What’s in a Picture?

I’ve just read a disturbing piece of research (opens in a new window) by a pair of university researchers. Their admittedly small and limited study of thirty-six 18-month-old children suggests that books with color photographs may increase children’s learning; that books with color drawings may be less effective.

My reply: Balderdash! An illustrated book is just as effective as one with photographs – if it’s appropriate for the child’s developmental level and for their level of experience with books and pictures.

And what is “learning”? Do young children learn only when they see the literal? Don’t young children already learn from everything to which they’re exposed? How do young children understand fantasy and imagination if not through illustrations? When did we become more concerned about teaching facts to 18-month-olds than about exposing them to books that ignite their curiosity and expand their minds? Also, photographs can be artful, and illustrations can be informative. How can we say one is more important than the other for learning?

Think about it. Would the handsome photos used in many of Seymour Simon’s books (opens in a new window) be appropriate for 18- to 24-month-old children? Of course not! They are too far beyond a young child’s experience and interests. But Byron Barton’s My Car (opens in a new window)(Greenwillow) with its slightly stylized illustration is ideal for young children who are intrigued by the vehicles they see daily.

This kind of research is compelling in that it can potentially lead to a deeper understanding of how young children view their world though books. That said, claims from small scale studies are easily misconstrued, misinterpreted, and misused.