4 ms·

You second point sent me googling. I found, among other things, this: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/burgess/ http://www.readingonline.org/articles/burg

by ashark 12y ago

You second point sent me googling. I found, among other things, this: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/burgess/ http://www.readingonline.org/articles/burgess/ Is it really as settled as you present it? From my brief survey it appears that reading to/with preschool-aged kids has some measurable effect on reading development, and that it has a more substantial effect on oral language skills. Is that inaccurate? It seems incredible to me that narrating events would be of great value but reading, examining, and asking questions about a picture book (these are the things you do when reading a picture book to kids, you don't just read the text aloud) would be of very little or no value.

Alex3917 12y ago
> Is it really as settled as you present it? One of the most interesting findings from Scarborough & Dobrich, which looks like it was replicated by the study you linked to, is that the number of books in a child's home is a much greater predictor of later literacy ability than the amount parents actually read to their kids. A couple things to note though: - Intrinsic motivation plays a big role in this. E.g. if a kid enjoys have books read to them, it will probably be beneficial. But if a kid would rather be doing something else, then reading to them may be actively harmful, in that it may actually make them read less on their own later even though otherwise they would have eventually come to enjoy reading. - The way you read to your kid matters. E.g. asking questions about the book as you're reading is more beneficial than just reading, and even the way you phrase the questions makes a difference. That Hart & Risley book I linked to above has some data about how the cognitive benefits of asking questions depends on their grammatical structure. Also, for what it's worth this may be related to the audio/video gap. I.e. talking to kids has a huge benefit for them, but playing recordings or videos of people talking has essentially no benefit.
- ashark 12y ago
  > [...] the number of books in a child's home is a much greater predictor of later literacy ability than the amount parents actually read to their kids. Haha, YES! My decision to reverse the process of reducing the size of my giant library of dead-tree books after my first kid was born is JUSTIFIED BY SCIENCE! :-) > That Hart & Risley book I linked to above has some data about how the cognitive benefits of asking questions depends on their grammatical structure. I will definitely check that out, thanks. [EDIT] Incidentally, the number-of-books-matter thing fits well with my hunch that modeling behavior is extremely important to encourage similar behavior in children, assuming the adults in those households tend to read more than the average. It strikes me as crazy to expect kids to, say, enthusiastically take violin lessons, read, and play sports when their parents never play music, never read (except to their kids, perhaps), and rarely exercise at all let alone actually play an organized sport.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jacalata 12y ago
  >playing recordings or videos of people talking has essentially no benefit. Really? I thought it had some, but possibly only if access to real conversation was limited. Any good reading on this?
  - Alex3917 12y ago
    Just google for "video deficit."
bostonvaulter2 12y ago
I thought we were talking about talking/reading to babies, not pre-schoolers?
- ashark 12y ago
  Gah, I phrased it poorly. The link I provided is, as best I can tell, using it in the sense of not yet in school, literally pre-school, not about a year before Kindergarten as it is sometimes used and as my phrasing implies.
tomaskafka 12y ago
'preschool-aged kids' are at completely different stage than 'babies' :)

by ashark 12y ago

Alex3917 12y ago

> Is it really as settled as you present it? One of the most interesting findings from Scarborough & Dobrich, which looks like it was replicated by the study you linked to, is that the number of books in a child's home is a much greater predictor of later literacy ability than the amount parents actually read to their kids. A couple things to note though: - Intrinsic motivation plays a big role in this. E.g. if a kid enjoys have books read to them, it will probably be beneficial. But if a kid would rather be doing something else, then reading to them may be actively harmful, in that it may actually make them read less on their own later even though otherwise they would have eventually come to enjoy reading. - The way you read to your kid matters. E.g. asking questions about the book as you're reading is more beneficial than just reading, and even the way you phrase the questions makes a difference. That Hart & Risley book I linked to above has some data about how the cognitive benefits of asking questions depends on their grammatical structure. Also, for what it's worth this may be related to the audio/video gap. I.e. talking to kids has a huge benefit for them, but playing recordings or videos of people talking has essentially no benefit.

ashark 12y ago
> [...] the number of books in a child's home is a much greater predictor of later literacy ability than the amount parents actually read to their kids. Haha, YES! My decision to reverse the process of reducing the size of my giant library of dead-tree books after my first kid was born is JUSTIFIED BY SCIENCE! :-) > That Hart & Risley book I linked to above has some data about how the cognitive benefits of asking questions depends on their grammatical structure. I will definitely check that out, thanks. [EDIT] Incidentally, the number-of-books-matter thing fits well with my hunch that modeling behavior is extremely important to encourage similar behavior in children, assuming the adults in those households tend to read more than the average. It strikes me as crazy to expect kids to, say, enthusiastically take violin lessons, read, and play sports when their parents never play music, never read (except to their kids, perhaps), and rarely exercise at all let alone actually play an organized sport.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jacalata 12y ago
>playing recordings or videos of people talking has essentially no benefit. Really? I thought it had some, but possibly only if access to real conversation was limited. Any good reading on this?
- Alex3917 12y ago
  Just google for "video deficit."

bostonvaulter2 12y ago

I thought we were talking about talking/reading to babies, not pre-schoolers?

ashark 12y ago
Gah, I phrased it poorly. The link I provided is, as best I can tell, using it in the sense of not yet in school, literally pre-school, not about a year before Kindergarten as it is sometimes used and as my phrasing implies.

tomaskafka 12y ago

'preschool-aged kids' are at completely different stage than 'babies' :)