Doug's question makes me think I didn't make myself clear (again!) . . .
>I wonder whether there is any research to suggest that a fairly well
>thought out program to encourage family reading actually does more
>harm than good. Of course it looks bad if you compare it with
>spontaneous reading, but is it better than no reading at all? Does it
>actually discourage children who might otherwise have been spontaneous
>readers?
I don't know about this, and it wouldn't surprise me if it _were_
destructive (everybody know the story of the studies in extrinsic rewards
for testing out a new game? Group A is paid for playing, Group B isn't. At
the "end" of the study but before they've actually finished the game they're
all told the study is over but asked to hang around a bit -- Group A for
their pay, Group B for some paperwork. Guess which group finishes the game.)
But I didn't mean to suggest the only alternative to extrinsic reward is
"spontaneous" reading. Absolutely not. There are lots of ways of
generating situations in which there are rewards that are a lot more closely
connected to the reading than being paid or even winning a book for getting
done with a certain number of books. Reading aloud situations are _full_ of
rewards, but they're not "spontaneous." Being part of a group of people
who've all shared an experience (how many people have I had conversations
about _A Thousand Acres_ or _The Shipping News_ with . . . ). That's not
spontaneous, and situations like that can be pretty carefully contrived.
-- Russ
__|~_
Russell A. Hunt __|~_)_ __)_|~_ HOMEPAGE: www.sthomasu.
Department of English )_ __)_|_)__ __) ca/faculty/hunt.htm
St. Thomas University | )____) | EMAIL: [log in to unmask]
Fredericton, New Brunswick___|____|____|____/ FAX: (506) 450-9615
E3B 5G3 CANADA \ / PHONE: (506) 363-3891
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
