CCBC-Net Archives
science or natural history or eARTh
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Kathleen Horning <horning>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:17:32 -0500
Maia raises very interesting and provocative points.
I agree that illustrations are important, and provide essential information in science books for the young. I would think that as much research goes into the illustrations of a good science book as the text, and it is possible (especially for a content specialist) to fact-check illustrations.
But I don't agree with this statement about "Our Family Tree" : "Writing accurate text shouldn't have been too difficult; the material is fairly straightforward." Since she is writing about human evolution, I would say this is an area that is not at all straightforward (especially in these times there is opposition to the teaching of the theory in our public schools). Lisa Westberg Peters' writing is so clean and concise that she makes it look easy. Consider her opening lines:
When we began, we didn't look like people. We didn't have two eyes to blink or ten toes to wiggle. We were just tiny round cells in a deep, dark sea.
On the outside, we were so small, we were almost invisible. But on the inside, we had the same kind of spiraling genetic code for life we have today.
First of all, Peters takes just the right tone for young children, addressing them directly (and with the assumption that they are smart and curious, rather than talking down to them). She starts with something very familiar to them (two eyes, ten toes) and then builds on it to extend it to the unfamiliar (tiny round cells). She makes a comprehensible comparison (so small we were almost invisible) and then introduces a new scientific concept (spiraling genetic code).
In addition to excellent content, Peters establishes a predictable narrative structure that makes it easier to young readers to take in information. She goes back and forth between what's happening in the physical, outside world (air filling with oxygen, oceans rising and falling, continents joined as one, etc) and what's happening to evolving life forms. She also repeats the structure "On the outside..." and "On the inside..." Her writing is in the best tradition of Margaret Wise Brown who so skillfully used pattern and repetition to tell stories.
To me, this is more than simply writing accurate text. It's taking a complex scientific concept and artfully introducing it to young readers in a way that will pique their curiosity and lay the groundwork for further investigation. And even if the child has no interest whatsoever in evolution -- before or after reading the book -- he or she will at least have had a pleasurable aesthetic experience from listening to the story and looking at the pictures.
KTH
Kathleen T. Horning, Director Cooperative Children's Book Center University of Wisconsin-School of Education 4290 Helen C. White Hall 600 North Park St. Madison, WI 53706
horning at education.wisc.edu Voice: 608&3721 Fax: 608&2I33 www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/
Received on Tue 12 Jul 2005 08:17:32 AM CDT
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:17:32 -0500
Maia raises very interesting and provocative points.
I agree that illustrations are important, and provide essential information in science books for the young. I would think that as much research goes into the illustrations of a good science book as the text, and it is possible (especially for a content specialist) to fact-check illustrations.
But I don't agree with this statement about "Our Family Tree" : "Writing accurate text shouldn't have been too difficult; the material is fairly straightforward." Since she is writing about human evolution, I would say this is an area that is not at all straightforward (especially in these times there is opposition to the teaching of the theory in our public schools). Lisa Westberg Peters' writing is so clean and concise that she makes it look easy. Consider her opening lines:
When we began, we didn't look like people. We didn't have two eyes to blink or ten toes to wiggle. We were just tiny round cells in a deep, dark sea.
On the outside, we were so small, we were almost invisible. But on the inside, we had the same kind of spiraling genetic code for life we have today.
First of all, Peters takes just the right tone for young children, addressing them directly (and with the assumption that they are smart and curious, rather than talking down to them). She starts with something very familiar to them (two eyes, ten toes) and then builds on it to extend it to the unfamiliar (tiny round cells). She makes a comprehensible comparison (so small we were almost invisible) and then introduces a new scientific concept (spiraling genetic code).
In addition to excellent content, Peters establishes a predictable narrative structure that makes it easier to young readers to take in information. She goes back and forth between what's happening in the physical, outside world (air filling with oxygen, oceans rising and falling, continents joined as one, etc) and what's happening to evolving life forms. She also repeats the structure "On the outside..." and "On the inside..." Her writing is in the best tradition of Margaret Wise Brown who so skillfully used pattern and repetition to tell stories.
To me, this is more than simply writing accurate text. It's taking a complex scientific concept and artfully introducing it to young readers in a way that will pique their curiosity and lay the groundwork for further investigation. And even if the child has no interest whatsoever in evolution -- before or after reading the book -- he or she will at least have had a pleasurable aesthetic experience from listening to the story and looking at the pictures.
KTH
Kathleen T. Horning, Director Cooperative Children's Book Center University of Wisconsin-School of Education 4290 Helen C. White Hall 600 North Park St. Madison, WI 53706
horning at education.wisc.edu Voice: 608&3721 Fax: 608&2I33 www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/
Received on Tue 12 Jul 2005 08:17:32 AM CDT
