TV is as Good as Books for Toddlers ?

[PAB]

...a theory proposed by anthropologist Desmond Morris.

-Children can get at least as much from TV as they can from a book
-' Baby Talk' is potential harmful to the child's development
-Nurseries are a 'more natural environment' for children then being kept with a full-time parent at home.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/01/desmond-morris-tv-books-toddlers

i picked up on this on a radio show....of which the general consensus was ''bull to that''. However i think he certainly has a point.

 

[lrkun]

...a theory proposed by anthropologist Desmond Morris.

-Children can get at least as much from TV as they can from a book
-' Baby Talk' is potential harmful to the child's development
-Nurseries are a 'more natural environment' for children then being kept with a full-time parent at home.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/01/desmond-morris-tv-books-toddlers

i picked up on this on a radio show....of which the general consensus was ''bull to that''. However i think he certainly has a point.

Maybe this applies only when there is no other choice. If a parent is too busy to rear his or her kid, then I think I can accept this sort of thing. However, if a parent can rear his or her child then, I'd prefer a book over television.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Maybe, next time you post something like this, you'll check the source's credentials first? The Guardian website misstates his credentials: he's not an anthropologist, he's a zoologist pretending at anthropology. Maybe he should stick to his specialty and otherwise STFU. He absolutely 100% isn't a child psychologist, so he's being an utter ass to stick his nose in where he is unqualified to speak.

 

[Andiferous]

It's fine to make unfounded speculations like this, but it doesn't look like they are backed up by evidence. Over the longer term, overuse of the television has been controversially connected with both ADD and Autism (though there is no final proof for either). Recently, the "Baby Einstein" connection of videos that purported to stimulate brain activity in infants by video and music has been forced to retract this claim for lack of evidence.

Even if television is helpful in some ways, I don't think it is any replacement for creative play and personal interaction. Although, I think it would be a great stress relief for parents of today to believe it was...

Playing is important to children, but in the early years, adults are crucial for education and socialising. To suggest otherwise is bogus, imo. Or you put your kid in a Lord Of The Flies environment, really. That said, I don't believe parents who must work should feel guilty. I do think that government should provide maternity or paternity leave and pay for at least 12 months after birth. But here, I'm getting all political.

I believe you should talk to children as were they equal to communicate, rather than just constantly patronise them, so I would agree that constant "baby talk" might be limiting over the long term. I believe there are others who make this point also. Although, this is no reason to be harsh and not affectionate with your kid. That raises a whole new dimension of problems.

Balance, I guess.

It feels a bit like this person is reaching for justification. Without a lot of background.

 

[Nemesiah]

Kill the TV

Seriously, a child spends some 4 hours infront of the TV every day (more on weekends) and that amounts to enormous amounts of commercial advertising and in-program advertising. Children, without critical minds and experience, take the TV at face value and thus let it shape her/his view of reality. What will they eat, find amusing, entertaing, interesting, and normal is all shaped by publicists and advertisers.

Today's societie's obsession with consumism, beauty, hollywood stars, football, etc... is all the TV's doing; and this society is a very sick one since people want to neither think nor question anything; follow the lead and buy more pepsi, follow the lead and invade a country for its oil, follow the lead and think that happines is a rols royce, a big chsted girlfriend or a usless little dog that one carries in bag.

Sadly if only one child gets protected from the TV's diabolical influence s/he will become ostraziced by her/his mates for not fitting in since fitting in is a must in our society (specially at a young age) so it has to be a massive movement of people saying fuck you to advertisers, publicists and other shapers of opinion.

 

[MRaverz]

My mother is a primary school teacher and has a degree in child development.

She tells me that she's never heard of any studies about TV being bad for kids, and seems to think that TV being as good as books isn't that bad of an idea.

Baby-talk is all part of language development, but she assumes that it would be bad if a parent were to use baby talk for too long.

And the whole 'nursery schools better than at home with parents' argument has too many variables to be taken seriously. ie. it depends on the environments, the parents, the carers etc.


@Nemesiah: Kids watching TV isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as they get proper exercise and don't watch GODTalk.

 

[Cephei]

It seems to me that interaction with an actual human would be much better than watching a screen, but what do I know.

 

[MRaverz]

It seems to me that interaction with an actual human would be much better than watching a screen, but what do I know.

I'd argue that children's TV does involve a lot of interaction, and even if it didn't - Toddlers don't need to constantly be interacted with.

 

[Andiferous]

It seems to me that interaction with an actual human would be much better than watching a screen, but what do I know.

I'd argue that children's TV does involve a lot of interaction, and even if it didn't - Toddlers don't need to constantly be interacted with.

Oh, of course not.

But consider this person's major points:

Kids should be in nurseries or daycare, for it is best.
Kids should watch TV, for it is good.

So, when, exactly, is the parental interaction happening? These sound a bit like orphans.

 

[MRaverz]

I'd argue that children's TV does involve a lot of interaction, and even if it didn't - Toddlers don't need to constantly be interacted with.

Oh, of course not.

But consider this person's major points:

Kids should be in nurseries or daycare, for it is best.
Kids should watch TV, for it is good.

So, when, exactly, is the parental interaction happening? These sound a bit like orphans.

I didn't get the impression that the author felt that it's good for toddlers to never see their parents, but instead that it is better for a child to spend time at daycare and watching TV as well as interacting with their parents. Additionally, we're talking about toddlers here rather than babies. As I understand it, babies are the ones who require the interaction - toddlers are starting to become more independent. (Perhaps daycare is an encouragement of this development?)

Obviously, too much daycare and TV would be bad - perhaps the reader simply feels that there is not enough of it at current?

 

[Andiferous]

From my understanding, children can learn an amazing amount of information before they are four years old. If you have found a credible daycare, that is fantastic. If they are registered in "preschool" that is also fantastic. But either way, parents have a responsibility to supplement any education, imo.

Also, as said before, I do believe it is important for governement to recognise the importance of parent/child interaction in the first year, and thus prolong maternity/paternity leave for at least a year - but here you see my political leanings.

I suppose the long and short of it for myself is: it doesn't matter how good or bad television is; or how good or bad nursery school is; it is your own responsibility to teach that child what is really important...


And yes, there is a monster of nagging as to how to raise ones' child currently. It does get overwhelming. I suspect the author has been overwhelmed.

 

[lrkun]

Basic information about Desmond Morris

Official Homepage

Scientific Publications

The question is, is he an expert on the subject?

 

[MRaverz]

Basic information about Desmond Morris

Official Homepage

Scientific Publications

The question is, is he an expert on the subject?

He's an expert on primate behaviour.

We are primates.

So he knows a bit a least.

 

[lrkun]

Basic information about Desmond Morris

Official Homepage

Scientific Publications

The question is, is he an expert on the subject?

He's an expert on primate behaviour.

We are primates.

So he knows a bit a least.

Hehe, I wonder where he got his idea with respect to TV vs books. He doesn't have an animal reference to compare with humans. What animals in the wild watches a television like thing?

 

[Giliell]

Ok, mum and teacher here (although middle/highschool-level, so apart from a bit of basic knowledge, most of it is experience)

A nursery is positive for under 3 year olds if they do not spend more than 30 hours a week there AND, most important, if the children have a good relationship with their parents. A 2008 study in germany indicates that children who go to a nursery have better chances to visit a "Gymnasium" (German high-school where you can get a leaving certificate that qualifies for college) than children who don't, and an US study shows that for special needs children, a good nursery can practically work wonders.

In skimming throught the literature I just found interesting that they notice "less problematic behaviour" in kids who are raised at home (until school) than in those who have been in a nursery or Kindergarten for 3 or more years (although even those who made that study say that it's within the boundaries of normal). I'm wondering what "problematic behaviour" means in that respect. I can already see the difference in behaviour in my firstborn, who started Kindergarten 2 months ago. Yes, her behaviour has become much more "childlike". She tries kicking and hitting and is much less "tame". I'm glad about it, she was just too docile before. And she's much more independent. Before she liked playing "baby", especially when her dad was around. Now she can do so many things herself.

Personally: Please more nurseries so that women can really combine work and family better. And personally I'm for obligatory Kindergarten from age 3 on. That would solve quite a lot of problems we have here with kids starting primary school and not being able to speak German. Or tying their shoelaces. Or waiting 3 minutes until the teacher has the time for them.

References:#
Wolfgang Einsiedler, Kleinkindforschung und Kleinkindbetreuung. In: Das Online-Familienhandbuch
Newsweek: Study: A Downside to Day Care?, Newsweek, 26. März 2007 (Version aus dem Internet Archive vom 30. März 2007, da Original nicht mehr verfà¼gbar).
Welt online: Psychologie: Aus Kitakindern werden Stà¶renfriede, 29. März 2007
USA: Are There Long-Term Effects of Early Child Care?, 26. März 2007
Tobias Fritschi, Tom Oesch: Volkswirtschaftlicher Nutzen von frà¼hkindlicher Bildung in Deutschland. Eine à¶konomische Bewertung langfristiger Bildungseffekte bei Krippenkindern, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gà¼tersloh 2008.
Studie: Besuch einer Kinderkrippe fà¼hrt zu grà¶ÃƒÅ¸eren Bildungschancen und erhà¶ht das Lebenseinkommen. In: Pressemitteilung (Bertelsmann-Stiftung), Informationsdienst Wissenschaft. 3. März 2008, abgerufen am 4. März 2008.

And now about TV:
There are quite some studies that show negative effects of TV in toddlers:
Pediatrics:
Television Viewing and Television in Bedroom Associated With Overweight Risk Among Low-Income Preschool Children, Barbara A. Dennison, MD*,{ddagger}, Tara A. Erb, MS*, Paul L. Jenkins, PhD*

* Research Institute, Bassett Healthcare, Cooperstown, New York
Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, New York 2002

Neutral effect:

Television Viewing in Infancy and Child Cognition at 3 Years of Age in a US Cohort
Marie Evans Schmidt, PhDa, Michael Rich, MD, MPHa, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, MPHb, Emily Oken, MD, MPHb, Elsie M. Taveras, MD, MPHb

a Center on Media and Child Health, Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
b Obesity Prevention Program, Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, Massachusetts

OBJECTIVE. To examine the extent to which infant television viewing is associated with language and visual motor skills at 3 years of age.

MEASURES. We studied 872 children who were participants in Project Viva, a prospective cohort. The design used was a longitudinal survey, and the setting was a multisite group practice in Massachusetts. At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, mothers reported the number of hours their children watched television in a 24-hour period, from which we derived a weighted average of daily television viewing. We used multivariable regression analyses to predict the independent associations of television viewing between birth and 2 years with Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III and Wide-Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities scores at 3 years of age.

RESULTS. Mean daily television viewing in infancy (birth to 2 years) was 1.2 (SD: 0.9) hours, less than has been found in other studies of this age group. Mean Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III score at age 3 was 104.8 (SD: 14.2); mean standardized total Wide-Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities score at age 3 was 102.6 (SD: 11.2). After adjusting for maternal age, income, education, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III score, marital status, and parity, and child's age, gender, birth weight for gestational age, breastfeeding duration, race/ethnicity, primary language, and average daily sleep duration, we found that each additional hour of television viewing in infancy was not associated with Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III or total standardized Wide-Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities scores at age 3.

CONCLUSION. Television viewing in infancy does not seem to be associated with language or visual motor skills at 3 years of age.

While this study shows quite some negative effects on the behaviour:

PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 4 April 2004, pp. 708-713

Early Television Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems in Children
Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH*,{ddagger},,§,||, Frederick J. Zimmerman, PhD{ddagger},,§, David L. DiGiuseppe, MSc{ddagger}, Carolyn A. McCarty, PhD*,{ddagger}

* Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
{ddagger} Child Health Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
,§ Department of Health Services, Seattle, Washington
|| Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Washington

Objective. Cross-sectional research has suggested that television viewing may be associated with decreased attention spans in children. However, longitudinal data of early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems have been lacking. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that early television exposure (at ages 1 and 3) is associated with attentional problems at age 7.

Methods. We used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a representative longitudinal data set. Our main outcome was the hyperactivity subscale of the Behavioral Problems Index determined on all participants at age 7. Children who were ≥1.2 standard deviations above the mean were classified as having attentional problems. Our main predictor was hours of television watched daily at ages 1 and 3 years.

Results. Data were available for 1278 children at age 1 and 1345 children at age 3. Ten percent of children had attentional problems at age 7. In a logistic regression model, hours of television viewed per day at both ages 1 and 3 was associated with attentional problems at age 7 (1.09 [1.03-1.15] and 1.09 [1.02-1.16]), respectively.

Conclusions. Early television exposure is associated with attentional problems at age 7. Efforts to limit television viewing in early childhood may be warranted, and additional research is needed.

And now for my personal point of view: My children are allowed to watch the "Sandmann", a 10 min program each night with a frame narrative (The Sandmann visits children around the world or fairy-tale characters) and a small clip. The little one shouldn't really watch it yet, but I can't lock her in the nursery, can I?
If the elder sister is sick, she's allowed to watch some DVDs, but that's the exception. About once a month I need a break and she gets to watch another DVD

The problem, as with choclate, isn't the TV as such. The problem is how it is used and watched. Parents should not park their children in front of the TV. They should watch it together and talk about it. We usually talk about what happened at the "Sandmann" afterwards. How was the Sandmann dressed, where did he go, what means of transport did he use, whom did he visit. What happened in the clip? So the TV becomes quality-time we spend together, just like reading a book together.

 

[MRaverz]

The problem, as with choclate, isn't the TV as such. The problem is how it is used and watched. Parents should not park their children in front of the TV. They should watch it together and talk about it. We usually talk about what happened at the "Sandmann" afterwards. How was the Sandmann dressed, where did he go, what means of transport did he use, whom did he visit. What happened in the clip? So the TV becomes quality-time we spend together, just like reading a book together.

This.

TV can be an excellent educational tool, but it should be understood that it isn't one-dimensional. In fact, I'm very impressed by the standards of children's television these days, they seem to combine entertainment with education very successfully. And lets not forget that education extends beyond the classroom, television is very successful at opening up the world to children far beyond their home and nursery.


It should be obvious that plonking your children in front of a TV all day is bad, but not because TV itself is bad - instead it is because one medium is unhealthy for anyone. Just as spending all their time at home or in a nursery would also be detrimental.

 

[willgreham]

I find that kid's films and cartoons now are often a bit confusing for them though, everything is a parody or referential of an old genre.I have Kathleen Odean's Great Books for Babies and Toddlers and have actually made an index sorted by recommended age range and we've been working our way through that. We tend to further explore both authors and illustrators that we like, and I sometimes look for books at the library that Amazon recommends.