.
I like your idea, though, of having children pick their own book to read, maybe just a few times right around that 10-12 bracket to nurture an appreciation of reading in them.
Getting a kid to love books is a labour of love. It takes years.
I started with my kid when he was just one year old. I read to him every night, can't be a chore, you have to like it. But more important, I got him involved. I made little performances to spice things up. See, you don't have to be Robin Williams, your kid will love it nonetheless.
We used picture-gram books, you know those that go "There once was a little (picture of a monster) who lived in...". He's supposed to say "Monster". We read the same book for many nights, and he learned substantial portions of it. Then he stared "reading" it to me. Moving his finger along and repeating the words... then I got to say "Monster".
I started to actually teach him how to read in Spanish one year before he got in school. I used the same book I had learned with as a kid.
By the time he got to school, could read fluently in Spanish, and picked up English lightning fast. Quickly, he was at Dr Seuss level, among the top of the class. We also gave him a sense of ownership over the books, allowing him to choose which ones to buy and letting him take it home. This reinforced the love for the media. He read Dr Seuss for a couple of years, every night. According to the School, his reading level was comparable to kids two or three years older than him.
The final transition happened when he was about eight. Having outgrown Dr Seuss I had to find something to keep him going. I got him this "39 Clues" novel, which is quite substantial. This is a real (200+ pages, no pictures) book, but aimed at kids. He was a bit scared at first, but I started reading in parallell so we could discuss what was happening. After that he was on his own.
To give you an idea of how successful this has been, he recently blazed through the thickest books in the Harry Potter series, in about a week. He's nine now. Sometimes I have to force him to put the book down because its a school night! Left on his own, he'll read until 1 or 2 AM.
I started with my kid when he was just one year old. I read to him every night, can't be a chore, you have to like it. But more important, I got him involved. I made little performances to spice things up. See, you don't have to be Robin Williams, your kid will love it nonetheless.
We used picture-gram books, you know those that go "There once was a little (picture of a monster) who lived in...". He's supposed to say "Monster". We read the same book for many nights, and he learned substantial portions of it. Then he stared "reading" it to me. Moving his finger along and repeating the words... then I got to say "Monster".
I started to actually teach him how to read in Spanish one year before he got in school. I used the same book I had learned with as a kid.
By the time he got to school, could read fluently in Spanish, and picked up English lightning fast. Quickly, he was at Dr Seuss level, among the top of the class. We also gave him a sense of ownership over the books, allowing him to choose which ones to buy and letting him take it home. This reinforced the love for the media. He read Dr Seuss for a couple of years, every night. According to the School, his reading level was comparable to kids two or three years older than him.
The final transition happened when he was about eight. Having outgrown Dr Seuss I had to find something to keep him going. I got him this "39 Clues" novel, which is quite substantial. This is a real (200+ pages, no pictures) book, but aimed at kids. He was a bit scared at first, but I started reading in parallell so we could discuss what was happening. After that he was on his own.
To give you an idea of how successful this has been, he recently blazed through the thickest books in the Harry Potter series, in about a week. He's nine now. Sometimes I have to force him to put the book down because its a school night! Left on his own, he'll read until 1 or 2 AM.
Kids don't hate reading, they've just switched mediums. As more and more households acquire computers with access to the internet, kids are being indoctrinated in and accustomed to instantaneous global communication at younger ages. They've traded in Shakespeare, Dickens, and Marlowe for blogs, Wikipedia, and social networking services like Facebook. Cramming the themes and motifs of Hamlet in three hours have given way to quick google searches and wikipedia telling you everything you need to know in less than three minutes, giving you plenty of time left over to do something more relevant to YOUR life. Something like, say, watching a Belgian steroid junkie kicking a cute little baby?
Used to not read at all until I picked up the horrible histories series in year 4 (I think) and then read over 50 of those from all the different series (horrible science, Geography, The knowledge, maths etc) and then moved onto short stories by Jeffery Archer in year 10.
Started the Wheel of time series in first year of 6th form and finished it by the second and now reading the count of monte cristo.
I think that the answer is not only are children less inclined to read because of how modern media works (in terms of low effort high gratification) but also the forced reading that some kids are forced to do like "of mice and men" and shakespeare pretty much turned them off (I didn't mind I rather enjoyed it) especially to those who might not be able to follow the text as well and then forced to write assignments and tasks on it and have an exam on it later in the year.
Its being forced to learn something just because you have a test at the end of the year and it isn't one of those tests which you are "allowed" to fail either because every single institution will always ask for a minimum of a C in English at GCSE level if you are applying for jobs etc unless its in the manual labour sector like mcdonalds or something.
Started the Wheel of time series in first year of 6th form and finished it by the second and now reading the count of monte cristo.
I think that the answer is not only are children less inclined to read because of how modern media works (in terms of low effort high gratification) but also the forced reading that some kids are forced to do like "of mice and men" and shakespeare pretty much turned them off (I didn't mind I rather enjoyed it) especially to those who might not be able to follow the text as well and then forced to write assignments and tasks on it and have an exam on it later in the year.
Its being forced to learn something just because you have a test at the end of the year and it isn't one of those tests which you are "allowed" to fail either because every single institution will always ask for a minimum of a C in English at GCSE level if you are applying for jobs etc unless its in the manual labour sector like mcdonalds or something.
Way to be a good parent, good Sir!imagremlin said:
I'm ashamed that I have not put in the same effort into reading for my own kids.
Now I feel bad.
It's not like I don't read to them, it's just not as methodical and often.
But.
what you are saying makes much sense.
My mother read to me a lot and my linguistic skills are far higher than that of my younger siblings, to whom she did not read much.
Ok, I know I'm kind of ignoring your point, but I'm so glad to see someone else who grew up with the Old Kingdom (i.e, Sabirel) series. My username on here actually used to be the name of a character from there. That series was my childhood.Midgeamoo said:
*raises hand*TomLikesGuitar said:
I read Catcher when I was 16 and hated it, honestly. I could see what Salinger was going for, but I actually ended up finding Caulfield less and less relatable as the book went on.
That book is right up there with A Separate Peace as the worst book I ever read, for school or otherwise. Go figure.
Amen. I found most classics to be dreary and boring. I will say, however, that reading and hating Great Expectations really made me realize how amazing Shakespeare was, because his plays were even older than Dickens and are somehow still entertaining, whereas GE was dry, dull crap IMO. I mean, I would have had a decent opinion of Shakespeare regardless, but because of the contrast, I now see him as the genius all the teachers say he was, so mission somewhat accomplished? I guess?Jodah said:
I agree with everyone whose explanation for people not reading points to no one reading to them when they were little and to poor choice of literature in school curricula.
I read all the time when I was young, but then I got to middle/high school and ran straight into the tortuous wall of a carefully structured study of literature. The only books I remember liking from high school are Heart of Darkness, the Odyssey, and Great Gatsby. Then they make us read classics like Pride and Prejudice or the End of the Affair which are simply quite difficult to relate to the life of a 21st century high schooler, no matter their literary value. On top of that, we had to read trash like A Separate Piece (why is this considered a classic in any sense), The Joy Luck Club, and The Secret Life of Bees. Just trash.
In college, I liked reading a lot more because I had my pick of what classes I could take and thus what books I was reading, so I could be perfectly happy with my Sartre or my Greek mythology or whatnot. I think that high school English classes would be much more successful if they offered two sections with different choices of books and students got to pick their course of study.
On a related topic, I don't think that Shakespeare should be taught unless the students are able to see the actual play, as so much of the difficult language is negated by hearing the rhythms of the speech and seeing the characters in motion. I honestly couldn't see how A Midsummer Night's Dream was supposed to be a comedy until I saw the play, and also after just reading Othello, I didn't realize Othello was supposed to be black. It's fine to teach students Shakespeare, but don't forget that they're plays and not novels
I read all the time when I was young, but then I got to middle/high school and ran straight into the tortuous wall of a carefully structured study of literature. The only books I remember liking from high school are Heart of Darkness, the Odyssey, and Great Gatsby. Then they make us read classics like Pride and Prejudice or the End of the Affair which are simply quite difficult to relate to the life of a 21st century high schooler, no matter their literary value. On top of that, we had to read trash like A Separate Piece (why is this considered a classic in any sense), The Joy Luck Club, and The Secret Life of Bees. Just trash.
In college, I liked reading a lot more because I had my pick of what classes I could take and thus what books I was reading, so I could be perfectly happy with my Sartre or my Greek mythology or whatnot. I think that high school English classes would be much more successful if they offered two sections with different choices of books and students got to pick their course of study.
On a related topic, I don't think that Shakespeare should be taught unless the students are able to see the actual play, as so much of the difficult language is negated by hearing the rhythms of the speech and seeing the characters in motion. I honestly couldn't see how A Midsummer Night's Dream was supposed to be a comedy until I saw the play, and also after just reading Othello, I didn't realize Othello was supposed to be black. It's fine to teach students Shakespeare, but don't forget that they're plays and not novels
Because believe it or not old books aren't nearly as good as the books today. Books are also uninteractive in which you don't really do much of anything.
This is so true it's painful. Here's the plot of A Separate Peace for those of you who haven't read it: there's a boy at boarding school and he gets a roommate (Gene? I think his name was Gene) and Gene is apparently some sort of badass who's good at tackling people and climbing trees and then it's World War II so innocence is lost somehow and there's some crazy kid who loses his mind and then goes skiing and then there's a rousing laugh about some boy being called a Chinese lady (the exact insult was The Yellow Peril) and then the main character pushes Gene out of a tree or something because he's jealous of Gene's tackling prowess and then later the main character and Gene get in an argument about how Gene fell out of the tree again and then Gene falls down some stairs and a piece of bone gets into his bloodstream and goes straight to his heart and he dies immediately and then the main character mopes around and then I presumed that he grew up to become Cameron Crowe or something. The plot is a little hazy in my mind (thank God) but I just remember how absolutely devoid of merit this book was. There was a companion book that my teacher mercifully never assigned. Anyway, this book singlehandedly killed my desire to read for quite a whileAvatar Roku said:
I agree with you, and I think that if kids found books that they could get into, they certainly could enjoy reading. I didn't like reading very much, but when on a friend's recomendation, I bought John Scalzi's "Old Man's War", I loved it. I read it for an hour or so every day until it was done. I think the fact that it is assigned reading is another problem. I think that a school could take a great book, like "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", make reading it an assignment, and almost all the kids would hate it, but if the students had all read it on their own, many would love it.
Ah, yes. Lord of the Flies. I think I know another reason why it was so horrible. It's because it was so bogged down in symbolism there wasn't room for anything else.Jack the Potato said:
Also, I'm reminded of something one of my old english teachers told me. "The books we read in class are some of the most inventive, innovating, and novel books of their time. Unfortunately, that doesn't usually mean that they're "good" by today's standards."