I work part time as a substitute teacher. This past Friday I worked at a high school and first block had Juniors that were honor students and were great kids. Last block of the day, I had Freshman Honor English Lit students. I gave the instructions to read an assigned book. About 1/3 of the class took out their cell phones and listened to the Audio book. They claimed that it was the way they could do it. Most times students will not tell you the right information.
At the end of the day, the teacher came back from a field trip and I questioned her on the students listening to the Audio book instead of reading and comprehending the words. She does allow them to listen instead of read.
It's just my opinion but I believe reading gives you a better vocabulary actually seeing the words. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I thought reading a book actually meant reading.

You are probably getting old.

People learn differently. Some are visual learners, others are audio, and many will be tactile. Everyone will be some combination of the three, but usually favors one more than the others. Some of those kids are being lazy, I'm sure, but some may actually learn better listening than reading.

I'm a highly visual learner. Audio goes in one ear, out the other. I can listen to a song on the radio a thousand times trying to learn the lyrics, but won't get it right until I pull up the written lyrics. Lectures are worthless to me--I skipped almost all of my lectures in college. But I can read a book cover to cover the night before the final and recall details that are helpful to understanding the material.

People are different. I think the sooner the kids figure out how best they learn, the better.

As Aeteocles said, there are different learning types. From looking into this a while back, there are supposedly auditory, visual, and kinesthetic (tactile) learning types. Some study found 70% of the US population were auditory learners, so they do fine with lecture style classrooms. I almost completely visual as well, so lectures tend to be worthless and I was the kid reading the book in the back only somewhat paying attention to the instructor.

I remember a fellow student in college that was almost completely kinesthetic. She recorded each lecture, then listened repeatedly so she could write down all the info to learn. She did the same with the textbooks, reading and then writing down everything needed. Lots of work, but she was a 4.0 student so it apparently worked for her.

There is also more of this because the schools do not have copies of the books to hand out and unless your quick the library copies will be long gone so then the school expects the kids (parents) to purchase the book.

My daughter really likes to read so I have no issues buying books but if she did not I would much rather her listen to an audio book than do the cliffs notes thing

Long term, the audio “reading” approach will likely put those kids at a disadvantage. Reason is that reading visually can be performed faster than listening with equal comprehension of the material. Thus, the visuals can get through more material over time than the listeners, all else being equal. Of course, if the audiophiles can speed up their recordings and listen to the higher pitched, faster material successfully, that might mitigate that disadvantage. Could be an interesting experiment!

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:

...
Iremember a fellow student in college that was almost completely kinesthetic. She recorded each lecture, then listened repeatedly so she could write down all the info to learn. She did the same with the textbooks, reading and then writing down everything needed. Lots of work, but she was a 4.0 student so it apparently worked for her.

This is how I got through college. Always had a hard time focusing on people speaking and harder time focusing while reading. I never recorded lectures, but I would scribble as fast as I could and started cutting out words and shortening most words on my notes so I could get the gist of it. My notes were useless for other people to look at, but I understood. I only learned by visual and auditory methods in high school, and got maybe a 2.7. Then started at a community college and learned how to learn better...haha if that makes sense. Had a 3.8 and transferred to a 4 year and would have graduated with over 3.5, but ended up 3.3 because of the extra curriculars taking too much time and focus...
I've always done best as a kinesthetic learner. Like working on cars with dad. He tells me what to do, it's forgotten quickly. He shows me what to do, maybe I'll retain a piece of info or two. Let me get my hands on it and do it, I can basically do it exactly the same next time.

I have always preferred printed material. It's good to be able to see proper spelling, punctuation, etc.

My completely unscientific, gut feeling, jump to conclusion, assertion is that those who read and those who listen might learn the material equally well (just a hypothesis), but I'll bet a shiny new nickel, or maybe even a SIGforum challenge coin, that those who read will, in the long run, turn out to be better writers than those who listen.

quote:

Originally posted by rtquig:
It's just my opinion but I believe reading gives you a better vocabulary actually seeing the words. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I thought reading a book actually meant reading.

Yup, you're just falling behind the times. Reading is skill for learning to read, it isn't required when the objective is to learn a subject.

I only wish we had this option when I was in high school as I'm mostly an audio learner.

When I got to college, I learned to pick instructors who we skilled lecturers and who tested on that material. After a while, I stopped buying the textbooks at all.

V-Tail : BTW I'm considered a skilled writer, but I write the way I speak...and I'm considered a fairly proficient speaker

While I thoroughly agree it puts the student at a disadvantage, as long as the audio books are read verbatim, it should be allowed with the students fully aware all test questions will be based on the written version, not the spoken.

quote:

as long as the audio books are read verbatim

Are there audio books that you're aware of which aren't read verbatim

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by rtquig:
It's just my opinion but I believe reading gives you a better vocabulary actually seeing the words. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I thought reading a book actually meant reading.

Yup, you're just falling behind the times. Reading is skill for learning to read, it isn't required when the objective is to learn a subject.

I only wish we had this option when I was in high school as I'm mostly an audio learner.

When I got to college, I learned to pick instructors who we skilled lecturers and who tested on that material. After a while, I stopped buying the textbooks at all.

V-Tail : BTW I'm considered a skilled writer, but I write the way I speak...and I'm considered a fairly proficient speaker

I went to college late in life at age 45, graduated at 50. Education was my minor. I realized in college that while you did know which instructors got the lesson across so all could understand, you also had to realize that the way you got through college was to teach yourself. I took notes, taped the lectures and studied my ass off every night.
One of my problems as a substitute teacher is that you do not get to know the students and can't tell which are actually listening to the audio book or music, or texting or on snap chat.
I shouldn't let these things bother me but I would like to see the students learn and not use the time to do other things while in class.

I agree with the OP. Not only does it help with remembering what you have covered, but I do think it helps keep your reading/comprehension level at a higher level.

I do have some teaching experience having taught at a community college as well as an adult Ed institution for almost 10 years.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
My completely unscientific, gut feeling, jump to conclusion, assertion is that those who read and those who listen might learn the material equally well (just a hypothesis), but I'll bet a shiny new nickel, or maybe even a SIGforum challenge coin, that those who read will, in the long run, turn out to be better writers than those who listen.

I agree with that.

It's why I personally feel that reading is important, so you can be a good writer.

To be a good speaker, you should first learn how to be a good listener.

Both my wife and I read a lot. We hope our daughter picks up on it. We have family friends and the husband is the same age as me (38) and he's just a step above illiterate. Very poor reading and writing. When their kids start getting older and into more complex school work, I'm wondering how he's going to help.

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

as long as the audio books are read verbatim

Are there audio books that you're aware of which aren't read verbatim

There are a lot of abridged versions of audiobooks. I’ve never heard any that change the story but they do cut out subplots and entire characters to save time.

Prior to digital audiobooks I used to have to look pretty hard to find unabridged versions of anything but the most popular and trendy books. Even classics like Ayn Rand were hard to get anything but abridged. I still have a nice collection of unabridged Tom Clancy Jack Ryan series books on CD that I collected over the years searching various bookstores across the country. Of course now they are easier to find.

When it comes to learning the substance of a novel or written work, I am sure that some will learn better by listening.

I suspect that if you are trying to teach how to write, reading printed material will be better as the students will see proper writing, and punctuation, in particular.

Books work better in a power outage.

If they can’t read how are they going to use FaceTwitter?

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Books work better in a power outage.

my phone usually works fine in a power outage. and if I have a book, I can use the flashlight on my phone during the power outage.

One of the best things my parents ever did for me, was use the phrase, "look it up."

I was encouraged to read a wide variety of things, and when struggling with a word, to get a dictionary and "look it up." I was also encouraged to read thing that were "challenging."

It helps build vocabulary, not just understanding the actual meaning of a word, but also proper spelling.

I have a reputation at work for being a good writer, and public speaker, and I help conduct OJT for new agents. When discussing developing as a better writer AND speaker, I encourage them to read. Non-fiction, fiction, technical articles, etc. I also encourage them to read text, not just listen to audio, and "look it up," when they come across something that is new to them.

Because of the nature of our jobs, one of the best things agents (old and new) can read is caselaw, both summaries prepared by attorneys, and the actual text of the decisions by the Courts. It both educates them on the relevant rulings they need for work, but they are exposed to often excellent writing, including great vocabulary.

I often listen to audio books when spending time in the car, but I get frustrated if a new word, or phrase, is used, because I can't immediately "look it up."

Teachers are doing a disservice to their students if they are not encouraging them to read actual text, and then "look it up," when they come across something that is new/confusing.

As a result of poor reading/writing, we now see horrible communication, both written and oral. Many people do not understand that if they communicate poorly, their message, no matter how valid/important it may be, might be ignored.

I can't find it right now, but Jordan Peterson has an excellent explanation on the importance of communicating intelligently, if you want your message heard.

People mock the "grammar nazis," but they are letting people know they need to "up their game," in communication, both written and oral. Many of those who remain silent about poor grammar/vocabular/spelling, are also ignoring the message the writer/speaker is attempting to deliver, they just aren't letting the speaker/writer know they think the message was poorly delivered.

If you say/write, weary when you mean leery, then many people will discount your message. Same with improperly using their/there/they're, your/you're, than/then, or lose/loose. Those are just a few examples, but people will actually pay attention to those who speak and write properly, and tend to discount those who do not.

Reading actual text, and working to understand it, is one very valuable tool to improving your communication. Teachers who do not encourage students to do that, are poor teachers.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
When it comes to learning the substance of a novel or written work, I am sure that some will learn better by listening.

I suspect that if you are trying to teach how to write, reading printed material will be better as the students will see proper writing, and punctuation, in particular.

Unless they spend their time reading the works of Cormac McCarthy.