My son (4yo) barely watches TV (maybe one hour a week or so) but spends a good amount of time on the iPad.
There's a wide range of activities on the iPad, going from plain video games to pure learning bits (letters, sounds, cooking, 3d moves etc) which makes it much more interesting than only "video games" IMO (and this generates a lot of discussions centered around learning too!).
On the frequency of use: it's pretty much like email for adults. You have to learn when to stop and when to do something else, learn to keep a balance.
At first we had small cards (like 2 x 10mn and 1 x 20mn for each day) to ensure he would not spend more time than we thought was good for him.
Now he mostly plays at his own rhythm, and tend to say at some point: "Dad, I played a lot on the iPad, now I need to take some fresh air".
Apart from that, all the remaining signs (learning to write, space placement, handling legos, social exchanges, sport etc) show no "damages" caused by the iPad :)
In conclusion: for me balance is everything (but like for most subjects); and there's a lot of good things to pick in the iPad.
Well, sounds like your son is doing great, that's wonderful. :)
I concede your point that the iPad can stretch/blur the notion of what a "game" is, in interesting ways. Although I am inclined to limit my kids' "screen time" (to zero, at two years old), I would never choose to limit my kids' "book time",.
But perhaps my thinking about it is too coarse, since iPad apps can be hybrids of both, or combine their attributes into something completely new.
Perhaps I will try out your time ticket idea and see how it goes. (But not from 2 years old... maybe 3 or 4.)
"But perhaps my thinking about it is too coarse, since iPad apps can be hybrids of both."
Right. How would your screen time limitation work if the screen was being used to read a book? And the book may be even more interactive than a traditional book. Then there's a line that can get crossed where the book has now become a game. But even then, if it's educational and informative as a book is, why limit that just because it's on a screen?
>And the book may be even more interactive than a traditional book. //
Books are not interactive. Isn't that the point, they're supposed to be entirely passive objects used solely to feed ideas to the imagination/consciousness/memory.
>why limit that just because it's on a screen? //
To encourage the child to develop interaction in the real world first.
Kids books often are. Many of my daughters favorite books have lots of flaps and pull tabs that make things move. Opening the flap on the third thing and seeing the number '3' or guessing which item is in which box based only on the shape of the box and then opening the box to see if you where right is endless fun if you're into that sort of thing.
Aren't they more like games in handy book-a-like format?
This I think promotes my point (I would!).
If you only ever share pop-up books, coloring books, sticker books, flap-books, texture books, carpet books (they have samples of carpet in them), etc., with your child then they're not being exposed to the central concept of receiving ideas from a passive medium and giving life to those ideas internally without a proscribed pattern as to how one should do that.
Mind you I've no strong evidence that the move through object presentation, to picture based story, to picture accompanied story, and on to pure prose, genuinely does lead to a development of imagination (rather than say just accompany such a development).
Aren't they more like games in handy book-a-like format?
Some, perhaps, but far from all of them. Most of them have the basic linear narrative structure of books and encourage the basic process of starting at page 1 and following the 'story' page by page to the end. The pop-ups and flaps assist in driving the story rather than replacing them.
I have a <2 year old daughter right now and while it may be a bit soon to compare, I think she would benifit from having something that she wants to focus on for more than a couple of minutes. Right now she can be actively playing or passively consuming, though the latter does not interest her much and she just wanders off or ask for attention. Some interactivity might do well at this age.
On a side note I don't own an iPad nor intend to. Maybe a wii (she's already pretty curious about the tv remote control). However, I'll probably hold that off and let her enjoy the real world for a while.
I've been revising my attitudes towards TV lately. There's good content on the TV, while content on iPad is not necessarily getting any better - mostly addictive games that bide the player to come back again and again. BBC produces a lot of accessible programs about engineering, history.
There's a wide range of activities on the iPad, going from plain video games to pure learning bits (letters, sounds, cooking, 3d moves etc) which makes it much more interesting than only "video games" IMO (and this generates a lot of discussions centered around learning too!).
On the frequency of use: it's pretty much like email for adults. You have to learn when to stop and when to do something else, learn to keep a balance.
At first we had small cards (like 2 x 10mn and 1 x 20mn for each day) to ensure he would not spend more time than we thought was good for him.
Now he mostly plays at his own rhythm, and tend to say at some point: "Dad, I played a lot on the iPad, now I need to take some fresh air".
Apart from that, all the remaining signs (learning to write, space placement, handling legos, social exchanges, sport etc) show no "damages" caused by the iPad :)
In conclusion: for me balance is everything (but like for most subjects); and there's a lot of good things to pick in the iPad.