Misinformation about picturebook apps in The New York Times

It is amazing how bad journalism and to some extent bad science works to disinform and create social panic.

Last Saturday, Oct 11th, 2014, an article called "Is E-Reading to Your Toddler Story Time, or Simply Screen Time?" by  Douglas Quenqua was published in The New York Times science section. I suggest reading the article before continuing, as I do not focus here on summarizing it.

As a researcher in digital children's literature, I'd like to state that there is no sufficient evidence yet that book apps are any better or any worst for children than print books. Yet, the general tone of the article is negative towards the use of this technology, and although the text admits the lack of sufficient evidence, it cites studies as if they had some kind evidence against iPad apps, which is not true.

First, I'd just like to make a brief comment about one passage of the article:

"'There’s a lot of interaction when you’re reading a book with your child,' Dr. High said. 'You’re turning pages, pointing at pictures, talking about the story. Those things are lost somewhat when you’re using an e-book.'"

Really?? I don't necessarily see why parents who are experienced in co-reading with their children, accustomed to discussing the narrative, pointing at pictures, etc. wouldn't do exactly the same with a picturebook app. In fact, most of the good apps you need an action to turn the page as in a book and just as in good picturebooks some explore the so called "drama" of turning the page.

But what strikes me the most about the inaccuracy of this article is that, although the article is centered on discussing iPad screen time, each of the studies cited refer to a different kind of e-book – comparison which in itself is problematic – and it is likely (there is uncertainty in one case) that NONE of these are in fact iPad e-books. The 2013 study was conducted with Fisher Price Electronic Console Books. Fisher Price is a toy company, and although I haven't checked these specific "e-books", seeing the image presented in the article it is clear that they are significantly different from iPad picturebook apps. The 2012 study does not specify what exactly they are calling 'basic' and 'enhanced e-books'. It COULD be that the enhanced e-book is an iPad app, but then they do not specify that or mention which books/ebooks/apps they used. Although the Joan Ganz Cooney Center has a strong reputation for research in children's media, other people and I have agreed that the design and interpretation of data in this "quick" study is problematic. Finally, the third study is from 2002, when the iPad did not even exist, and refers to CD-ROM storybooks. It is clear that the experience of reading a storybook on a desktop computer, controlling it with a mouse is a completely different experience from reading a print picturebook or a picturebook app.

Another aspect to take into consideration is that none of the studies compares the same print and digital picturebooks, or same narrative present in print and digital version. Thus, the quality of the multimodal text of one book and the other may also have influenced the results. I believe we don't even need support from research-based studies to know that children have different interest and engagement when reading different narratives. The fact that a print and a digital picturebook talks about the same topic in a 'similar' fashion is not enough to assert that they have the same literary quality.

I keep wondering why so many people want to paint a bad image of picturebook apps when in fact there is no proof that they are any detrimental to children. I love print books and think children should have ample access to them. Print books should be the primary form of of reading for children, especially for the very young, but there is no need to misrepresent information to make people avoid digital picturebooks.

Journalists, please, do your job and do not spread misinformation in the science section of The New York Times.