How iPads are Better for Children than TV

A most intriguing post by Mike Elgan over at CultofMac is here, where he asserts that every child in the US needs an iPad. His arguments revolve around the benefits of an interactive device in the hands of a child as opposed to the one way mind feeding that a television set offers. Some quotes:

Everybody’s asking: Are iPads healthy for children?

I’m here to tell you: That’s the wrong question.

The right question is this: Is the iPad a healthy *replacement* for TV? And I believe the answer is a resounding yes.

The iPad is scary because it’s new. But most parents have already accepted a gigantic role for something truly in the lives of their children: television. The content kids see on their TV sets is mostly mind-numbing, soul-deadening, formulaic consumerist crap, punctuated by sophisticated ad campaigns designed to transform children into mindless consumers.

…

Kids spend more time watching TV than they do in class (1,500 hours on TV per year vs. 900 hours in school).

…

I could go on for pages. The bottom line is that TV is a massive, negative, toxic, unhealthy influence in the lives of American children. I think parents already know this.

The solution, Elgan states, is to offer children an interactive device with far less commercial content and mind numbing one way interaction to children.

That’s why fearing the iPad is such a colossal error. The iPad isn’t a new problem. The iPad is a new solution to an old problem.

By *replacing* TV time with iPad use, parents can dramatically improve the lives of their children.

From a parent’s perspective, the iPad is superior to a TV in every significant way:

* The iPad has far fewer, far less harmful ads than TV. It can even be rendered “commercial-free.” Imagine that.

* The iPad is interactive, for the most part, rather than passive. Instead of just staring motionless at TV, kids could be solving puzzles, actively playing games, typing, drawing and other activities.

Yes, even the simplest games on an iPad are far more interactive than any TV show. It’s a good article, and Elgan concludes by encouraging parents to buy iPads for their children as soon as possible. His points merit consideration, and the digerati are taking him seriously. Hopefully others will, too.

The Cell Phone Book: Interactive Literacy for New Media

Mike Elgan over at Computerworld has a nice column discussing the much ballyhooed indicators showing a decline in reading and literacy since the early 20th Century. People just don’t read anymore, and Elgan points out where Steve Jobs said much the same thing recently (good thing they still listen to music, ay?).

But then, Elgan points out that half of the top 10 best selling books in Japan last year started out as cell phone books.

The books-on-phones genre started when a home-page-making Web site company realized that people in Japan were writing serialized novels on their blogs, and figured out how to autocreate cell phone-based novels from the blog entries.

The popularity of these blog novels on cell phones sparked huge interest among readers in writing such novels. Last month, the site passed the 1 million novel mark.

Some of these amateur writers become so famous on the cell phone medium that the big publishing houses seek them out and offer lucrative deals for print versions. The No. 5 best-selling print book in Japan last year, according to the [New York] Times, was written first on a cell phone by a girl during her senior year in high school.

Contributing to the cell phone book craze in Japan are long commutes where book reading is hard to do, but scanning the ubiquitous cell phone is easy and convenient. The Japanese have figured out a way to make reading participatory, through cell phones and blogs explains Elgan. In America, participatory entertainment such as videogames are squeezing out passive entertainment. Thus the decline in reading.

At least, the decline in reading of books. Elgan points out something I’ve long held to be true: students are reading and writing gobs of data through text messaging, videogaming, e-mailing, web surfing, etc. etc. I look at the volume of words processed by my kids in online games such as World of Warcraft, and can only marvel at the typing speeds they’ve attained.

It boils down to literacy events in the life of a child. The exposure to text, in whatever venue, increases the reading and writing skills of children. If children read a book, a comic book, or the story line in a videogame, they are reading. And that makes all the difference.

References:
Elgan, M. (2008, January 31). Elgan: Will cell phones save books? Computerworld. [Online.] Available: http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic
&articleId=9060501&pageNumber=1

Got Troubles? Blame Videogames

I noticed the apparent up tick in media attention to videogame violence recently. Then I ran across Mike Elgan’s piece in Computerworld, where he breaks down recent news items from around the world. Some I’d heard of, and there were a few he mentioned that I hadn’t. The big research item I was aware of, and hope to blog on soon after I’m finished reading it. Here is Elgan’s list:

- The December supplemental issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health devoted to youth violence and electronic media (more on this from me later).

- New Zealand’s National Manager of Police Youth Services stating he felt rising youth violence is tied to videogame consoles (Elgan notes the statement was made after brief exposure to his son’s Xbox, not a formal study).

- The German Society for Scientific Person-Centered Psychotherapy recommended a ban on violent videogames.

- Reading skills in England have dropped, with videogames receiving the lion’s share of blame (this one is stretching it, BTW, based on the copious literacy moments inherent in most all advanced MMORPGs and VIEs).

- Videogames were also blamed for England’s poor showing in soccer this year. It seems British kiddoes are too busy playing with joysticks instead of going outdoors and playing with balls. Videogames = bad. Soccer games = good.

- Elgan then notes a couple news reports blaming games for obesity, broken bones & rickets in children.

- He also points out the study in Pediatrics from German researchers showing sleep disruption in boys playing a videogame before bedtime.

Elgan brings up several counterpoints to the “blame videogames first” crowd. With recent immigration trends of young families moving to England, some 40% of primary kids “over there” don’t speak English at home. This might have a higher effect on reading scores than the Playstation, Wii, or Xbox. The media highlighted the Finnish teen shooter’s love of videogames while ignoring his many other interests which may have certainly contributed to a killer mindset. Focusing on the effects videogames have on teen boys misses the point anyway since videogames continue to grow in popularity across both genders and all age groups.

Here are some additional arguments Elgan adds:

One “solution” you don’t hear very often is: Maybe we should do nothing. Maybe it’s a problem that doesn’t need to be solved … Every generation of adults blames some cultural influence or another on ruining young people. Those darned horseless carriages cause youthful indiscretions! …

Second, games may have an overall positive effect on the lives of some kids. In bad neighborhoods, they may provide an alternative to gangs and real violence, or access to cultural information not otherwise available. …

And finally … There is plenty of evidence — ignored by critics — that games are becoming more intellectually stimulating. Many kids who used to play Grand Theft Auto are now enjoying Assassin’s Creed or, say, BioShock. These newer games still have violence, but also literary, historical and cultural value, at least in comparison with GTA.

Elgan sums up with a call for more research:

One thing is certain: We need more and better research. So many questions remain unanswered. Do games really cause violence? If so, do some games cause more violence than others? Is the unrealistic or nongraphic violence in, say, Halo 3 less harmful than the blood-splattering violence in Call of Duty 4? Is the “honorable” violence in Call of Duty 4 less harmful than the “criminal” violence in Grand Theft Auto? Are games damaging to some personality types, but harmless to others? Are the effects of gaming long term?

Good questions. Be sure and check out Elgan’s excellent blog, The Raw Feed which focuses on videogames and other technologies.

References:
Elgan, M. (2007, November 30). Do video games make kids violent, stupid and sick? Computerworld. [Online.] Available: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9050278&pageNumber=1