大智若愚

I was recommended this book by simonsatori who’s a big Burgess fan. I have to say to start with I was quite put off by the unpleasant physical details on every page. I was enjoying the style and the way it was written, but not so much the characters. But I decided I'd stick with it. In the end I'm glad I did. By the time I got to the middle section in Rome I found I was laughing out loud in quite a few places. The last section was brilliant, very much the sort of thing I associate with Burgess (even though I've only read 2 other things by him). I wasn't going to bother reading the two follow ups, until the end. I enjoyed the last part so much that I decided that I would read the next one as I was actually curious to see what happened next. Definitely not the type of book I'd normally read, and while I much prefer the other two books I've read by him I think this one was definitely worth it in the end.

or Don't trust anyone under 30 by Mark Bauerlein.

While this book has a cool title it is without a doubt the worst book I read all year. I read it for library school, thinking that it, like Jackson’s “Distracted” might have something useful to say on the subject of information literacy, or at least what skills people needed, but no. It was so poorly written and poorly argued. It was just tirade after tirade about how teens today are stupid and lazy and don’t appreciate the arts and books the way they should. It blamed technology for all of students’ ills, when it wasn’t blaming the students themselves. It quoted study after study, but never gave adequate referencing for the works, or the context of the study, or comparisons with other studies, just the results that supported the “kids are dumb” argument. I went through writing out why his arguments were wrong for the first 2/3rds but after awhile I just lost my will to live. I only managed to finish it in the hope that there would be something worth quoting in the last section. Ironically it is also painfully evident that while blaming technology for the teens’ ills, he’s not really familiar with it, and has obviously never used it beyond browsing MySpace pages.

The first chapter sets the premise of the book, that teens today don't know anything because of their use of "nu medja" or that they spend all their time on the internet. But the flaw in his argument is that all the tests he quotes; don't show a decline from previous years. They always show that kids are dumb. It also doesn't explain why America is so far behind other developed countries where kids have access to the same internet technologies.

He argues that kids have no knowledge of facts, but I remember being in a US high school in 1991 and being horrified by how easy and stupid the classes were. The idea of developing "civic ideas" was to read a story from the local newspaper. There was no analysis, no essay writing, no critical thinking and no perspective beyond the US. I'm not surprised of these results when the teaching standard was so poor before, and is unlikely to have improved.

But despite the fact that kids have all fallen short in these areas before, he now assumes that the adults reading his book are aware of the facts that the kids don't know. This means that at some point, post high school, they acquire these skills. When is that period and are studies nowadays showing that they've stopped learning then?

If things are the same how is numedja to blame? What's the difference between now and when I was growing up and the adults complained we were spending all our time watching TV and talking on the phone? How is it the internet is more evil that TV? Surely the problem arises not from what the kids do in their free time but rather the lack of education they are getting at school?

Another criticism of the author is that he purposefully ignores subculture and class differences. What he is criticising is modern mainstream American values, the emphasis on materialism, popularity and the accumulation of wealth. These are things that don't go away when people grow up. Rather they're problems all American face. Often teenagers are the ones who fight against these values by identifying with subcultures, and becoming involved in social change. He completely ignores the province of the teenager to rebel and think for themselves.

Chapter 2 looks at how teenagers just don't read anymore. He starts off with a quote by a teenager who says that his dad takes him to the library every week, but his dad doesn't seem to realise that print is dead. In this chapter he shows how in tests reading levels, particularly reading for enjoyment and personal growth, are down for teens compared with previous decades. However, what he totally ignores is that the tests used all focus on traditional print reading. There is absolutely no acknowledgement of any reading online. None of the questions seem to ask, "How many hours do you spend reading blogs? fan fiction? status updates?" He talks about how it would benefit kids to read science magazines, but do they look at kids reading the same stories on science websites (often websites of magazines?) no!

The problem here is the opposite to the Library and information science world. He fails to acknowledge and incorporate the shift in focus from print to the web. Rather than dismissing all online interaction out of hand, he should look at the new ways information is being used and how it is being developed. I'm sure there must be research done on the amount of time people spend playing games vs. reading online. What about internet activism? Mailing lists? discussion groups? What about ebooks? Image searches? It all comes across as "you kids today with your MySpace and your YouTube, get off my lawn".

The end of chapter 2 criticises the people who've made the argument that I have, that there is a growing e-literacy and e-literacy skills are important for the growing digital age. He asks why if this is the case do the tests not improve? To me the answer is because the tests are still old fashioned, they are not including the new style of learning and information. That and the education system in America is still failing. And until you improve education, nothing the kids do in their free time is going to improve scores nationwide.

Next he focuses on ICT literacy. Arguing that even though kids use the web all the time they are still incompetent at it. He cites a study which has 40-50 percent of students not able to do things like find appropriate sources online, rate a website for reliability etc. Skills they really should have and don’t. However, he completely forgets that in the last chapter it was pointed out that half the teens weren’t using the internet, or social networking sites on the internet. Perhaps the half that is getting the poor results is the half that isn’t using it? I’m not saying that everyone who uses the web to talk to friends couldn’t benefit from some IL training, but I question whether these results really say what he wants them to. These types of surveys are designed to show an increased need for technology skills amongst students, not less time spent online and less use of technology in general. He also complains how the most competent users complain about the use of technology in teaching, not because they don’t like it, but presumably because it is outdated and doesn’t work well, and the teachers don’t know how to use it properly. He complains about the amount of computers put in schools, despite the fact that he quotes someone saying how they help African American and Hispanic students. He quotes countless surveys saying they make no difference to scores. But are they there to improve students’ scores on traditional subjects or help them get ready for work in the 21st century?

Sometimes his arguments are so incoherent and ranting that I loose the thread of how things are supposed to be related. For instance, he starts to talk about language acquisition, and how this is important for kids before 5, but then writes about the low state of language on student blogs. Now the people writing blogs now didn’t have access to this technology pre-kindergarten so how is this related?
He talks about how teens inhabit a “world of consumerism and conformity” and how is this different to the rest of the American populace? Is this a culture wide problem or something just unique to teens? Again he makes no statements about how society itself, rather than technology they use, may be shaping the teens lives. He also writes how boys struggle to achieve courage and girls to achieve poise. (WTF?)
He criticises the type of reading people do on the web. How it is “non-linear” and makes them unprepared to read “proper” works. He makes the funniest and most ironic comparison here saying that if people are free to cut and paste texts as they like how will they cope with the Iliad, making it something for their own personal use! It’s not as if the Iliad grew out of an oral tradition, where every time it was told slightly differently by each different storyteller! It’s not like even once it was codified to paper it was performed in its entirety from start to finish. But rather people picked the chapters they liked best and had those performed at their dinners.
In the next chapter after talking about how teens are not focused and not able to do anything to benefit others without being made to. He goes on to talk about “twixters” people in their 20s who while having college degrees, growing up middle class and living in cities, work service jobs, live with their parents or roommates, and “engage in serial dating”. He says all these things like it was a conscious choice of these people to not take on a “serious” role of adulthood but life out their frivolous lives. Ok, perhaps the reason these people are working in service industries is because having a degree no longer opens the jobs that it used to. People don’t work these jobs because they don’t want to get a “proper job” but because there are no jobs! The reason they live with other people is because they can’t afford to rent on their own, let alone by a house! Does the author have any idea of the world people actually live in? This is not some long enjoyed quest for “identity” this is economic recession! This chapter seems to be less about technology making youth suck, and just that they suck in general. An artist working in a programme for at risk youth to develop art skills is ridiculed by the author over and over for his distaste at the idea of kids all sitting around copying a Rembrandt, and saying they should find their own voice and style. This chapter breaks away from the argument that technology is to blame and looks at the “youth movement” from the 60s on, and now seems to hold this to blame. People have been valuing the opinions of youth too much while at the same time they feel disenfranchised. I’m sure there is a point to this chapter, but it mostly just seems to be slamming an age group.

The last chapter looks at the impact this will have on “American democracy” how without civic understanding the country will be doomed to failure without once mentioning any of the political problems of the past 10 years that might influence a young person’s feelings towards politics. Of course he also doesn’t mention how the majority of the US population doesn’t vote and hasn’t voted in a very long time. Because it’s always so much easier to blame problems on the kids!

I think his argument is that kids are dumb. I’m afraid I think that people in general are dumb, and his arguments to blame technology for all our problems today seem simplistic and wrong. As he’s an English professor and not a social scientist, sociologist, psychologist, or even historian he seems to lack an understanding of how culture and society work. How what we are experiencing now is a continuation of problems from the past. You can’t just blame technology for your problems. If kids are dumb it’s because their parents and teachers are dumb and they’re not shaping up and taking responsibility for giving them a proper education and preparing them for life.

Overall this book was a good introduction to the subject. While mostly US focused it does give a good outline of the major theorists and the ways that IL is being implemented, particularly in schools. However a lack of evaluation of the programs and their success or failure made the book weaker. It is very well to say that these things will help, and that IL will help students but you need to show evidence of this beyond the theory.

The first chapter outlines the development and definitions of information literacy. The authors then go on to look at how this was developed by the ALA in the US, and how it was incorporated into government policy and school libraries for K-12. They also look at the way it has been used in Canada, and briefly some other countries. The 3rd chapter looks at the theories and research about IL and how teaching practices match up with findings. Most of the studies quoted state that skills and results improve with IL. However, there is a divide in the theory between those who see IL as a set of skills to be developed and those who see it as a way of learning.

Chapter 4 looks briefly at an economic perspective, how IL skills are necessary for work, and the SCANS report. Chapter 5 outlines education goals of 1990, 2000 and 2001 but doesn’t address failure of these goals (e.g. all adults literate by 2000). It only looks at how IL fits in with these goals. It goes subject by subject through the education requirements and gives examples of from different US states on IL policies, but it doesn’t evaluate the success or notable achievements of the states with IL policies compared with those who without. Chapter 6 looks at different methods/styles of education and different ways of measuring IL.

Chapter 7 gives examples of IL programmes in US schools. This includes a lot of reproductions of pages and processes used. This would be interesting to school librarians and some of which may be transferred to other IL programmes. What is missing from this chapter, again, is evaluation of these programmes.

Chapter 8 gives examples from HE. It follows the patterns of chapter 7. It talks of standards for university level (130) and mentions the Institute of Information Literacy, a subdivision of the academic library organisation, which focuses on teaching librarians how to teach IL. (131-132). It covers the conversations about whether faculty or librarians should teach IL, and whether it should be included in courses, or online tutorials. Assessment focuses on assessing students IL skills rather than the success of programmes. It does give an example from WA State (150) which may now include results of the success of its programme.

Chapter 9 looks at technology and IL. It discusses teaching of IT skills and how these can be incorporated with IL. 189 has a good quote about how IT skills are part of information problem solving… There are also examples of the way IT and IL combine in schools, but not HE. Chapter 10 looks at the future. (171 has good quote) There is a brief mention of IL in public libraries and adult education. The appendix contains lots of useful examples and US standards

While written in 2003 and therefore a tad out of date this book is a good collection of short essays on the theory and practice of Information Literacy (IL). Most of these essays focus on higher education and academic libraries. The first half of the book focuses on IL, while the 2nd half looks at IT literacy. It is interesting to see that at this point there is little integration between the two. (Unlike now or the web2.0 book which attempts to combine them).

The following is my notes on each chapter for my current essay and not really relevant to other people. ( Read more... )

I got this book for a library school essay; it's not the type of thing I normally read! The book could easily have been subtitled "what's wrong with American society". I think the book the author was trying to write though was what's wrong with Americans. Her premise seemed to be because Americans spent too much time multi-tasking and distracted their culture was doomed and going to die unless people started learning how to focus, and (unsurprisingly) one way was Buddhism's mindfulness! She spent a lot of time talking about the "neuroscience" of what happened to a person's brain in these different situations, and how this was bad, and how increasing concentration was good. Of course she's an author and journalist without a background in neuroscience and, as someone with only a degree in psychology, what she was saying didn't make any sense. She'd try to explain brain processes, but then not say what that actually corresponded to. Not to mention the problems she was discussing were cultural phenomena, and so needed a cultural answer, not an individual one.

I did think the book started fairly well. It was an enjoyable criticism of the way modern society works. How we spend all our time doing many things at once, and how everything seems to be dummed down. My favourite part was when she had a 10 year old talk about how they liked using power point because it was easier to write without any detail and you didn't have to know what you were talking about. She compared the innovations of today's society with that of Victorian times, and made some nice comparisons between the two (partly unintentionally explaining the interest in steam punk amongst modern geeks). However, sayings how society today was like society in the 19th century didn’t really further her argument that there would be a coming cultural dark age.

In fact she did little to justify this at all, mostly just pointing out how bad things were. She also failed to address how a dark age of American society would be affected by the fact that we are now living in a global society, or how many of the problems she was talking about could be found in other cultures. This was obviously a book designed by an American, for Americans, with little consciousness of the outside world, except when European history was needed.

After the first few chapters focusing on technology, and how families spend no time together anymore, there was a chapter on the evils of fast food, in particular drive throughs, and "nomadism" the fact that people spend lots of time travelling everywhere (particularly be plane). I found this chapter the most irritating. It seemed to make no judgement for class or economic status. I wasn't sure how eating out all the time impacted a distracted state, rather than simply an unhealthy one. And I really don't think most Americans spend all their time on airplanes travelling back and forth for business and pleasure. (Of course when talking about how this was bad the environmental impact was not mentioned once).

The "evils" of technology chapters were quite strange too. The first talked about how parents used technology to spy on their kids. Putting up cameras in their rooms to record them, which I found really creepy. The other example was a guy who banned his 12 year old son from the internet for a year, because the dad thought one of his son's friends might be a paedophile in disguise. This struck me as SUCH bad parenting. You don't ban a kid because you think he might be in trouble, you explain the dangers to them and educate them so they can make better decisions. He then put in parental spyware on the computer so he could ban all sites that he didn't think were appropriate for his son including ones "with heavy metal music" (dear gods!) The other part was talking about how AI and robotics were being developed. She seemed offended that the idea that robotic animals could be used as surrogates for actual relationships, or to build empathy. As many pop-cultural references as she made, the fact that she neglected to talk about the exact use of the robot pets to build empathy in Do Androids dream seemed quite odd. Her point seemed to be that we liked robots, or identified with them too much, and that was bad. (Though if sci-fi has taught us anything it's that not liking the robots and treating them poorly is what leads to rebellion).

While complaining about how kids were getting dumber and the lack of good education she was scathingly critical of attempts by universities and university libraries to increase information literacy (how people are taught research skills). She dismissed this out of hand as being outdated, similarly to her dismissal of teaching critical thinking. When surely teaching critical thinking and information literacy skills are exactly the two solutions to fix the problems of attention and ignorance that she is complaining about (travel and fast food would need a different approach). (228 179 and 163)

It wasn't a totally bad read, the style was engaging and she quoted from all sorts of people that I liked and enjoy reading. But I felt that her overall arguments were flawed and her solution to the problems presented was inappropriate. Still there were some good quotes to include in my essay so it was worth reading. Anyone is welcome to it after my essay is finished as I don’t think I’m going to need to keep it for reference.

This book was recommended by Oscar Wilde in the Art of Lying, so I thought I'd give it a go. It was a big 19th century version of a medieval romance. It reminded me quite a bit of Walter Scott, with more philosophical and religious musings. It was very long, and I actually took a break half way through as I was getting a bit bogged down in it. I found some parts very enjoyable and some parts a bit dull. The parts in Burgundy with Denys were lots of fun. (The relationship between Denys and Gerard containing so much subtext it was really easy to see why Mr. Wilde liked the book so much). Then I felt the plot got a bit dull. But when Gerard finally made it to Rome again I really enjoyed it once more. I felt a bit let down by the end. It was as if the writer managed to write himself into a corner and wasn't sure how to get out without just talking about how the church and charity made people happy.

The characterisation was quite good, but I felt it was a little light. I didn't like the characters as much as I should. Margaret (the young woman) was interesting. I liked that she had all the medical knowledge of a doctor, but wasn't allowed to practice because she was a woman. Though most of the time she just seemed to spend sighing and being sad over her lost love.

Gerard was sometimes fun, and sometimes annoying. When he did eventually become a priest I think I lost all interest in him. His religious character just seemed more of a stereotype than anything real. (Despite all the crisis)

I didn't love this as much as I was hoping. But it was interesting to see what a 19th century writer had to say about 15th century religion and philosophy and there was a fun story that went along with it. I did also enjoy the writing style. I don't think I'll be reading anymore books by Reade though, even though the rest are all very different to this.

Treputė martela, linelius pasėja, trepu treputėla, marti lelijėla...
Bet kaip - pšš - ima ir išgaruoja tos dainos iš galvos. Tikiuosi, kad grįš po kelių dienų, kaip paprastai būna. Skamba aidi Londone lietuviškos sutartinės... :)

Norėjau apie Kalėdas parašyt, kaip kai kas, kas Lietuvoj per gerklę verčias, čia visai nekliudo. Bet dar nesusigulėjo galvoje.

Užtat kitas toks dalykas guli kuris laikas. Išgelbėk draugą. Ar mokėtum?. Aš - nežinau. Ir todėl liūdna. Kiek kartų dalyvavau kokiuose nors pirmosios pagalbos kursuose? Tikrai bent porą: vairuotojo pažymėjimui gauti ir estų vasaros festivalyje. Esu tikra, kad iki to dar kažkas bandė kažko mokyti. Bet kiek iš tiesų išlieka galvoje?

Vairuotojų kursų apmokymai buvo neįtikėtinai paviršutiniški. Viskas, ką iš jų prisimenu, tai "jeigu į akį įstrigusi šakelė, tai reikia apibintuoti taip, kad ta šakelė nejudėtų, ir gabent į ligoninę" ir "o jeigu neturite ledo nutrūkusiai galūnei atšaldyti, tai vis tiek meskit į bagažinę ir kuo greičiau vežkit ligoninėn". Žavu. Estijoje buvo ramiau ir įdomiau, tačiau veiksmas daugiausia vyko estiškai su trupučiu vertimo man į anglų kalbą. Geriausia buvo praktinis pabandymas: pabandyti CPR, atsigavimo poziciją (kaip lietuviškai recovery position??) Gaila, net ir po šito galvoje išliko labai mažai.

Tiesiog tai, ko nedarai, ko nesikartoji ir nepraktikuoji, išgaruoja automatiškai. O juk šitos žinios turi būti, taip sakant, visada "po ranka". Jeigu šalia tavęs esantis žmogus staiga žiauriai susižeis ir paplūs kraujais, neturėsi kada mąstyti. Viena bėda, aišku, - kraujas kai kuriuos žmones gąsdina. Aš nealpčiau, bet turbūt sutrikčiau. O toliau? Skirtumą tarp arterinio ir veninio kraujavimo aiškino gal šimtą kartų: pro vieną ausį įeina, pro kitą - išeina. Čia panašiai kaip ir su tuo faktu, kad iš biologijos seniai seniai turėjau dešimt, bet negaliu parodyti, kur mano skrandis :)) Juokai juokais, bet tam tikrus dalykus reikia įsikalti į galvą ir į RANKAS, o svarbiausia - kartoti juos, kad nepamirštum. Nes niekada nežinai, kada kas.

Mūsų skautai pastarąsias kelias savaites ruošėsi laikytis pirmosios pagalbos ženklelį. Kažkaip po šio sueigų ciklo ir mano smegeninėje šis tas atsigamino ir tvirčiau užsiliko. Pavyzdžiui, dabar beveik tvirtai galiu pasakyti, kad moku recovery position ir žinau, ką reikia padaryti, ruošiantis CPR (beje, čia rekomenduojamas paspaudimų-įpūtimų santykis yra 30:2). Sunkiausia būtų ką nors apibintuoti ar įtverti, tiesiog nežinočiau, nuo ko pradėti ir kaip pabaigti, o "belekaip" - argi tinka? Naudingas dalykas yra įvairios mnemoninės priemonės, pvz. ką reikia daryti, jei įeini į kambarį ir žiūri, guli žmogus ant žemės? Atsimink: Dr ABC - danger (patikrink, ar tau negresia pavojus), response (šūktelėk žmogų nuo kojūgalio, paskui arčiau veido, pajudink pečius ir žiūrėk, ar nereaguoja), airway (atidaryk kvėpavimo takus, t.y. atversk jam galvą, viena ranka ant kaktos, du pirštai po smakru, išimk bet ką, kas blokuoja gerklę), breathing (patikrink, ar žmogus kvėpuoja, pridėdamas skruostą prie nosies ir pažiūrėdamas, ar kilnojasi krūtinė), communication (skambink greitajai). Arba atmintinė, kaip atpažinti insultą: FAST - face (žmogaus veido raumenys atsipalaidavę, veidas sukritęs?), arms (paprašyk pakėlus ištiesti rankas, ar žmogus tai gali padaryti?), speech (ar jis kalba neaiškiai?), time (laikas skambinti greitajai!) Kaži, ar Lietuvoje tokios pagalbinės priemonės naudojamos?

Dabar reikia tą kartoti ir kartoti. Nes kai - jei - kas nors atsitiks, nei vadovėlio, nei pirmosios pagalbos instruktoriaus šalia nebus.

This was a good book on the topic of information literacy and web 2.0 use in libraries. Some of the articles focused just on the 2.0 side of things and not on information literacy per se, but it was still an interesting read. The rest of the view is my notes on each of the essays, mostly for my own use on how they work into the essay I'm writing at the moment.( Read more... )