Quote:
Originally Posted by Silentwolfdog
To me, I would rather have student at least read something than nothing at all. It's not about pictures, but how it was putted together. . . . Remember, everyone's different. Some people might have benefited from this more than reading a regular book. Only if teachers are opened mind about this.
|
I'd never denying graphic literature has value. Back in the day (you know, when we walked five miles to school uphill both ways through hip-deep snow) our little backwoods school had at least fifty
Classics Illustrated titles (about a third of those available at the time). You checked them out like all outside reading, and even though the comic versions of
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and
Last of the Mohigans didn't get as many extra-reading credits as the same story in book form, the comics books got read till they fell apart and had to be replaced.
I do agree that some reading and exposure to literature is better than none, and graphic works (as well as DVDs) must be available to students for free reading, one-to-one peer-reading, and individual teacher-assisted reading.
But I don't agree graphic material should be the
main classroom material for all, leaving books for free reading. It reduces learning to the lowest common denominator, and cheats most who learn better when challenged.
Kind of what I mean: When I taught
MacBeth in high school, I wasn't crazy enough to think kids would love 400-year-old iambic pentamiter prose. Besides, Shakespeare was meant to be seen, not read, so when no local play was available, we first saw the old black-and-white movie. When reading the text in class, several copies of Classics Illustrated #158 was available on the resource table.
Is that close to what you're saying?