to wonder why books aren't important anymore?

[Makipuppy]

We've just got back from viewing one of the two state schools in the area for DN who will be starting there in January. This one has 1400 pupils and an excellent Ofsted report. I was amazed at the broad swathes of computers and the facilities for sports, drama, technology, woodwork, music, design etc. but fairly underwhelmed by the library. A nice room, with about 10 units holding, so we were told, 7k books which I don't actually think is very many at all. When I asked her she said they relied on donations. Why would they rely on donations in a school that clearly has the budget for amazing facilities?
Anecdotally, the last donation was from Ian McKellan who updated their gay literature from 1999. Surely this is all a bit haphazard?

Am I the only one that thinks books are a more reliable source of knowledge than the Internet?

"(they will copy & paste any old thing from any old source without wondering about bias/reliability/source, etc)"

see my post below about hand copying from any old book.

Reading isn't just a way of downloading information into the brain, it's an activity.

I think you do need to be more discerning when using the Internet. I just wonder if people are more discerning when using the Internet.

The Internet might be more efficient at giving you the nugget of info you were looking for without you having to read a whole book and annoyingly obtain more knowledge than was strictly necessary, but is this really what we should be aiming for?

x-post again - and I can honestly say I didn't copy out chunks of textbook as a student but then this was in the dark ages where we had lessons on how to write with a fountain pen (which my does-everything-on-computer little brother can't quite get his head round)

It is quite plainly wrong that all information in on the internet though.

And certainly wrong that it is all there for free, it can often be more expensive than the print versions.

is on the internet

" Very little done in terms of broad reading, making own opinion/argument, therefore not a massive need for well stocked library."

Couldn't you just as easily turn that round and say that because there is no well stocked library very little is done in terms of broad reading, making own opinion/argument, etc.?

I think schools should be encouraging children who are so inclined to browse subject areas, read widely, develop study skills, learn how to do basic research and how to use an academic library. And for that a decent if small onsite library is a necessity, imo.

No but with a published book you at least have the information and can make a decision based on that. Books usually also contain a number of sources to make a point, which will be fully referenced, you just don't really get that online.

I just don't think that using the internet for homework/essays is equipping children with the tools to learn. I would much rather time was spent teaching children (at secondary level) how to use books, reference correctly, write a precis, form an opinion and think critically. Until this is the case though, libraries at school are going to be of little value.

Having said all that, I have to admit that my school didn't have a very good library and it was only really used as a room to work in rather than as a source of books.

I did however regularly use the reference section of our local public library when doing homework.

7k books doesn't sound too bad, I'd be more concerned about the total lack of budget or ability to keep the collection up to date and interesting.

Some school libraries are fantastic resources, not just in help with academic work but in fiction/graphic novels/fun stuff with book clubs, reading groups and other activities run by a librarian or teacher to help foster interest in reading/culture/the general stuff of life among students who otherwise may not think to read for pleasure (I'm speaking often of children who live in homes with no books)

We all learned research skills before the internet- would it not be ever so slightly Luddite to now force students to do all their research exclusively from books whilst the internet sits purring away unused in the corner?

After all, nobody laments about the invention of the kettle, and how water just isn't boiled properly anymore...

Maki - I never used to read the whole encyclopaedia Britannica when I was looking for a nugget of information and despite growing up not using computers for research and/or writing. If I'm looking for a piece of information now - I generally use an index and just read a little bit before, and a bit after.

(hallelujah - in my last 2 years at school printed essays for course work were allowed - and it was the best thing that happened for me. I had very good handwriting, but I hated it, it took me forever to write essays wasting probably 100's of sheets of paper over the years before being allowed to use a computer.

I process things much quicker if I'm typing them and seeing them in front of my on the screen - I don't know why - but I do. >

And I don't believe that you didn't at least copy sentences out of a book rahter than always putting in your own word. You're the first person I've met that didn't do it ever at school

Tethersend, I couldn't agree more. Teaching information literacy, critical thinking and information retrieval is actually so much more important now with the many sources of information.

I'm not saying hte internet isn't important (I regularly need it to prove I am right on such major issues as the age of Joe Bugner or the capital of Lithuania ), far from it. The OP's question was about the importance of books though, and I would argue against the view that the internet makes books/libraries irrelevant.

Totally agree with lack of critical thinking skills, ewe.

I don't think we should teach all of what you say by cutting out the internet though. It highlights the need for critical thinking even more; therefore it should be used as a tool in order to apply said critical skills.

Ewe - you are absolutely spot on.

DP just started on an MA and they are showing them youtube clips in class. They were given a reading list but when DP said he had actually read some of it the teacher pointed out that 'it wasn't actually necessary to read those books as they would be too complicated'. This is the same teacher DP has been compelled to correct several times every lesson because he has things wrong (he used to teach the same course). Now, this teacher can find info on the Internet to back up his (wrong) view, but not in books, because it would never have got as far as publication without someone checking it and identifying the error.

DP is horribly unpopular in that class though

"I would argue against the view that the internet makes books/libraries irrelevant."

I too, would argue against this Norkily; I'm not sure anyone has said that though... I just refute the notion that the printed word carries more weight than a website by virtue of its format.

Always I definitely have copied out huge chunks of books, in fact I was still doing it at university and I quite agree about using computers for essays. The Internet is an amazing resource - I just think books are too.

"Some school libraries are fantastic resources, not just in help with academic work but in fiction/graphic novels/fun stuff with book clubs, reading groups and other activities run by a librarian or teacher to help foster interest in reading/culture/the general stuff of life among students who otherwise may not think to read for pleasure (I'm speaking often of children who live in homes with no books)"

Yes yes yes, norkily- this is what I want/expect to see in schools and was shocked not to see during my recent trek round the local comps. My school library would have approached this if the librarian hadn't been so vile!

Ewe - "how to use books, reference correctly, write a precis, form an opinion and think critically"

this can also take place with online material, referencing online material, forming an opinion, thinking critical thinking - I had to do all of that with my OU project (which was about looking at information online) - as has been said - the internet is there, with 1000's of journals, research articles (all fully referenced) along side a load of tosh (just like many books I see these days.....some excellent and full of references, others tosh and full of crap).

Where did I go when I wanted to look something up recently about a particular issue - I went to the OU library and searched through the journals. Yes I could have gone down to the library (not that they would have had what I was looking for as we have a prett dire local library ) and sat and sifted through for what I was looking for.

I found it, several different articles.

You could print the whole of the internet off (well you could have a good try ) and put it into books and leaflets and what-not. It wouldn't - imo - make it any better (or worse) a resource as it is online. Likewise stick every single book online - doesn't make it all useless (or great).

Basically - lots of shit on the internet, lots of shit in books.

I don't care HOW it's referenced, on 1000's of subjects you will find fully referenced books giving different points of view/opinions. Just like online.

You'll also find 1000's of books on various subjects that are rather rubbish as research book - giving no references etc etc etc - just like online.

Critical thinking, referencing, etc etc etc - all just as important to be able to do that on-line as it is off IMO

Norkily and Skegness, that's what I would have loved to have seen today. The librarian said they had had 40 children in there that morning (mostly due to the rain but hey) and those sorts of activities would surely have sparked their interest.

Alwayslooking - you are absolutely right, and not nonsensical at all. Yes, there is a real spectrum in information "quality" for want of a better term. In print and online. Everything.

However, one of the crucial things about a library in particular (rather than making it about print vs online in general) is that the resources in a library have usually been selected to some extent. By the librarian, the teachers, whoever. In theory, the library would have a collection development policy and would assess items they receive/buy against their policy and only accept items that are of interest/appropriate age-wise or subject-wise (whatever is relevant for the type of library).

This is the same as having, for example, a subject website which links useful and reliable other web resources on a topic. They have been selected to some extent. At some stage, someone has applied some criticial assessment. That's different to, say, typing in a query to Google with no parental/school controls switched on a computer and just seeing what the first few hits are (because you'll get too many to read them all). In the same way, you don't want everything ever published on a topic.

I hope that makes sense.

I realise, now that I've re-read the OP, that I'm kind of arguing against my own made-up questions and not properly addressing the points made there (so much for my critical skills ). But I do still think that books have a place and a wider usefulness than just sources of information (reliable or otherwise). And that a school does benefit from a library with a good member of staff or alternatively that children benefit from access to a good public library.

Also, and most importantly, that libraries are about more than books. Libraries have a role in all this information literacy and critical thinking stuff people have already been talking about. That is not limited to print material and libraries everywhere now are more about information than just about the format the information appears in (ie print).

DC's school give a lower school prize to "the child who makes best use of the library"
They don't give a lot of prizes, just two per subject per year, so not one of those prizes to makes sure everyone gets one.

If you know how to research, and what constitutes a valid and reliable source of information, then the internet has a wider range of resources available for adults than a library does.

In my experience the internet does not have a good set of useful resources for children. DS was trying to do physics homework yesterday and I could not find any online resources that could answer the question in language appropriate for an eleven year old. If we had gone to a library with children's text books in it, things would have been far easier. Maybe I don't understand how to use the internet from a child's perspective though.

I don't see the point in having well stocked school libraries though. I never went into mine until the sixth form because there was never any time we were allowed in unless the teacher chose to make a library trip part of their lesson. The same is true for DS - they are not allowed in school outside of lesson time, so how are they going to use the library?

Milly - some schools will build library time into lessons themselves

At my school you had a designated day of the week when your year could go to the library at break/lunchtimes (ie 1st years on Monday, 2nd years on Tuesdays etc).

The library in this school had a librarian who was presumably full time (we were there at 9.30am when the kids were in class). What's the point of paying her salary and not investing in books and activities?

A good school library is absolutely crucial to a decent education for all children. Reading for pleasure at the age of 15 is the most important single indicator of future social mobility. A good library cannot be judged on the number of books, but I am very concerned about the lack of budget to keep the collection up to date. The most important thing to get and keep children and young people reading is to be able to respond to their needs instantly (so being able to get multiple copies of the Twilight series in for example). They can then be encouraged to branch out by looking at the other wonderful books on offer. As far as non-fiction goes - of course a lot of this is going over to online resources, but the best of these still need paying for and need a qualified, experienced librarian to select, manage and promote these. I also think that we are still many years off everything going over to the internet - there are still many, many young people who prefer to flick through books for information, and certainly for younger pupils (Key Stage 3), the books produced by the likes of Heinemann are much better than anything available on the internet.
I'm sure you've probably all guessed that I'm a bit biased (school librarian, off sick at the moment), but if anybody agrees with me, could you please sign the Campaign for the Book's petition to make school libraries statutory. petitions.number10.gov.uk/literacy/?showall=1#detail

YM, I agree on the KS3 point - the internet resources for this age group are just not good enough and our local library is not offering an alternative. We are relying on books we have bought ourselves, and clearly not everyone can do this.

While I'm older (50) and didn't (obviously) have internet access when at school, I'm far from convinced that "A good school library is absolutely crucial" - seems to me as much about parental interest + books + internet.

I went away to boarding school before the age of 11 and while there was a small (15' x 15' ?) library, I only remember being in that room on a tour of the school for the new 'intake'.

When I was at a boys Grammar school, I don't even remember there being a library, but in any case, I left at 16 and went off to college.

While I didn't match the results of some in my class (11x 'O', 4x 'A' and going on to Oxford), I was definitely not 'thick' and yet do not remember having to use a school library for anything to do with the courses (I did better on sciences than history/languages).

Seems to me that so long as one is willing to compare results from a number of sources and see (if there are contradictions) which way the bulk of sites explain/ describe something, that's a reasonable certainty of being correct.

It's rather like using one search engine (eg Google) and thinking it's good/ bad based on results, rather than using some aggregating search service (eg MetaCrawler.com) where results from at least 4 search machines are collected for the user.