The Merits of Reading Real Books to Your Children

[kennyc]

"The Merits of Reading Real Books to Your Children

A new Harry Potter book and a new round of stories about midnight book release parties reminded me of the persistent power of words printed on a page to shape children’s lives.

How do we think about a distinct role for paper, for “book-books” in children’s lives? My own pediatric cause is literacy promotion for young children. I am the national medical director of the program Reach Out and Read, which follows a model of talking with the parents of babies, toddlers and preschoolers about the importance of reading aloud, and giving away a developmentally appropriate children’s book at every checkup.

We are talking about very young children here, and we begin by giving out board books which are designed to be chewed and drooled on by babies who are still exploring the world orally, or thrown down (repeatedly) off the high chair by young children who are just figuring out object permanence and experimenting with ways to train their parents to fetch and retrieve. But the most essential attribute of those board books, beyond their durability, is that they pull in the parent, not only to pick them up, but to ask and answer questions, name the pictures, make the animal noises.
....

"

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/0...children/?_r=1

[DiapDealer]

Again with the whole "Real" thing?

I simply can't lend much credence to anyone's theories who fails to grasp (or at the very least, acknowledge) the difference between "Real" and "Physical" (even if they have some valid points to make). Flying the "REAL" flag immediately declares ones inherent bias against ebooks in general. Even if it's unintentional, it's still unprofessional at the very least.

[Cinisajoy]

I was read to as a toddler but I had a mean mother. She wouldn't read to me every minute of the day so I had to learn to read. To get my reading fix. I don't know why she needed to do housework.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I was read to as a toddler but I had a mean mother. She wouldn't read to me every minute of the day so I had to learn to read. To get my reading fix. I don't know why she needed to do housework.

Same here. My grandmother read to me too, in addition to Mommy, but even that wasn't enough for me. I was like a junkie in need of my fix. So I learned to read when I was 3 years old, I just had to. At least that's what my mother told me, I don't even remember learning.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Same here. My grandmother read to me too, in addition to Mommy, but even that wasn't enough for me. I was like a junkie in need of my fix. So I learned to read when I was 3 years old, I just had to. At least that's what my mother told me, I don't even remember learning.

We had to visit the library twice a day. I quickly went from Dr. Seuss to chapter books.
I don't remember actually learning either.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Again with the whole "Real" thing?

I simply can't lend much credence to anyone's theories who fails to grasp (or at the very least, acknowledge) the difference between "Real" and "Physical" (even if they have some valid points to make). Flying the "REAL" flag immediately declares ones inherent bias against ebooks in general. Even if it's unintentional, it's still unprofessional at the very least.

I agree. I find the use of the word "real" in this context irritating.

To address the point raised, I do agree that physical books are good for young children and have their place. E-Ink readers simply don't cut it with this age group.

I too have fond memories of my beautiful mother reading to me.

However, tablet apps telling stories are also very good. It is amazing to me how well children take to this technology and how they seem to learn to use it almost intuitively. Years ago, even before tablets become popular, I remember vividly a friends daughter who would have been about 2 and unable to read surfing the web, laboriously copying a url from the back of her Wiggles DVD into a notebook computer. The disadvantage of, say, a Multimedia "book" on a tablet is that the level of and opportunities for interaction with the parent or other person reading the book are usually far less. Also, of course, the Tablet is not as robust as, say, a board book of the type Kenny describes.

It is an exciting time to be a child!

[Cinisajoy]

I don't know about that. I would bet mine and Sirtel's mothers would have bought us ereaders if they had been available back then.
Probably depends on the child.

[Sirtel]

We didn't need a library. Books were super cheap during the Soviet era, so we had lots of them at home, even though my parents were not passionate readers. There were many wonderful children's books by Estonian authors. Translated books by foreign authors, too. Of course, I went through them like a hot knife through butter, so I had to turn to adult books pretty soon. My parents didn't mind, fortunately.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I don't know about that. I would bet mine and Sirtel's mothers would have bought us ereaders if they had been available back then.
Probably depends on the child.

As for my mother, I actually doubt it. She is an absolutely non-technical person and has no clue about various gadgets or what to do with them. She is even challenged by a simple cellphone.

But I guess she would have bought me an e-reader, had I really-really wanted one as a child. Of course there weren't any available back then.

[Apache]

I do not remember my mother reading to me. It does not mean she didn't, just that I do not remember. I still remember the first book I read in school. (Dick and Jane of course) After that I was hooked on reading. By the time I was 8 or 9 I was reading adult fiction ( mostly westerns and Scj Fi) along with the juvenile Sci Fi books in the library. My maternal grandfather and paternal uncle were voracious readers. One in Illinois and the other in Georgia. I was all over the place because my father was military. The three of us shared our books with me being the go between. I was always hauling boxes of books when we went visiting each year.
Apache

[Tarana]

I don't think it is as important to read to children as it is to have appropriate reading material available for them in the home. If the material isn't available, only a handful of kids will actually seek it out and that's only if they have the resources to do so. We were fortunate that while my parents never read to us, they did encourage us to read by providing opportunities to go to the library, occasionally buying books when on discount or at garage sales. Surprisingly, our very small school system had a much better library than the huge district that my younger siblings ultimately completed their K-12 schooling.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Again with the whole "Real" thing?

I simply can't lend much credence to anyone's theories who fails to grasp (or at the very least, acknowledge) the difference between "Real" and "Physical" (even if they have some valid points to make). Flying the "REAL" flag immediately declares ones inherent bias against ebooks in general. Even if it's unintentional, it's still unprofessional at the very least.

We wouldn't need to call books "real" if the term "book" wasn't inappropriately appropriated to refer to electronic publications in the first place. A book is a physical thing, with leaves bound together along one side. Not only are those things in the libraries that we read called books, but there are also coupon books, cheque books, colouring books, books of tickets, books of paint samples,... Electronic publications in no way resemble books, so in that sense, they are not "real" books. A child needs a real book to chew on, finger the pages, deface, throw,.... You can't do any of that with an electronic publication. So, I think the term "real" applies in this case.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rkomar

We wouldn't need to call books "real" if the term "book" wasn't inappropriately appropriated to refer to electronic publications in the first place. A book is a physical thing, with leaves bound together along one side. Not only are those things in the libraries that we read called books, but there are also coupon books, cheque books, colouring books, books of tickets, books of paint samples,... Electronic publications in no way resemble books, so in that sense, they are not "real" books. A child needs a real book to chew on, finger the pages, deface, throw,.... You can't do any of that with an electronic publication. So, I think the term "real" applies in this case.

The fact that our definitions of "book" differ is irrelevant to whether or not ebooks are "real." I stand by my assessment. Anyone who uses the the term "real book" is showing their disdain for (or ignorance of) "ebooks."

And seriously ... if someone asks you, "did you read this book?", are you really telling me that you're going to say, "no, but I did read the 'Electronic Representation' of it" ? That's just silly.

[theducks]

A 'Real Book" was also printed with Environmentally Incorrect Ink

The Pigment used on Medieval Manuscripts usually went hard OFF the end of Toxic scale

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The fact that our definitions of "book" differ is irrelevant to whether or not ebooks are "real." I stand by my assessment. Anyone who uses the the term "real book" is showing their disdain for (or ignorance of) "ebooks."

And seriously ... if someone asks you, "did you read this book?", are you really telling me that you're going to say, "no, but I did read the 'Electronic Representation' of it" ? That's just silly.

This!


'Book' was never inappropriately appropriated.