3 ms·

The article interviews a few author's reactions at the end of the article which seem to indicate they either don't believe the scientific research, don't get it

The article interviews a few author's reactions at the end of the article which seem to indicate they either don't believe the scientific research, don't get it or don't care: > Kes Gray, the author of the bestselling rhyming animal series Oi Frog and Friends, was unperturbed by the researchers’ findings. “Authors and illustrators have no need to panic here, as long as we keep all of the animal protagonists in all of their future stories unreservedly cuddly. Big hair, big eyes and pink twitchy noses should pretty much nail it,” he said. Perhaps there might be a problem with these type of authors influencing large portions of the young population.

arkitaip 9y ago
My nieces are 2 and 4 so I get to read the books and surprisingly often the books are awfully written with zero educational value. So the authors' sentiments don't really surprise me; if you don't bother with the quality of your craft, why should you bother with the scientific underpinnings of teaching/learning.
watwut 9y ago
The moral education is only one of reasons why we read to kids and why kids read. I would even say that it is not the most important one. However, author thinking that it is enough to show cuddly animal and nice picture does not surprise me. Most nchildren books, especially those with shiny appealing pics are awfully written. Kids want to buy them, but they rarely wants them to be read or care while you read. On unrelated news, kids don't read or read less and less every day. I would not worry about children books not teaching right morality. They are being read less and less.
rossdavidh 9y ago
For decades, statistical experts have explained, again and again, to coaches and players that there is no such thing as a player with the 'hot hand'. The coaches and players have mostly ignored such advice, believing that their lifetime of following the sport matters more than researchers dipping into the field for a study or two. And eventually, of course, it turned out that the statisticians are probably wrong, and the "hot hand" is real (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/baseballs-hot-hand-is-real/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/baseballs-hot-hand-is-r...). Perhaps the child authors think they know more about how children and stories interact than the researchers, because they've got a lot more experience with the topic.
tchaffee 9y ago
I just thought he was being funny at the same time as pointing out we are animals too. And books serve several purposes, one being entertainment. So what if some books or authors don't take science seriously?
foolfoolz 9y ago
why should they care? books entertain children. whether they are based on the latest scientific theories or not shouldn't prevent authors from writing more books and entertaining more children

arkitaip 9y ago

My nieces are 2 and 4 so I get to read the books and surprisingly often the books are awfully written with zero educational value. So the authors' sentiments don't really surprise me; if you don't bother with the quality of your craft, why should you bother with the scientific underpinnings of teaching/learning.

watwut 9y ago

The moral education is only one of reasons why we read to kids and why kids read. I would even say that it is not the most important one. However, author thinking that it is enough to show cuddly animal and nice picture does not surprise me. Most nchildren books, especially those with shiny appealing pics are awfully written. Kids want to buy them, but they rarely wants them to be read or care while you read. On unrelated news, kids don't read or read less and less every day. I would not worry about children books not teaching right morality. They are being read less and less.

rossdavidh 9y ago

For decades, statistical experts have explained, again and again, to coaches and players that there is no such thing as a player with the 'hot hand'. The coaches and players have mostly ignored such advice, believing that their lifetime of following the sport matters more than researchers dipping into the field for a study or two. And eventually, of course, it turned out that the statisticians are probably wrong, and the "hot hand" is real (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/baseballs-hot-hand-is-real/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/baseballs-hot-hand-is-r...). Perhaps the child authors think they know more about how children and stories interact than the researchers, because they've got a lot more experience with the topic.

tchaffee 9y ago

I just thought he was being funny at the same time as pointing out we are animals too. And books serve several purposes, one being entertainment. So what if some books or authors don't take science seriously?

foolfoolz 9y ago

why should they care? books entertain children. whether they are based on the latest scientific theories or not shouldn't prevent authors from writing more books and entertaining more children