On Wednesday, Scholastic (the children's publisher) and Yankelovich (the company that tracks consumer trends) released a new national study.
The study revealed that while 40% of kids between the ages of 5-8 are high frequency readers (reading for fun every day), only 29% of kids aged 9-11 are high frequency readers. The percentage continues to decline through age 17.
When parents are frequent readers, kids tend to read more. However, only 21% of the parents surveyed said that they themselves are high frequency readers.
Lisa Holton of Scholastic summarized it this way: "Parents excel when it comes to introducing their very young children to beautiful picture books and bedtime stories, but when their kids start reading independently, parents need to become more, not less, involved."
One of the most interesting points made in the press release was: "The study found that 53% of children whose parents are high frequency readers are reading books for fun every day; however, among children whose parents are low frequency readers (reading 2-3 times a month or less), only 15% read for fun daily."
Even if a parent is not a high frequency reader, he/she can impact his/her child's reading habits by directing the child toward good books to read. This is important when you realize that the number one reason kids give for not reading more is that they can't find books they like. Dr. Hal Quinley from Yankelovich said: "Parents may be underestimating the difficulty kids have finding books they like."
Children's reading attitudes change as they grow older. While only 14% of the kids aged 5-8 identify themselves as low frequency readers, almost half of the kids aged 15-17 identify themselves that way.
Another interesting finding: Three times as many boys as girls said they thought reading for fun is "not at all" important.
Even if a parent does not enjoy reading or does not have time to read, the study makes it clear that the parent can positively impact the child's habits and attitudes toward books.
You can read the entire report at:
http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/
reading_survey_press_call_2.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Publisher's Weekly also had a write-up on this study. What I found interesting about it is that it doesn't find out what the children are doing instead of reading. If they are watching TV or sitting around on the computer or something else sedentary and intellecutally unstimulating (like I suspect), then that is bad. But if they are doing things like sports or homework, that's not as bad.
Also, Everyone seems to act shocked that the highschool students weren't reading, but why? High school students don't have the time, especially those who are stereotypically likely to be readers. There are only so many hours in a day and after homework, afterschool activities and/or jobs when would a teen read? Even as a middleschool student I averaged 2 hours of homework a night. We bemoan the lack of reading in our kids, but we don't give them the time to read. And setting children an alotted time everyday to read doesn't solve the problem. My 12 year old sister sits with a stopwatch while she reads. The second she hits the forty-five minute mark (the minimum her school requires children to "independently read" every day) she's off to her computer or her beloved drawing. And our father is and avid, avid reader.
The diffuculty parents and teachers face is to make reading enjoyable. Unfortunately, it is almost always presented as a chore. It ranks up their with vitamins and brocolli -- something you have to do for your own good. And we all know how much kids love vitamins and brocolli. I don't really have an answer to the problem. It's one everyone in the industry from editors to maketers have to cope with. My only suggestion would be to have teachers throw book parties instead of pizza parties with kids getting donated books. And perhaps parents could give their kids a couple of hardback books (or a lot of paperbacks) instead of that expensive computer game.
Hi, Editor: I had the same initial thought that you had. What's the point of the study if you don't know what the kids are doing?
Then I remembered that this study was sponsored by Scholastic. They don't care what else kids are doing. They WANT them to read.
To me, it was a no-brainer that older kids read less. I would have been classified as a high frequency reader up until age 15. However, after 15, I had more freedom and more interests outside of my home. There was simply less time available to read. It's probably worse for today's kids. They have computers, Mp3 players, DVDs, CDs, cell phones--all of which steal time from reading.
I was far more interested in the findings about parents and the impact they can have on children and reading. My mother was and is a high frequency reader. Only two of her children became HFR. The oldest and the youngest--myself and my youngest brother. My other two brothers came to reading for pleasure much later in life (in fact, there was a family joke about whether or not one of them even knew how to read).
Post a Comment