<p>There are apps for young kids that are essentially animated books. I don’t see how a kid amusing himself (and learning) from an animated book on an iPad is essentially different from having him play with “real” books.</p>
<p>Actually there is a big difference. An animated book on iPad can’t give you feedback on your verbal or emotional response to a book. An animated book can’t customize dialogic reading for a child based on their response to pictures or words in a book. An iPad can’t answer a question a child has or praise or confirm a comment makes on the book.</p>
<p>Most of all, an animated book on an iPad with an adult in the other room making dinner, can’t provide the emotional and physical warmth and connection that placing a baby or toddler on a human’s lap can. THIS is one of the primary foundations that shared reading provides at this young an age.</p>
<p>In reference to “if you’re concerned about being plugged in all day long”, remember that even a toddler spend probably 15 hours + of their day sleeping. Another couple of hours on daily living tasks like diaper changing, eating, bathing, etc. So even if you sub in a small amount of time with technology - be it tv or ipad or whatever - you are subbing in a greater % of their wake time than you think.</p>
<p>My field of study and work happens to be pediatrics and child development/literacy. Well knowing parents may make better decisions for their children. But I sadly ASSURE YOU that many parents - especially lower income parents who are more likely to not be as literate and not have a literacy rich environment at home (either due to lack of understanding or desire) are reaching for “stuff” to keep their children entertained - tv, phones, tablets - until they can SEE the benefits and enjoyment of having themselves be the entertaining object for their child. Children under age 2 need PEOPLE around them who are nurturing and engaged - not objects to take their place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the thing I worry about most. I think parents who rely on these devices to entertain their kids are less engaged with them, and that could have a negative effect in the long run as well.</p>
<p>I will also add to my post above and say that a fair % of college educated parents - around 25% - do not read to their children on a regular (3x a week or more) basis. A result of “time poverty” - too much scheduled time, not enough “chilling” time. Just wanted to clarify that this is not just a problem of economic poverty.</p>
<p>I don’t think children under two need to be on these devices at all.</p>
<p>“mini, I am not sure where your snarky defense of technology-above-all is coming from, but it’s a bit bizarre.”</p>
<p>I am simply asking for EVIDENCE. And there isn’t any. I can think what i like, and so can you. But for pediatricians to be making public policy announcement without evidence is what is truly bizarre. </p>
<p>Do kids (of whatever age) need good people around? You bet. So why isn’t there a pronouncement from pediatricians saying “children need people around”? We probably should never leave kids alone with legos either.</p>
<p>As noted, pronouncements from pediatricians made without evidence can be, and have in the past been, positively dangerous to children’s health. </p>
<p>And I also noted precisely how the use of tablets by two year olds can, and has, created more than rather less human connection, and emotional warmth, better bonding with parents who would otherwise be (are otherwise) absent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But I’m not comparing toddler-on-mother’s-lap to toddler-on-iPad. </p>
<p>I’m comparing toddler on iPad looking at an animated book while mother is in the other room cooking dinner to toddler surrounded by a bunch of board books while mother is in the other room cooking dinner. You know, at one point mother does have to put toddler down and go cook dinner or attend to other household matters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So they are seeing empirical evidence. Just because there hasn’t been a large-scale study done yet doesn’t mean it is a bad idea to heed the warnings. My kids’ pediatrician told me not to give them too much juice, because it is just empty calories. I didn’t need a definitive medical consensus to accept that he might have been right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, if only this could be applied somehow . . .</p>
<p>[2011</a> AAP Policy Statement - Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years - YouTube](<a href=“2011 AAP Policy Statement - Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years - YouTube”>2011 AAP Policy Statement - Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years - YouTube)</p>
<p>[Media</a> Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years](<a href=“http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/10/12/peds.2011-1753.full.pdf+html]Media”>http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/10/12/peds.2011-1753.full.pdf+html)</p>
<p>Mini, if you want to choose to go ahead and ignore not only studies (50+ noted here), then I would not even want to begin to change your mind.</p>
<p>I know most of those “studies”. There isn’t one double-blinded longitudinal study I can find - even one - on the longer-term impacts of media exposure on children under the age of two. The few studies there are (not double-blinded), included kids who watched media not only before the age of two, but long afterwards, and in those studies, the results are equivocal. IF there was an effect, was it because of media exposure before the age of two, or long afterwards? As noted, at least in the case of TV and Apple IIs, these studies are not that difficult to do. But they haven’t been done. </p>
<p>"Marzoli: “What we’re seeing is a lot of children coming in with some motor delays, some decreased muscle strength in areas.”</p>
<p>The impact of school and preschool. Increased hunger (one out of seven children).</p>
<p>" I didn’t need a definitive medical consensus to accept that he might have been right."</p>
<p>Had you done that with AAP’s/Dr. Spock’s advise on back sleeping, your kid might be dead as a result.</p>
<p>mini- very interesting posts. What about the possibility screens are harmful to eyes? What about “emissions” & “waves”? That is what tends to concern me. I have no idea if it is a justified concern.</p>
<p>I would challenge you to sit in a room with 30 kindergarten/1st grade teachers and argue that coming to school without developmentally appropriate language skills (expressive and receptive) and experience with books is not to be worried about because the “long term impacts” are nil. Or a fourth grade classroom where the struggling readers are tumbling into educational failure because formal school now requires them to “read to learn” instead of “learn to read” - largely because they did not start school with the necessary language and socio-emotional skills to be successful at reading. </p>
<p>Almost lunch. Off to read a book. Because I’m good at it, I like it, and it feels good. Thankful for parents who set this trend early in life with me.</p>
<p>abasket: your posts are spot-on. I can see the benefit of your expertise in the field. I also have a background in reading development and children’s books, specifically books for preschoolers. </p>
<p>The years from birth to two are a finite time, the greatest period of brain and language development setting the foundation for a child’s future intellectual life. The stage is being set for those who will later understand both the mechanics and the power of written language and the imagination.</p>
<p>The lure and power of ALL screens (TV, computer, i-pad, phones) is huge. All those electronics will be part of all children’s lives now, of course. But there is plenty of time for the influence and benefit of all those things later, after a child’s brain is more mature.</p>
<p>I recently visited the excellent preschool which my D attended, run by a teacher with her PhD in child development and 30 years of experience in the field. When my D attended, there were bright colors everywhere, mobiles, lots of visual stimulation. Now the preschool looks completely different: everything was beige or tan, very simple and calm, no mobiles or bright displays. </p>
<p>The teacher said that was because so many children have sensory and/or behavioral issues now compared to 25 years ago, so she has to have a calming, quiet atmosphere at the preschool rather than a bright, stimulating one. I asked her what she attributed this change in preschoolers to, and she answered, “Electronics.”</p>
<p>I don’t worry so much about adult-child interaction in the youngest children as I do delays in hand/eye coordination or sensory development. </p>
<p>When a child spends hours staring at a flat screen, with no feedback in 3 dimensions, they are missing something developmentally. Their hands need to feel actual objects, not flat representations of them. They need to climb, crawl, run, jump in 3 dimensions, and this activity is being replaced by an extremely sedentary one where only their eyeballs and possibly 2 thumbs are moving.</p>
<p>So I’m asking seriously. Mom tosses the kid into a corner with an iPad where kid follows along with animated books (and let’s assume they are of high quality, age-appropriate, etc.). Versus … Mom tosses the kid into a corner (or playpen, as was the norm in our youth) with a bunch of board books. Either way, kid isn’t feeling actual objects - they are just seeing representation. What’s the difference? </p>
<p>Agree totally kids need to climb / crawl / run, etc. But sedentary is sedentary. I’m curious whether there’s a difference in substituting one sedentary activity for another (iPad versus board books). The discussion here assumes that the iPad is being used as a REPLACEMENT for kid getting to crawl, jump, move around, etc.</p>
<p>The difference? Free radicals. </p>
<p>Serious response -
The iPad would be the better choice; especially, if the book is interactive.</p>
<p>I’m trying to think of the difference. </p>
<p>I know important areas like depth perception are highly dependent upon the eye/brain/body interface. People who lost their sight as infants and have it restored as adults never figure out how to “see” without touching everything–and even then they never really get it. They are in some ways still blind. So that’s one possible delay (when there is too much iPad time before a certain age.)</p>
<p>The other thing is, screens are so darn mesmerizing. I watch my 4 year old grandson in front of a TV, computer, or iPad screen, and he doesn’t move a muscle. It’s like he’s hypnotized, and he would stay there for hours, possibly, if we didn’t call a halt after one program or video. That would never happen with a board book. There would be turning of pages, occasional looking away in the mid or far distance, and ultimately, a cry for someone to “read to me.”</p>
<p>Edit: And yes, most of <em>us</em> here would call a halt to the screen time after a while, but some parents would not limit it, any more than they would limit TV time. As long as the kid is out of their hair and not getting into trouble they figure no harm, right?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - imagine how it plays out. Kid with a pile of board books gets to choose which one to pick up. Looks at the cover, opens it (at their own speed), turns pages, closes it and pats the back cover. Little kids don’t really look too much at board books, it more about turning the pages and chewing the corners. Drops it and picks up another, or maybe crawls over to the dog or a doll or anything else. There’s a lot more choice and tactile stimulation. The kid with an iPad is likely mesmerized and chooses only the spots to touch and also has their head at the same angle the whole time.</p>
<p>I worry about the next generation getting herniated disks in their cervical spine by the time their in their twenties. There is so much looking down at computers, laptops, tablets and phones.</p>
<p>Exactly. A real book allows the tactile experience, fine motor skills, the process that reading a book is a left to right and turn the ages experience (instead of a tap to turn or whatever). You can say that the iPad promotes pointing (a skill usually mastered by 15 months or so) but a real book will promote pointing in response to interaction (find the duck! Or "which doggie do you like?) </p>
<p>Plus remember - we are talking UNDER age 2 - a one year old can’t follow animation alone! Children engage with REAL people, voices and touch for longer periods of time than they do an object.</p>