The Importance of the Media??

[Kylix]

I fear that I start too many threads about this subject but it's something that's often on my mind so here goes...

I plan on unschooling my children as I believe that this style of education is optimal in that it allows children to pursue their interests and learn from a variety of resources at their own pace.

However, when I flip through unschooling resources (The Unschooling Handbook by Mary Griffith for one, unschooling.com as well), I see a common theme. And that is the presence of the media--TV, movies, the internet as a major resource to unschoolers. It seems that what is seen, heard and read through these resources often sparks interests or serve as a means of information for those interests. Which is great! I know that I learn a lot this way. This is how I learned about AP and unschooling in the first place. But I worry about having young children learn that way?

So my question is...do you think it is possible to unschool as effectively without using those media tools? I always envisioned my children living TV free for the first several years of their lives.

Are TV, movies and the computer/intenet very important to those of you that unschool? How many of you unschoolers live TV free?

Any tips on how to find other resources in which my children could be exposed to a variety of diverse topics? I know of the library and family friends but I feel like that could easily be exhausted especially since I'm not a very social person, myself which is another thread.

Kylix

[Lotusmama]

I cut off cable when we started to hs (in Canada, cable is almost all tv stations, so no cable basically means no tv.) We went without for almost 2 years, but this last winter did me in, -50 or so for 3 straight months, cable tv does have its uses!! Even without broadcast tv, we still spent much of our time with some media or other, reading newspapers and magazines at the library, listening to CBC (Cdn version of NPR, basically), watching movies, documentaries and science shows from the library, and playing video games, and a lot of time spent on the net. I don't think it's really possible anymore, or necessarily desirable, to cut out all media. There has been a lot of value for us, even from cable tv. Ds mostly likes watching TLC (Junkyard Wars and Monster Garage), science shows on Discovery, and we've been spending a lot of time since the Iraq war started watching the war coverage on CNN, CBC, BBC, and US network news, and talking about the differences in the coverage, and why US and Cdn news are sooooo different.

As for resources, I love local radio, we have 2 college stations, a bunch of new independent jazz and alternative stations, several talk radio stations, and CBC is always interesting in some way, this summer they had a series of reports on the seven heavenly virtues and the seven deadly sins, and what meaning these concepts have in modern life--of course the sin series was way more interesting, lol. They always have radio plays, and readings of interesting books, usually read by their authors (last winter Yann Martel read Life of Pi) you can listen to CBC and most college stations on the net. I've never heard NPR, but it sounds just as interesting.

Ali

[Lemon Balm]

You can definitely avoid t.v.

How old are your children? What are their interests? My 3 yo watches some t.v. but wouldn't care if she watched none. The 9 yo HAS TO watch "my history show", Liberty's Kids on PBS. I do really try to limit their t.v. There are many ways to open the world and explore new topics.

My girls are really interested in nature, so we belong to the local Botanical Garden and don't just visit when the weather is nice. We go year 'round. Not only has there been much constant change, we've seen black snakes mating and spotted a beaver before the staff knew he was there. Each of these has fed existing and sparked new interests. It seems one thing always leads to another and then somehow connects back to previous learning.

At the beginning of the "school year" last year, I asked dd for three lists. Things she wanted to learn about on her own, things she wanted to learn with help from me and things she wanted to put off for the time being. She had so much she wanted to learn, we couldn't possibly cover it all. We had many great springboards from those lists and it gave me ideas for how to pass on information I thought was important through things that interested her.

I think I'm rambling now. I'd start with what your kids are interested in and come up with ways to expand on it and different ways to explore it without t.v., etc. And most of all, have fun with it (something I need to do a better job of this year)!

[Dar]

I think unschooling without tv, radio, movies, internet, etc. is seriously limiting your child's options and opportunities for learning. Since the bedrock of unschooling is trusting your children, it seems wrong to me to not trust them to utilize these truly incredible resources.

Rain is a free-range kid; she has free access to all of that. OTOH, she has access to a whole lot of other things, too, and she has a pretty full life. She's 10, but I didn't limit these things when she was little, and she would have periods of lots of videos or lots of computer games... and then periods of lots of lego and lots of drawing, and it all flowed. I can look back now and see things she was exposed to that sparked an interest or a passion - the movies "Chicago" really inspired her to work on her voice, espeiclaly after listening to a story on the radio about how Renee Z had never sung before doing that movie. She now uses All That Jazz as a standard audition piece.

If media like these are used as excuses not to interact with a child, I think that's wrong... but there are lots of other ways to use them.

Dar

[Kylix]

I guess I should clarify. I dont' have a problem with all media. TV is my biggest beef. I just don't like the TV programs that are on the air right now--including and maybe especially most of the children's programs. Although there are some things on the internet that I'd rather my child not run across, I think all in all it's a great resource. The same for radio--NPR in particular is a great learning aid.

Dar--I really feel like you answered my question. Thanks. I do get the feeling that that TV, movies and the internet are huge resources for unschoolers and I definitely don't want to limit my children. For older children, say over 8, I think these are essential but I guess my question is what about younger children?

Do you think that it's necessary for a five year old unschooler to have unlimited access to TV and the internet?

I guess I'm rambling here too.

Basically, I've heard the case be made for unlimited access to TV, movies, the internet for unschoolers and I think it is a strong one.

BUT now I want to hear from those who unschool but limit these considerably if not have no TV or computer in their home.
Lemon Balm--your post was great...any more thoughts from you or anyone else?

Kylix

[Patti Ann]

I wouldn't say we are truly unschooling, but we are very relaxed in how we school. We do have set programs, but use them very loosely. That being said I definately limit the amount of tv and computer time they have. At this age I don't think it is a necessary resource for them. I would much rather them reading, doing puzzles, building things, painting, palying outside, etc. Wathcing tv is such a passive activity and I can definatley see a difference in them when they watching tv and using the computer too much. I think you can unschool very easily at that age without using the tv or computer at all. Unschooling is about learning while living and there is so much for little ones to learn. I tend to use the tv and computer at this age as more of a sanity saver for myself at times. HTH
Patti

[Kylix]

Yep Patti Ann, helped alot.

I guess I just see TV as living vicariously. It's too easy to get caught up in TV and just live through the characters and not pursue what the characters are doing that interests you, KWIM?

I feel like for older ppl maybe it's easier to do so (even though I find myself doing that too) but I think that TV is sort of passive and one of the main reasons I want to unschool is for my children to live active lives.

Kylix

[Dar]

I don't necessarily see TV as passive, although it can be used that way. Right now Rain is watching 3rd Rock while reading a zine (that would be Evolve, for any Edgy fans and making tea. When she was younger, she would often play and watch tv, or dance and watch tv. When she sits and stares at the tv, it's usually after a really busy day and she's using TV as down time...

OTOH, reading is almost always done in by itself , except for watching TV. Reading is always done when she's basically physically very still, and I suppose she does live vicariously through the characters in books. And it's pretty passive...

Dar

[Patti Ann]

My kids do watch tv, but if they are playing the tv gets turned off. I don't see the need for having the tv on in the backround if they are involved in something else. As far as reading being passive, I would much rather my dd read a book and have to create her own image of what the character and setting are like. With tv you don't have that opportunity. You are watching someone else's idea of what they should be.

I'm not saying all tv is bad. I like to limit it because I want my children to be out and enjoying themselves. There is so much to do and discover without the tv on.

Patti

[NoHiddenFees]

Dar wrote:

Reading is always done when she's basically physically very still, and I suppose she does live vicariously through the characters in books. And it's pretty passive...

The assertion that television viewing is passive and reading is not does not refer to physical passivity, but rather mental.

Reading for understanding cannot passive. The brain has to work to translate those funny squiggles on the paper into words and phrases and those words and phrases into meaning. Of course, for some material it must work harder than others. Watching television doesn't require the brain to work nearly as hard and the information is processed differently. This is a well studied question, and the results are consistent.

Our family has no TV channels, but doesn have a DVD player. DH and I are film buffs and won't give this up just for a principle (we never will have one of those deafening surround sound systems and a TV that takes up half the room though). This was the case before DD, and I don't see this changing. It's never on when she's in the room, and I hope to mimimize her exposure for a few more years. When she's 7 or 8, we'll start renting good documentaries and start introducing her to some good movies, etc. There are so many wonderful films that I can't imagine not sharing them with her.

[Dar]

Originally posted by NoHiddenFees
Dar wrote:
Reading for understanding cannot passive. The brain has to work to translate those funny squiggles on the paper into words and phrases and those words and phrases into meaning. Of course, for some material it must work harder than others. Watching television doesn't require the brain to work nearly as hard and the information is processed differently. This is a well studied question, and the results are consistent.

I think this is a vast oversimplification. If you have research, I'd like to see it, although most research I've seen on TV fails to differentiate based on what's being watched on the TV.

The brain of a fluent reader doesn't have to work to read - in fact, it's impossible for a fluent reader to look at words and not read them - try it with this post (no fair crossing your eyes)! Translating words into meaning becomes as automatic as translating 2-D tv shows into meaning.

There are different parts of the brain working with tv vs. reading (and different parts working with different reading material and tv shows), but that doesn't make one bad, IMO... just different. They're different activities.

Not all tv watching is the same, just as not all reading is the same. I took a tv-based college math class, and I was definitely thinking while watching, and my brain was working. When I read Redbook in the grocery store lines, my brain really isn't working that hard. One could read Redbook intently, or zone out on algebra shows. It all depends on what you're wanting to get out of the experience.

Some tv-watching creates the same sorts of brain waves as meditation - a bad thing? I don't think so.

Rain can play and watch TV at the same time - TV dopesn't demad 100% of your attention. I think turning off the TV because the kids are also playing leads to kids who do watch passively, because if they figure out that if they're watching actively and multitasking the tv gets turned off. If the TV seems to just be on I may ask if Rain is still watching or not, and then maybe turn it off, but I don't require her to just sit and watch if she wants it on.

Dar

[ShannonCC]

Looks like another interesting thread in the homeschooling forum! (said with NO sarcasm - I LOVE these well thought out threads on differing opinions! ).

I don't have much to add on the tv vs. no tv discussion. I waffle back and forth on it but when it comes down to it, I really enjoy my tv.

However, I wanted to address one of the OP's questions. I like tv and we get a lot out of it, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary for learning. There are plenty of things to do without tv.

You already mentioned the library and the obvious books there. Does your library have special programs? Ours has had puppet shows, crafts, magic shows, animal shows and the like. And then what about zoos? We have a lovely little zoo 20 minutes from us or the Big City zoo which is wonderful but a pain in the butt to get to. We go to the big zoo every other year but the little one probably once a month. Little zoos often have educational centers where you can get up close to snakes, rabbits, iguanas, etc.

How about a nature center? I have lived in this state my whole life and in this area for 6 years and only last month found out there's a nature center 15 minutes from us! We went to their visitor center and then spent a lot of time at their little museum. Then we walked through the woods with dd pretending to be an explorer leading the way. Then we went back a week later to go to a show on reptiles. The planetarium is closed right now but we'll be going when it opens. And of course even if you don't have a nature center, just walking in the woods is fun. My dd really enjoys the local nature reservation.

How about museums? Plenty of stuff to spark an interest there!

If you are anywhere near water there's probably an aquarium or two. If you are near the shore then just walking on the beach and picking up shells is a lot of fun. Armed with a book from the library you might even find out their names.

Look up in the sky at night and see if you spark an interest in stars. There are some cute books on constellations my 4 year old likes. We live in a pretty light poluted area but we still have fun with the telescope dh bought me for Christmas one year.

I'm not a social person either, but I think it's hard to exhaust family and friends! Unless you have a very tiny family? In our family alone we have her dad who does woodworking, her grandpa who did woodworking and fished (he's died but we still talk about him a lot), her grandma who does lots of crafts and travels all over the place (just got home from Alaska last week), her uncle who is a Muslim from Egypt, etc. I'm not saying she'll necessarily be interested in learning about Egypt, woodworking and Alaska, but it's out there for her to be exposed to. Often, even the most seemingly boring person on the planet has *something* they are interested in.

I hope I did more than just ramble here,

[NoHiddenFees]

Dar wrote:

I think this is a vast oversimplification.

It is a simplification. The brain actually must do much more when conferring meaning to a passage. In addition to decoding words and phrases, it must, among other activities, build an adaptable mental picture of locations, people, and other elements being written about (i.e. "build" the world). In addition, just because a fluent reader doesn't have to consciously labour to decode the words, this doesn't mean that the brain isn't working. It's not magic, just automaticity, and is transparent to the reader. Some reading is more challenging than others, no one would argue that Harlequin's are as challenging as Proust. Sometimes we don't read for understanding; that's why I made the qualification.

I've never seen a study of brain wave activity in which television viewing was shown to be more mentally stimulating than reading. EKG's have been shown this for more than 30 years, and studies with MRIs have corroborated those findings. Reading, OTOH, -- books, magazines, newspaper articles -- produces greater mental activity when measured by these techniques.

I didn't say TV was "bad" or that one can't learn anything from TV. I was responding solely the the characterization of reading as a passive activity -- in a thread talking about television. However, I do believe very strongly that young children shouldn't be exposed at all to even non-commercial TV so we don't watch movies until dd goes to bed. That's a personal choice; I don't judge those who choose differently.

[Margarinva]

I'm not well-studied on the affects of media so I'll keep my experience personal.

My ds, around 4-5, was watching far too much tv and playing way to many computer games IMO. He hated leaving the house. Heaven forbid he missed a show he liked! LOL It was such that when we did go somewhere the only thing he would talk about to other people was a show he watched or a game he played. Of course, when he mentioned going to such and such a level and getting so many points, people had no idea what he was talking about. I didn't want to stop his natural interest in this type of stuff so I steered it some. We started off from 9-1 with no tv or computer games. If there was a show he felt like he Had to watch, I taped it with the sound off and the screen blocked. After a while he didn't even care about the shows. Now that he has other interests, he is limited to educational games and videos in the 9-1 time period. He doesn't care about tv as much since I limited him. He prefers hands-on stuff, field trips (which he hated before), and playing now.

My dd, on the other hand, likes a movie here and there but doesn't love tv.

To sum it up, in my experience I would go by your child. If too much media seems like a problem then you can decide to work on it when you get there (it may never be a problem). Maybe you could follow your child's cues and ask him/her to evaluated how he feels in response to various types of learning. Does he feel stimulated? Did he retain any information? (he may be an auditory learner) Does it make him want to Do anything? (this was a Big no with my ds which is why we decided to change things) What seems to make him the happiest to enjoy a well-rounded life?

Can you avoid these in the younger years and still have a great education? Absolutely! Can you use the media in the younger years and still have a great education? Absolutely!


Margar

[Kylix]

Thanks for the well thought out responses, ladies (and gents?). This has been a great discussion. I think I brought away the same type of message that I originally in my mind but your advice really helped.

ShannonCC--Your examples were great! I think for the younger years the things you listed are really all you need. The social aspect still worries me but that's whole other thread.

BUT as I was watching Animal Channel today I realized how great a resource this channel really could be. I know nothing about sharks (what the show I was watching was on). I don't think there would really be a chance for my children to get exposure to infos about sharks otherwise so a show like this really could open up their world.

All in all that's what I want to do for my children. If the media helps to open up their world, that's not so bad. I just don't want it to become a dependency. I guess going child by child would be the best options.

Again, thanks for the great discussion. It was just a nagging thought running through my mind.

Kylix

[ShannonCC]

Originally posted by Kylix
The social aspect still worries me but that's whole other thread.

So go ahead and start a new thread and we'll yak your ears off on that one too :LOL (er, we'll type your eyes off?).

[moominmamma]

Great thread! If I had more time I'd love to get into the "active vs. passive mental processes" tangent, for I too believe that there is a significant amount of construction, interpretation, translation and imagination involved in reading that is not part of TV viewing. But I'll leave that in the interest of rationing my on-line time, because lots of great points have been made.

I have unabashedly manipulated my kids' environment to limit exposure to mass media during their early years, and I count us unschoolers. We chose to live a long way from hubs of consumer culture and in a lifestyle that limits exposure to mass media. I don't actually limit TV, but we make it awkward and inconvenient and unattractive to watch. (We have a single small TV, in a non-central part of the house, with a limited array of channel selections and we very strongly model other forms of entertainment and amusement.

For what it's worth, though I give children credit for being able to understand and cope with a lot more than many people do, I also think that it is crucial for their well-being and continuing optimistic approach to the world that they believe that the world is a place where good sense, truth and goodness are the rules, and evil, deception and idiocy are the exceptions. This is my view of the world, and I think that for children to grow up happy, self-motivated and confident, they need to believe this too. Children subjected to unrestricted media immersion will be presented with copious evidence that the opposite is true: that the world is mostly a place of evil and violence and deception. I feel justified in protecting them from a lot of this because, in my view, this is not the 'real world', it's a skewed funhouse-mirror version of it. Simplistically the news and other mass media portray a world which is 95% "bad" and 5% "good", so I non-coercively reduce my kids' access to that portrayal such that their life experience weighs in with proportions of bad to good that are more reflective of reality.

That's how I rationalize it to myself anyway

Miranda

[Kylix]

I wanted to clarify that when I say social aspect I don't mean the age-old socialization issue. I am confident that my kids will have good social skills.

I will go ahead and start another thread though. Heh heh...

Kylix