I enjoy reading stories to kids. Probably because no one ever pays any attention when I talk, so seeing a kid sit there wide-eyed in rapt attention while I read does wonders for my self-esteem.
The only thing I don’t like is when the kid asks me to read the story again. Punishment for not reading well enough the first time? Actually, young children do need repetition, and they enjoy it. But I’d always ask to read another book - it’s hard for me to read with expression and enthusiasm if I’m reading the same stuff within 5 minutes.
Anyway, some years ago, this dad was showing me the Arthur’s adventure series of interactive stories he bought for his son. The dad was glowing with pride as his son clicked through the interactive features of the story, as if the son was on track to become a Nobel Prize laureate.
I wasn’t impressed, and I felt that the son wasn’t learning very much, but I kept my mouth shut since the dad wasn’t going to listen to me anyway.
What triggered me to write this post was this article - Interactive learning fails reading test (via Slashdot).
“Teachers and parents should be aware that an interactive story book may provide their children with more entertainment than education.”
I may be a geek and I may be in love with technology, but if I have kids of my own, they won’t be touching the computer very much. And none of these interactive story crap.
In fact, when parents come to me on advice for their kids, one of the first things I say is “read to your kid.” It’s not just educational, it’s emotionally bonding. (The other advice I give is “let them go out and play.”)
A related book to check out is The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved. I borrowed it from the library once, but I didn’t get around reading it. I suspect that it’s worth a look.
agree - especially the emotional bonding bit. i read psychology, and studies have proven that kids develop best through socialising with their peers and ‘watching’ their caregivers and other adults. try reading to kids at a children’s home (they’re normally deprived of the warmth of bedtime stories). the bewilderment on their faces warms the heart and remains etched in memory for the longest time. stumbled upon your blog of (mostly) amusing insights and it has been a happy accident eversince.
Comment by lynn c — January 10, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
emotional bonding works.
Comment by mj — January 10, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
Hm, I vividly remember the news reporting that interactive learning helps a child do better in school.
Comment by Nessa — January 11, 2006 @ 12:41 am
it depends on the nature of the interactions. most of the interactions i see are nothing more than distractions - some silly effect etc. good interaction would be something that is relevant to the topic or storyline, such as a clue to solve a mystery, but these are so rare.
Comment by tinkertailor — January 11, 2006 @ 10:19 am
I agree about reading to your kids. My daughter loved reading when she was smaller but now it is harder to get her to read. For her, the benefits of communication via chat outweigh the solitude of quiet reading. I often threaten to shut down internet for a few hours on the weekends…
As for the SMH article, this line adds a complication:
The kids were confused by irrelevant images - I’m not sure the findings of the study are valid. As you said, if the interactions are well designed, then maybe they can help the learning.
Comment by zac — January 16, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
You ever thought of being a volunteer storyteller at the library?
Comment by Ivan Chew — January 23, 2006 @ 11:20 pm