Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sregener

Because, as others have pointed out, reading is a means to an end. It'd be like a debate over whether plowing your fields leads to better yields or not. "Why not just be happy people are planting?" If people read slower, retain less, and are not able to find things later, then their reading time is not being used as productively as it could be.

OTOH, if they're able to read more often, they may consume more books. Audiobooks are waaaaay slower than printed books, but my kids have heard many books simply because we listen in the car on the way to-and-from town. It's not the same as reading them, but it's probably been better for them than constantly staring out the window or fighting over who's foot is on the wrong side.

I don't have an axe to grind, but I do wonder what the answers are to my listed questions. And I'm afraid we'll have to wait a long time to get those answers, and by then the new technology will be entrenched, even if it is proven to be inferior.

I think audio books in the car is a great idea.

I can't see how reading electronically can be overall inferior. Possible retention and other advantages to paper are, for me, at least equalled by advantages like availability and convenience.

I can't say I read more electronically as I always read a lot, but many people tell me they read more. And I am pretty sure I skim over parts I find less interesting less with an ebook. I think it was easier to skip back and forth with paper for me at least and I tended to do that at times.
Pretty entrenched already I think.

Helen

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

Children's books tend to be much shorter, and use larger fonts.

Not to mention the vocabulary is simpler. More words, and more complex ones appear as a the young reader ages, but there is a difference in complexity between "The tale of Peter Rabbit" and "War and Peace."

[skoper]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

Hmm!

A my library (where I work as the childrens librarian) we also have a summer reading club.

Our rules are simple, read 5 books and you can chose one book to keep. You can repeat this as many times as you like and keep it up all through the summer holiday. When you have read your 5 books, you turn in a card with your name and address. This card acts like a lottery ticket at the end of the reading club when we draw winners from all the cards turned in. So the more books you read the greater your chance of winning, but you can win even if you just turned 1 card in. Since every kid gets to chose a book for every 5 read those that really like reading gets rewarded with more books and a higher chance at winning the lottery.

This works fine for us!

Boy, do I love this!

[Hampshire Nanny]

Originally Posted by wawasteele

There has been a lot of "team or group" talk in this thread. I was lousy at any type of sports, even team type of sports. If my team won, I sure didn't help them to win and everyone knew it! Being on the winning team didn't make me feel any type of accomplishment. It only made me relieved I hadn't caused them to lose. In academics I was better. If we teamed or grouped off, I knew I wouldn't ever cause a team to fail, but we all knew the kids who would. In my adult like, I personally hate being on a team of any kind, even playing cards.

What I don't like about "teams" at work is that everyone is evaluated on the team's results, regardless of how much or little they contributed. I want to be measured on my own effort, output, work product, or whatever it is that they are asking us to produce.

Originally Posted by Sregener

This is an area in which studies need to be done over an extended period of time with a large sample size. Questions that need to get asked are things like the following:

- What is the average reading speed on paper, eInk and LCD?
- How much information is immediately retained?
- How much information is retained in long-term memory?
- How easily can a reader find information in a text they previously read, weeks, months or even years later?

AFAIK, these studies have not been attempted in any scientific manner. Until they are done, we simply don't know if reading is superior when it is done on paper. I can think of reasons why it might be, and reasons why it wouldn't be.

Originally Posted by Sregener

Because, as others have pointed out, reading is a means to an end. It'd be like a debate over whether plowing your fields leads to better yields or not. "Why not just be happy people are planting?" If people read slower, retain less, and are not able to find things later, then their reading time is not being used as productively as it could be.

---- snip ----

I don't have an axe to grind, but I do wonder what the answers are to my listed questions. And I'm afraid we'll have to wait a long time to get those answers, and by then the new technology will be entrenched, even if it is proven to be inferior.

What about reading simply for entertainment? I read 100+ books a year. At the end of the year, I can look back at the list of books which I read and for most of them, the only thing I can tell you about it is whether I enjoyed it or not. A cozy mystery is like an episode of "Murder She Wrote" -- there's no point at all in trying to retain *anything* from it at all.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I can't see how reading electronically can be overall inferior. Possible retention and other advantages to paper are, for me, at least equalled by advantages like availability and convenience.

I can't see that retention is in any way affected by the medium -- eBook versus paper. While I'm primarily a recreational reader, what matters to me is the story. I borrow from the library, buy used books, swap with friends, and buy electronic books. I also obtain audio books by the same means -- from the library, from friends, CDs in cardboard boxes, and downloadable versions.

Originally Posted by Sregener

OTOH, if they're able to read more often, they may consume more books. Audiobooks are waaaaay slower than printed books, but my kids have heard many books simply because we listen in the car on the way to-and-from town. It's not the same as reading them, but it's probably been better for them than constantly staring out the window or fighting over who's foot is on the wrong side.

For children, an audiobook falls into the same category as a parent or teacher reading aloud to them. Maybe better since the reader is a professional, and some audiobooks -- especially for kids -- now have multiple readers so that the characters are more easily distinguished.

One thing that I have discovered is that if I start a series by listening to the audiobook, I want to continue it in the same format. Likewise, if I start reading the text (paper or electronic), then I want to continue that way. So far, I've listened to the first 6 books in Alexander McCall Smith's 44 Scotland Street series and I have ordered books 7 and 8 from a UK seller since they are not {yet} available in the US. The print books are available, but I simply prefer the unabridged audio. I'm eagerly awaiting the newest in his Number 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, which will be released in November and which I'll order for Kindle (or perhaps just borrow from the library).

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by Hampshire Nanny

What about reading simply for entertainment? I read 100+ books a year. At the end of the year, I can look back at the list of books which I read and for most of them, the only thing I can tell you about it is whether I enjoyed it or not. A cozy mystery is like an episode of "Murder She Wrote" -- there's no point at all in trying to retain *anything* from it at all.

For children, an audiobook falls into the same category as a parent or teacher reading aloud to them. Maybe better since the reader is a professional, and some audiobooks -- especially for kids -- now have multiple readers so that the characters are more easily distinguished.

You may be unfamiliar with an idea called "background knowledge." Jim Trelease demonstrates it quite effectively in his book by placing two paragraphs from newspapers side-by-side. One is baseball, one is cricket. He says the odds are good only one will make sense to you, even though both are written at the same level, with the same vocabulary. The difference is whether you have enough knowledge about the subject to make sense of it. Reading for leisure doesn't seem like it is worth retaining, but you pick up background knowledge without trying. That's why the more you read, the more you know, even if you're only reading "trash."

And studies have proven that a parent reading to their child is the absolute best way to learn to speak clearly and properly. Because the children need to hear the same voice consistently. Thus, while audiobooks are better than nothing, they're not "better" just because they use professionals. But my kids are old enough now that we don't have that particular issue anymore, so now it's just a way to cram more literature into their heads.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Sregener

And studies have proven that a parent reading to their child is the absolute best way to learn to speak clearly and properly. Because the children need to hear the same voice consistently. Thus, while audiobooks are better than nothing, they're not "better" just because they use professionals. But my kids are old enough now that we don't have that particular issue anymore, so now it's just a way to cram more literature into their heads.

I know my mom read to me when I was little. I drove her crazy with Dr. Seuss books when I was real young. I imagine it did help my speaking some too. I had mastoid ear infection when I was very little so 50% of my hearing was blocked at one point and words didn't always sound right when I spoke them. One time I said 'fork' and my paternal grandmother thought I'd said something very different. Which isn't to say that adults don't need to be careful of their language round little ears as well. But that's another topic.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by way8lifter

WOW ..wait a second ..you ,mean to tell me you could read 7 books in one day???? can you read that many now?? what is that like 2000 words a minute?? WOW

I read approximately 25,000 words/hour. 7 short novels in one day is certainly possible for me. YA books are often 10,000-40,000 words; the slim Harlequin romances are about 30-40k words.

As a teenager, I would get to school, go to the library, check out a book, return it at lunch & get a different book, return it at the end of the day & get 2 or 3 to take home; repeat, with extras on the weekends.

[magicmonster]

I used to read 13-20 books a week in the summer. Adult books over 150 pages.