CCBC-Net Archives
How much do we tell the children? Q3 Bibliotherapy
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_ttmd.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:50:50 -0500
Is there any evidentiary basis for believing in the therapeutic nature of books? I am in no doubt at all about the therapeutic benefit of particular books to particular children under particular circumstances at particular times. However, my evidence is purely anecdotal and therefore is not useful information in making an argument. The real question would be something along the lines of: Do children derive a net benefit from reading themselves into books that are constructed or themed around difficult, unusual, isolating, debilitating, or otherwise suffering issues (such as abuse, coercive sex, gender identity, impoverishment, disfigurement or disablement, etc.)?
I am not aware of any study that looks at the issue systemically and from a scientific perspective (i.e. controlled). Let's take the example of a book focused on accidental traumatic death (say a car accident). If a hundred children are required to read the book, what percentage might be assisted by the book, what percentage might be traumatized by it, and what percentage might be indifferent? It's easy to construct scenarios in which this might be true for each of these outcomes. If 20% of children are assisted by the book, that is great news but only if there is no down side. This is the issue identified by the 19th century French philosopher Frederic Bastiat in his essay, What is Seen and What is Not Seen (http://tinyurl.com/dapvpg). In economics it is known as distributed costs and concentrated benefits, in logic as the Base Rate Fallacy. We tend to look at only one side of an equation. If 20% are assisted and none are traumatized or otherwise suffer in any fashion, then there is a great case for bibliot herapy. If 20% are assisted and 40% are disturbed in a fashion that has negative manifestations, then bibliotherapy is not such a good idea.
I know I have fashioned this in the extreme of being a required to read the book but by doing so, it forces a yes or no answer to an already ambiguous issue.
Is the conviction of the therapeutic aspect of books dealing with difficult subjects evidence-based or is it simply a belief supported by anecdote? The difference has important implications.
Similarly with the argument often advanced about children needing to see themselves in books. Is there any rigorous evidence anywhere that this is an important issue in terms of increasing a child's love of reading and reading effectiveness? I have come across a lot of small scale studies that look at indirect things like affiliation sentiment but I have never seen anything that indicates that whether a child sees themselves in the books has an impact on their reading behavior and capacity. This is a reasonably critical issue. If it has a material impact then part of the solution to poor reading achievement among minorities has to be a concerted effort to generate quality literature for them to consume. If there is no material impact, then any effort invested in such an initiative is a diversion of resources from other efforts that might be effective. Much of the commentary seems to assume that this is an important issue but I do not see any evidence advanced to support that argument.
My impression is that there is no systematic evidence to suggest that there is any therapeutic value to challenging books nor is there any evidence that having demographic proportionality in books has any effect on reading behaviors and capabilities. All the evidence appears to be anecdotal. These may be legitimate arguments; they may be right. But currently they appear to be arguments by assertion rather than arguments based on evidence.
I would be very interested if anyone is aware of any rigorous data supporting either of these positions.
Charles
Received on Sun 27 Nov 2011 01:50:50 PM CST
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:50:50 -0500
Is there any evidentiary basis for believing in the therapeutic nature of books? I am in no doubt at all about the therapeutic benefit of particular books to particular children under particular circumstances at particular times. However, my evidence is purely anecdotal and therefore is not useful information in making an argument. The real question would be something along the lines of: Do children derive a net benefit from reading themselves into books that are constructed or themed around difficult, unusual, isolating, debilitating, or otherwise suffering issues (such as abuse, coercive sex, gender identity, impoverishment, disfigurement or disablement, etc.)?
I am not aware of any study that looks at the issue systemically and from a scientific perspective (i.e. controlled). Let's take the example of a book focused on accidental traumatic death (say a car accident). If a hundred children are required to read the book, what percentage might be assisted by the book, what percentage might be traumatized by it, and what percentage might be indifferent? It's easy to construct scenarios in which this might be true for each of these outcomes. If 20% of children are assisted by the book, that is great news but only if there is no down side. This is the issue identified by the 19th century French philosopher Frederic Bastiat in his essay, What is Seen and What is Not Seen (http://tinyurl.com/dapvpg). In economics it is known as distributed costs and concentrated benefits, in logic as the Base Rate Fallacy. We tend to look at only one side of an equation. If 20% are assisted and none are traumatized or otherwise suffer in any fashion, then there is a great case for bibliot herapy. If 20% are assisted and 40% are disturbed in a fashion that has negative manifestations, then bibliotherapy is not such a good idea.
I know I have fashioned this in the extreme of being a required to read the book but by doing so, it forces a yes or no answer to an already ambiguous issue.
Is the conviction of the therapeutic aspect of books dealing with difficult subjects evidence-based or is it simply a belief supported by anecdote? The difference has important implications.
Similarly with the argument often advanced about children needing to see themselves in books. Is there any rigorous evidence anywhere that this is an important issue in terms of increasing a child's love of reading and reading effectiveness? I have come across a lot of small scale studies that look at indirect things like affiliation sentiment but I have never seen anything that indicates that whether a child sees themselves in the books has an impact on their reading behavior and capacity. This is a reasonably critical issue. If it has a material impact then part of the solution to poor reading achievement among minorities has to be a concerted effort to generate quality literature for them to consume. If there is no material impact, then any effort invested in such an initiative is a diversion of resources from other efforts that might be effective. Much of the commentary seems to assume that this is an important issue but I do not see any evidence advanced to support that argument.
My impression is that there is no systematic evidence to suggest that there is any therapeutic value to challenging books nor is there any evidence that having demographic proportionality in books has any effect on reading behaviors and capabilities. All the evidence appears to be anecdotal. These may be legitimate arguments; they may be right. But currently they appear to be arguments by assertion rather than arguments based on evidence.
I would be very interested if anyone is aware of any rigorous data supporting either of these positions.
Charles
Received on Sun 27 Nov 2011 01:50:50 PM CST
