13 ms·
More nurturing reading environment may stimulate brain development in children
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ljoshua 7y agoDirect link to the relevant study (PDF): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apa.15124 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apa.15124
- yokaze 7y agoActually, the title claims something, what the study doesn't. It states: "More nurturing home reading environment prior to kindergarten may stimulate brain development supporting language and literacy skills, reinforcing the need for further study." It is an observational study, which tries to correct for various obvious factors, but they cannot separate the environment, where more home reading is happening from actual more home reading (vs screen time).
- tgv 7y agoWorse: brain scans can't prove this kind of claim at all, so the title is really yet another piece of lousy science journalism. The only support comes from old-fashioned cognitive tests, and the effect was only found for linguistic skills. So yeah.
- vanderZwan 7y agoIsn't the impact of parents who provide a "nurturing environment" versus those who don't pretty well established?[0] If so, then that definitely needs to be accounted for before anything can be said about what kind of nurturing environment works best. [0] I must admit I base this on Oliver Sacks' account of Dr Hilde Schlesinger's work on mother-child relationships all the way back in the seventies - but as far as "knowledge heuristics" go, I think "trusting that Oliver Sacks did his homework" is a pretty good one.
- toasterlovin 7y ago> Isn't the impact of parents who provide a "nurturing environment" versus those who don't pretty well established? Studies which control for genetic confounding (twin and adoption studies) tend to show that parents have essentially zero impact on how children turn out. Genetics explains about half of the variance we see in how people turn out. The test is randomness. Caveats: within the range of normal. Obviously seriously injuring or killing your child has a permanent affect on how they turn out.
- toasterlovin 7y ago*test: rest
- savanaly 7y agoThe other half isn't random, it's mostly "non-shared environment", in other words the environment outside the home, whether that be school or play with friends or whatever. My source for this is the book The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris. IIRC she concludes the most likely reality is that personality is shaped 50% by genetics, 45% by non-shared environment and 5% shared environment (i.e. parenting). Big caveat to all this: this is personality as in how one relates to the outside world, not how one relates to their parents, which is indeed strongly determined by parenting and one of the reasons what so many studies that studied the link between parenting and kids' personality characteristics (almost invariably measured in the presence of mommy or daddy) found such a link.
- 7y ago
- blueboo 7y agoScreen time can be great for kids. It's just not a substitute for playing with peers, interacting with parents, playing with physical toys, doings crafts, singing and playing music, reading physical books, experiencing nature, eating, or sleeping. But assuming your child is getting more than enough of all those, it's great.
- atc 7y agoThis comment perfectly navigates a line of sarcasm and optimism that speaks to me this gloomy Friday morning. Bravo!
- conanbatt 7y agoIt's an accepted recommendation by pediatricians to not expose kids under 2 years old to tv. The jury is still out there with tables and the such. They are way more addictive, but also more interactive.
- stefgodjibayo 7y agoVilifying screen time isn't great either, are the negative effects coming from actual screens or brightly-coloured games designed for dopamine hits? Is reading on a screen functionally different from a book in terms of attention span?
- perfunctory 7y agoApparently yes "...Conclusion: Main findings show that students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally..." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_l...
- wildduck 7y agoWonder how that hold up against E-Ink reader (almost like paper type of readers).
- danielbln 7y ago"Digitally" seems to mean computer screen in that study. I wonder how smaller screens compare, and different display types (LCD, vs OLED, vs eInk). A kindle should be functionally pretty much like paper.
- ses1984 7y ago... In some ways. Kindle interface is okayish but you still can't flip back and forth as effortlessly as actual paper.
- sammorrowdrums 7y agoI remember reading a study that concluded retention from reading on a Kindle / e-ink device was lower. They concluded that the physical differences of books (size, weight, feel, cover) may help to form memories. I can't say the above is proven fact. Citation definitely needed, but I find it a compelling idea, and would like to learn more. Incidentally efficient language learning also uses somewhat superfluous activities to help create memories and improve retention. Our brains do seem to thrive off stimulation from multiple sources.
- jMyles 7y agoI'm often concerned that studies that assess screen time (especially in contrast to reading or other cognitively rich activities) don't seem (ever, so far as I can tell) to assess two areas that seem important: 1) The distinction in content being delivered via a screen: ie, does watching Mighty Pups result in measurably different brain activity or development than Studio Ghibli films? Common sense suggests so, but why aren't these studies assessing that? 2) The function of a parent or adult companion to help with understanding and integration of the content - does watching media alone result in different outcomes than watching with an attentive parent? However, this study doesn't even seem to actually measure any aspect of screen time at all - it just looked at differences between households that used "Get ready to READ!", a particular reading curriculum which requires parents and children to read together, vs those that didn't. I think books and screen time are both important. Given the incredible ability for parents to curate decades of incredible digital media, from series to TV to classic video games, it seems crazy to me to refrain from substantial collaboration with our kids in enjoying and reflecting on these media. Now, sometimes parents end up using screen time as a way of babysitting, with media that hasn't even been viewed by the parent, much less together with the child. I admit that I myself have occasionally fallen into this form, but I don't like it, and it's not what I'm talking about when I suggest that screen time is an overall good thing. But why aren't these studies measuring that difference?! My 4-year-old gets a lot of screen time (and a lot of book time, and board game time) and I think that's great. We play classic NES and SNES games, watch age-appropriate (but socially meaningful) movies, and explore the internet together to learn about his interests. Until a serious study (ideally much larger than this one, with 70 participants) actually addresses the realities of the media being delivered and the methodology and its delivery, I find it hard to take seriously for making my own parenting decisions.
- citizenkeen 7y agoGood on you for watching with your kid. My wife is a pediatric OT and her mother (who is quite active with my son) is a kindergarten teacher, and their observation over the last ten/thirty years (respectively) is that the major culprit isn't screen time, it's screen time as a babysitter/mollifier. My 3yo gets 30-45 minutes of screen time a day. But there's always an adult with him, there to talk about it, etc. After evaluating behavioral problems in kids and their home lifes, my wife is convinced that while there are concerns about tablet video games in toddlers, etc., half the culprit is parents saying "I'll just leave Sally here to watch Super Wings while I go cook dinner."
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- C14L 7y agoWhat if a child uses a screen to read?
- nottorp 7y agoHmm I read it as "if you read/are being read to more, you're doing better at reading". Am I wrong? I do think the younger generation is shooting themselves in the foot with not being able to assimilate information by reading any more (video tutorials take 10x the time to convey the same amount of information if you can actually read efficiently), but this study seems to basically say that you're not proficient at a skill you don't practice?
- erikbye 7y ago> (video tutorials take 10x the time to convey the same amount of information if you can actually read efficiently Many subjects are better suited to video and can be conveyed more efficiently so. Especially complex UIs, in my experience. Learning to use and find my way around Maya was way easier and quicker using video than text with images. I definitely feel the same way about learning to do specific car repairs/maintenance.
- nottorp 7y agoRight, but some young uns need video tutorials to write code... not to work in a visual medium like Maya.
- the_af 7y agoAgreed. I never understood the videos for programming language courses at, say, Coursera. Written material is better and clearer. The slow speed of the videos drives me mad. Instead of digesting the information and examples at your own pace, you must watch as the teacher carefully enunciates his words and takes forever to belabor a point you already understood. But strangely enough, some people prefer video to actually reading a detailed, step-by-step written tutorial. Go figure.
- chadlavi 7y agoThis has absolutely nothing to do with children under five.
- 7y ago
- klik99 7y agoI could talk about this for hours, but "screen time" is too vague - placing a kid in front of a youtube autoplay stream is vastly different than playing a word game on the iPad with their parents right next to them. I've found low effort, high stimulus creates bad behaviour, which is obvious. But specifically, it creates a low effort flow state, setting false expectations about life in general, and parents should make sure to minimize this kind of media. However we found a few good apps, and both my kids knew the alphabet before 1 year old, and my 2 year old is drawing Chinese characters (he's spent 1/4th of his life in China) thanks to good apps, and having parents present while using them. And passive media isn't all bad, How Things Work and David Attenborough, and anything space related has taught my kids a lot. I wish more studies would not focus on "book time" vs "screen time", because what's really important is interactivity, such as being present with your child for them to bounce things off you, or apps that give small rewards for high effort tasks, rather than large rewards for low effort tasks - it just so happens that books are more conducive to this, but if you actually pay attention to what your child is doing, screens can be a powerful tool. That being said, it's really tough being a parent, and sometimes you just want to put some high stimulus thing on the screen to get a break - in my experience, it's only bad when that becomes a habit or norm.
- rmolin88 7y ago>both my kids knew the alphabet before 1 year old, and my 2 year old is drawing Chinese characters I honestly find this hard to believe. Maybe you have one special kid that knows the alphabet before one. But two?? The US Department of Education says [0] by age 3-4 start working simple things, like I love you. [0]: https://www2.ed.gov/parents/academic/help/reader/part9.html https://www2.ed.gov/parents/academic/help/reader/part9.html
- ianhawes 7y agoI also find this hard to believe. We use similar alphabet learning apps with my 15 month old, who is progressing very well in other aspects, but she has not yet grasped the alphabet.
- 7y ago
- tomgp 7y agoTangential: Reading to my children has been one of the unexpected joys of raising them, the oldest is now ten and I still typically read to her for 30-45 minutes a night. It gives me a chance to revisit books I enjoyed decades ago and compare her reactions to my own at that age and now and it gives us a broad and deep shared world beyond the day-to-day (one of the biggest arguments for reading "the classics" IMO is that it allows you to tap into a longer and deeper cultural conversation than we typically have access to via more contemporary cultural products).
- annoyingnoob 7y agoMy 10 year old reads about 30 minutes or so a day on her own, she loves it. Though she isn't interested in too many classics so far. She has trained herself to get tired from reading, it puts her to bed every night.
- scottious 7y agoAs I was reading this I began to wonder if there were confounding factors here. The original study did mention controlling for age, gender, and income... though I can't help but think that there can easily be other confounding factors. Maybe parents who read to their kids altogether spent more time with them and it's that kind of attachment that really had the benefits. Maybe it's the simple act of holding your child that's giving them the benefits. Also, whenever a study like this comes out I can't help but think of the mechanism that could be causing this. Why would reading to a child have substantial more benefits than screen time? What if the screen time were a reading simulation app? What if you read a book to your child that happened to be on an iPad? What if you held the child and showed them a reading simulation app without actually reading to them yourself? Some part of me doesn't think it's as simple as "screen bad, book good"
- teekert 7y ago"Taking away screens and reading to our children during the formative years of birth to age 5 boosts brain development. We all know that's true, but now science can convince us with startling images." We all know that is true? All my alarm bells go off. It all sounds very logical and may be exactly what we expect and want to hear. At the same time I wonder what happens to research that show benefits of digital gadgets to the development of kids.
- aaron695 7y agoThose pictures are fake. Not sure how, but other than brain damage two brains wouldn't look different like that. We don't have the tech for registering the difference in smarts even if it existed between reading and screen time. I know the pictures are a mix of the children, but don't understand how? It feels like the researchers have picked a technique that will give two different pictures, no matter what given a mix of kids aka a pretty picture for the media. I'm sure in the journal article they have not lied. But I can't understand after reading it what the pictures are. Clever.
- hannob 7y agoFrom the first chapter: "We all know that's true, but now science can convince us with startling images." Like... the author doesn't even try to conceal confirmation bias.
- sebringj 7y agoIt seems there could be some correlation rather than cause as parent attentiveness or nurturing behavior is more beneficial in general in terms of lowering child stress and providing a feeling of being loved or taken care of. A positive environment from that would result in a better situation for the child's growth so it would be difficult to strip out the nurturing side of things toward "screen time" vs. not, IMO.
- mansoor_ 7y agoCan someone provide the scientific journal/article reference that this report is based on?
- salmonellaeater 7y agoThe article doesn't mention anything about what the researchers controlled for. Some other explanations that fit the data: 1. Parents who take good care of their children in other ways also tend to read to their children (perhaps because they're conscientious and have read other research that says reading helps brain development, so they read to their kids). It's actually the "take good care of their children in other ways" that makes the difference, and reading just correlates. 2. There is a shared genetic factor between parent and child. Parents with this factor are more likely to read to their children. Children with this factor score better on literacy tests. Any factor that affects intelligence or personality would fit the bill. 3. Reading doesn't affect language skills, but they are instead caused by other environmental or genetic factors. Children who have factors that lead to good language ability enjoy hearing stories, and their caregivers adapt by reading to them more. Children without those factors react poorly to being read to, so their caregivers read to them less. A randomized controlled trial would tell us much more about whether reading actually causes any later outcomes.
- jacobolus 7y agoThere have been many studies about this. Listening to books read aloud pretty convincingly causes accelerated language development, after controlling for other factors. [For example randomized interventions aimed at convincing parents to read aloud to their kids more often have a positive impact on the kids.]
- annoyingnoob 7y agoI didn't like how the article bifurcates screen time and reading - as if kids only get one or the other. Where are the scans of kids that do both screen time and reading? I have 3 kids, we read to all of them from birth. They all read every night. Two of my kids also love time on the iPad/devices - though we limit them to 2 hours per day total after lots of fights about when to put the devices down. All of my kids get lots of outside play too. We just don't fit neatly into the categories of the article here. As far as I can tell, my kids are doing fine, screen time and all. You just need moderation and to mix it up. Screens are not inherently bad, its about how you use them.
- cr0sh 7y agoI credit much of my success in grade school and now as an adult to the fact that my mom consistently and constantly encouraged me to read. She at first did this, when I was a toddler, by teaching me my ABCs and counting while she "did her bills"; I can't explain her accounting methods, but there were always dates and numbers and months and...well you get the idea. She would encourage me to tell her "what month comes next" or "what number is that"... Then, as I got older, she started to read to me; first, from a set of "animal encyclopedia" books my parents got from the grocery store as a "give-away"... (aside: they don't really do this much any more, but back then to get customers to come shop, grocery stores and supermarkets would run these giveaway things where, if you spent so much money, or collected so many "stamps", you could get "this month's book", or dishes, or utensils or whatever - so you'd build up a complete encyclopedia set over the course of a year or so) ...then later from similar encyclopedia books about science; she would read to me about "the brain" or "the lungs" or "the heart" - then other subjects, and I would "read along" with her - she'd ask me "what does this say" and I would read it. One other thing I remember my mom encouraging me to do was recognizing car models and makes; I'm not sure why or if that even fits in here - but it was something I recall. As I got older, both of my parents would buy me books on any subject I desired. I also had several magazine subscriptions (I once had three different computer magazines coming in - Family Computing, K-Power, and the Rainbow, plus Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and Omni). They purchased and I had access to two different sets of Encyclopedia Brittanica. I had my own library card by the time I was in the second grade for the city library system. At one time I recall I had some problems with reading and spelling - and my parents got one of those "hooked on phonics" sets and worked with me on that. Ultimately I went from being an average student to doing much better work and having an easier time in school. But all of that ultimately led to my life today; their encouragement of reading, and of "finding out the answers on my own" ("Dad, what's this and that?" I'd ask - my dad would reply "Let's look it up in the encyclopedia!") also encouraged me to become a self-learner, among other things. They were always encouraging my education, and helping me however they could (when they saw how much I liked computers, they bought me one, and upgrades - this was in the 1980s mind you, and none of it was cheap). I wouldn't be the person or the software engineer I am today had it not been for their efforts and sacrifices. My parents weren't wealthy (my dad did road construction for the county, my mom was a "stay at home" mother who earned extra side-money by selling eggs from our chickens) - but they both knew the importance of an education, and were always involved in it for me. But it all ultimately started with reading.
- efgh 7y agoI find it amazing that people are trying to justify screens in any way. Just because a game says is "educational" it's not. Similar to the way "diet" soda keeps you skinny. Regardless of research, people want to believe they're not wrong and try to justify that certain kinds of screen time are ok.
- notdang 7y agoDoesn't Diet soda normally have 0 calories ?
- gdubs 7y agoAt the end of the day, the more you can engage with your kid, the better — but modest amounts of shows, games, etc are not going to ruin their life. Sometimes parents need a break, so they can be at their best the other 99% of the time. That’s ok! It’s ok to find a middle way between plopping a kid down in front of the TV for three to six hours a day (familiar to me and probably a lot of people who grew up in the 80s and 90s), and stressing that screens will roy their brains and ruin their chance at getting into Stanford two decades from now.