Why Print Books Are Not Dead

Why Print Books Are Not Dead

The things every parent should know before settling into story time with their kids.
18
views

Settled into my bed, covers draped over me for warmth, night lights on to ward off the monsters under my bed, and my mom lying beside me reading a bedtime story. There was no electronic device such as a Kindle or iPad; just us and the book of my choice. Now, choosing e-book or print book is the topic of conversation. E-books have altered the way in which co-reading between a parent and child is conducted and ultimately what the child gets out of the experience. Technology is going to exist no matter what; it is irrational to believe otherwise. The issue at hand is not e-books as a whole, but that e-books hinder children and parents during co-reading. With a technology driven society it is still important to see the significance and benefits of co-reading with print books.

No matter what, e-books are staying around for the long haul. Forbes shows that e-books now make up “30% of books sales. There is no denying their place in an era centered on technology. The issue is how e-books are negatively effecting the interaction of parents and children while reading along together. In a study at the Joan Ganz Cooney Center conducted by Cynthia Chiong, it was found that “the enhanced e-book was less effective than print [] it prompted more non-content related interactions.” This shows that children do not focus as closely when reading e-books with parents as they do with print books.

A study by Zevenbergen and Whitehurst stated, “when adults prompt children with questions pertaining to the text, label objects, and encourage them to discuss the books contents in terms of their own experiences and curiosities, this elicits increased verbalization by the child and can lead to improved vocabulary and overall language development.” With the non-content discussion higher for e-books this relates now to the issue of children retaining less information from the story. Chiong’s study also stated, “children who read enhanced e-books recalled significantly fewer narrative details than children who read the print version of the same story.” However in the same study it expressed that “e-books were more advantageous for engaging children and prompting physical interaction.”This may be true, but does physical interaction compensate for lack of content conversation and comprehension? Children may be interacting with the text more using e-books, but that interaction is not leading to questions being asked about content. If children do not know what is going on in the story then the purpose of reading it has been tarnished.

In a second survey by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, it was found that the iPad owners who do not co-read with their children using e-books, “34.4% of these parents say that it’s just too difficult to read with a child on a digital device, and nearly as many are worried the child would start to want to use the iPad all the time.” This is in comparison with the “60% of parents who simply prefer print books to e-books." Further into the study it was shown that “In fact, 89.9% of these parents report that they read mostly print books and some e-books with children, compared to 7.5% who say they read print books and e-books equally with their children, and 2.7% who read mostly or exclusively e-books.”Clearly, print books are a preference and that may be due to a generational gap; but, it is also clear that print books are better for co-reading between a child and parent. With e-books posing too many distractions leading to lower comprehension, the child is losing significant developmental skills. This is something the parents must be noticing if they are continually choosing print books over e-books.

Technology is the center and driving force behind today’s society. It is to be said that there is also a time and place for the use of technology, in particular e-books. Trying to completely rid the world of e-books is an irrational concept. But, based on the provided information, it seems that co-reading should be done with print books and not e-books. Go back to story time with your child and you cozy in the bed; is there an e-book there distracting your child or an actual book engaging your child to interact with you?

Cover Image Credit: Advantage Book Binding

Popular Right Now

A Playlist From The iPod Of A Middle Schooler In 2007

I will always love you, Akon.
73294
views

Something happened today that I never thought in a million years would happen. I opened up a drawer at my parents' house and I found my pink, 4th generation iPod Nano. I had not seen this thing since I graduated from the 8th grade, and the headphones have not left my ears since I pulled it out of that drawer. It's funny to me how music can take you back. You listen to a song and suddenly you're wearing a pair of gauchos, sitting on the bleachers in a gym somewhere, avoiding boys at all cost at your seventh grade dance. So if you were around in 2007 and feel like reminiscing, here is a playlist straight from the iPod of a middle schooler in 2007.

1. "Bad Day" — Daniel Powter

2. "Hips Don't Lie" — Shakira ft. Wyclef Jean

SEE ALSO: 23 Iconic Disney Channel Moments We Will Never Forget

3. "Unwritten" — Natasha Bedingfield

4. "Run It!" — Chris Brown

5. "Girlfriend" — Avril Lavigne

6. "Move Along" — All-American Rejects

7. "Fergalicious" — Fergie

8. "Every Time We Touch" — Cascada

9. "Ms. New Booty" — Bubba Sparxxx

10. "Chain Hang Low" — Jibbs

11. "Smack That" — Akon ft. Eminem

12. "Waiting on the World to Change" — John Mayer

13. "Stupid Girls" — Pink

14. "Irreplaceable" — Beyonce

15. "Umbrella" — Rihanna ft. Jay-Z

16. "Don't Matter" — Akon

17. "Party Like A Rockstar" — Shop Boyz

18. "This Is Why I'm Hot" — Mims

19. "Beautiful Girls" — Sean Kingston

20. "Bartender" — T-Pain

21. "Pop, Lock and Drop It" — Huey

22. "Wait For You" — Elliot Yamin

23. "Lips Of An Angel" — Hinder

24. "Face Down" — Red Jumpsuit Apparatus

25. "Chasing Cars" — Snow Patrol

26. "No One" — Alicia Keys

27. "Cyclone" — Baby Bash ft. T-Pain

28. "Crank That" — Soulja Boy

29. "Kiss Kiss" — Chris Brown

SEE ALSO: 20 Of The Best 2000's Tunes We Still Know Every Word To

30. "Lip Gloss" — Lil' Mama

Cover Image Credit: http://nd01.jxs.cz/368/634/c6501cc7f9_18850334_o2.jpg

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

My AP Environmental Science Class' Cookie Mining Experiment Shows Why Capitalism Is Destroying The Planet

Who cares about the environment with profits this high?

226
views

With the AP exams in May approaching quickly, my AP Environmental Science class has wasted no time in jumping right into labs. To demonstrate the damage to the environment done by strip mining, we were instructed to remove the chocolate chips from cookies.

The experiment in itself was rather simple. We profited from fully or partially extracted chips ($8 for a full piece and $4 for a partial) and lost from buying tools, using time and area and incurring fines.

This might seem simplistic, but it showcased the nature of disastrous fossil fuel companies.

We were fined a $1 per minute we spent mining. It cost $4 per tool we bought (either tweezers or paper clips) and 50 cents for every square centimeter of cookie we mined.

Despite the seemingly overbearing charges compared to the sole way to profit, it was actually really easy to profit.

If we found even a partial chocolate chip per minute, that's $3 profit or utilization elsewhere. Tools were an investment that could be made up each with a partial chip, and clearly we were able to find much, much more than just one partial chip per tool.

Perhaps the most disproportionally easiest thing to get around were the fines. We were liable to be fined for habitat destruction, dangerous mining conditions with faulty tools, clutter, mess and noise level. No one in the class got fined for noise level nor faulty tools, but we got hit with habitat destruction and clutter, both of which added up to a mere $6.

We managed to avoid higher fines by deceiving our teacher by pushing together the broken cookie landscapes and swiping away the majority of our mess before being examined for fining purposes. This was amidst all of our cookies being broken into at least three portions.

After finding many, many chips, despite the costs of mining, we profited over $100. We earned a Franklin for destroying our sugary environment.

We weren't even the worst group.

It was kind of funny the situations other groups simulated to their cookies. We were meant to represent strip mining, but one group decided to represent mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal is where companies go to extract resources from the tops of mountains via explosions to literally blow the tops off. This group did this by literally pulverizing their cookies to bits and pieces with their fists.

They incurred the maximum fine of $45. They didn't profit $100, however.

They profited over $500 dollars.

In the context of our environmental science class, these situations were anywhere from funny to satisfying. In the context of the real world, however, the consequences are devastating our environment.

Without even mentioning the current trajectory we're on approaching a near irreversible global temperature increase even if we took drastic measures this moment, mining and fracking is literally destroying ecosystems.



We think of earthquakes as creating mass amounts of sudden movement and unholy deep trenches as they fracture our crust. With dangerous mining habits, we do this ourselves.

Bigger companies not even related to mining end up destroying the planet and even hundreds of thousands of lives. ExxonMobil, BP? Still thriving in business after serial oil spills over the course of their operation. Purdue Pharma, the company who has misled the medical community for decades about the effects of OxyContin and its potential for abuse, is still running and ruining multitudes more lives every single day.

Did these companies receive fines? Yes.

But their business model is too profitable to make the fines have just about any effect upon their operation.

In our cookie mining simulation, we found that completely obliterating the landscape was much more profitable than being careful and walking on eggshells around the laws. Large, too-big-to-fail companies have held the future of our planet in their greedy paws and have likewise pulverized our environment, soon enough to be unable to return from.

Related Content

Facebook Comments