Do you consider listening to books on CD as "reading" the book?

[mommylawyer]

DH and I have differing opinions on the matter. He says he "read" a book - when I know he listened to it in his car. I listen to books on CD all of the time, but I don't consider that reading the book. Instead, I like to think of it as someone read it to me.

[kalanamak]

Not read, if listener is capable of reading it, but I give credit e.g. for kiddo at 5 listening to the entire Hobbit, and being able to give a long, excited rundown of the major events (and say-- oh, that part is disc four, number 17)

[LauraL]

DH I don't consider that reading the book. Instead, I like to think of it as someone read it to me.

 

That's how I've always thought of it. Years ago, before I was very familiar with the book-on-tape idea, a coworker told me about all the different books that she had read recently. I was amazed and asked her where she got the time to do all of that reading, and she explained to me that she used the time during her commute to and from work. I was surprised, because I didn't know that the bus came out our way and I wasn't aware that she carpooled with anyone. (I didn't know how she could "read" without someone else driving.) When she said that she just pops the tapes into the cassette player in her car, I had a hard time not laughing and explaining to her that that is called "listening" to a book. :001_smile:

[Stacia]

I consider listening to a book being read & reading the book yourself two different things & skills. So, no, I do not consider 'listening' the same as 'reading'.

 

Personally, I prefer reading. I have a friend who 'reads' tons (her term), when what she really does is listen to books during her commute. That's fine & she's doing it for enjoyment, but saying she 'read' the books is a little misleading, imo.

 

I also know some people who say their kids are 'reading' when they are really 'listening'. And, I consider that another misrepresentation, esp. when the child lacks the reading ability to conquer the books supposely 'read'.

 

The misrepresentation of it drives me batty. :tongue_smilie:

 

Why can't folks who listen to stories say just that... "I listened to Jane Eyre this week...", for example?

[Nestof3]

I guess, technically, I use the words "read" and "listen/" With children who are growing in their reading ability, yes, there is a difference. A child could turn 18 and say he's "read" 1,000 books but still be illiterate.

 

BUT -- in your husband's case, I consider reading and listening the same thing. If I am driving or working out, a book is a great way to pass the time. I get the same story whether I "read" or "listen," so what's the difference? I could surely read the book, but to me it's about using the time you have.

 

BTW -- I let my boys listen to as many audio books as they want to, but they also read.

[JoyfulMama]

If a person (and more specifically a child) is listening to a book which is at or above their reading level, it has a tremendous positive impact on their reading skills.

1) Listening is a vital skill which must be mastered in order to learn to read.

2) Hearing a book read on tape helps one see how the words on the page can come alive in a fluid, expressive way. You can then focus on the sounds of words read without interruption and provides a model of fluent reading.

3) Many books on tape have interesting sound effects, music, and multiple narrators that are especially motivating and fun for young children. They emphasize reading as a source of pleasure rather than a skill, and make children eager to learn how to read.

[WTMCassandra]

I do if it's unabridged and doesn't have sound effects ; ).

[Kris]

If a person (and more specifically a child) is listening to a book which is at or above their reading level, it has a tremendous positive impact on their reading skills.

1) Listening is a vital skill which must be mastered in order to learn to read.

2) Hearing a book read on tape helps one see how the words on the page can come alive in a fluid, expressive way. You can then focus on the sounds of words read without interruption and provides a model of fluent reading.

3) Many books on tape have interesting sound effects, music, and multiple narrators that are especially motivating and fun for young children. They emphasize reading as a source of pleasure rather than a skill, and make children eager to learn how to read.

 

This is all true, but I voted "never." Reading and listening are different skills, and listening to a book isn't reading it. I don't see anything wrong with it, and used to have books on tape all the time to listen to while I was commuting. But I was not reading those books.

[WTMindy]

They are definitely different skills, but I think that it doesn't matter whether I see the words or hear the words. As long as I am interacting with the text in some way, I can count it as having read the book. People don't really care if I have read Moby Dick or listened to it. They are interested if I "got" it or liked it, or have an opinion about it or can discuss it.

 

I want my kids to be strong readers, but we do both. We always have a book going on while we are in the car. I find I can listen to books while cleaning and cooking and I feel like I'm being productive.

[Kris]

They are definitely different skills, but I think that it doesn't matter whether I see the words or hear the words. As long as I am interacting with the text in some way, I can count it as having read the book. People don't really care if I have read Moby Dick or listened to it. They are interested if I "got" it or liked it, or have an opinion about it or can discuss it.

 

I want my kids to be strong readers, but we do both. We always have a book going on while we are in the car. I find I can listen to books while cleaning and cooking and I feel like I'm being productive.

 

I don't think kids won't be strong readers if they listen to books. I'm taking the word "read" literally -- and every definition I can find of "reading" references the cognitive process of understanding the written word. Illiteracy would drop to almost zero if people who could converse and understand their native language could also read it.

[Vida Winter]

I use the word "read" in both ways for myself since I read books as well as listen (I have had a subscription to Audible for 2 books per month for the past 3 years). Since my eyesight is such a problem (terrible nearsightedness teamed with old-age farsightedness) I cut myself some slack. I always have a book going and an audio on my ipod because I love to listen while I'm cleaning house or doing dishes.

 

Added: Just wanted to say that I don't count listening as reading a book where the kids are concerned. Although we did listen to a few of the Sonlight read alouds on tape just to save me some work. But as far as free or required reading, no I don't let them substitute an audio.

[Colleen]

No, I don't equate listening to a book with having read it. I'm one who doesn't care for audio books or even being read to, though, so take my vote with a grain of salt.;)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

It depends, if I am planning on having them complete any book reports, narrations, reading comprehension type exercises then they must physically read the book. If it is simply that we are trying to add (to pick a title/situation as random example) Our Island Story as another book title in history class where I want them to get the information presented, they may read SOTW, extra shorter books and listen to the relevant chapters of OIS.

 

Oh- when they participate in events such as the library's summer reading program listening doesn't count; I require they actually read all books submitted on their lists.

[dcjlkplus3]

My almost 7yo (where does the time go?) loves listening to books on cd or mp3. She is also learning to love to read. My husband listens to books whenever he can at work (he's a carpet cleaner). I can't consider them reading- even though they both retain a lot by listening. Listening and reading are two different skills. Personally I do better reading than listening. I have noticed how much it helps my daughter to listen to her books, usually above her reading level, but then she sits down with the book and tries to read it. I think that at least some of that is a confidence issue. She knows the story and hears the names pronounced and it helps her. (she doesn't read along with story, the reading happens at different times.) Now if I could get her to stop having a different story playing while she is trying to read one, I'd be happier.

[Mrs Mungo]

If I say I read a book that means I actually *read* it. If I listed to it on tape/cd I say I listened to a book on tape/cd.

[Amy in Orlando]

I guess my question is why does it matter? If you're listening to an unabridged reading of the book, aren't you gaining the same content?

 

I am like Colleen, I dislike having someone read to me, but there are a couple of professional readers that I LOVE to listen to and do. Sometimes I read the book first and then listen. Other times I just listen.

 

If we're talking about kids, I give mine the option of listening to a book periodically (like someone said, I consider listening to a book and reading a book two different skills). I try to make sure the audio version is unabridged and I try to make sure we talk about the audio book as he's listening.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

While I agree that listening to books on CD is a good and beneficial thing, I voted never. My husband would go as far as to say that books on CD steal a lot of the imagination part of reading a good book.

[8filltheheart]

I voted "it depends." For genre that are meant to be oral, we listen and read along. Specifically coming to mind are the Iliad, Odyssey, and Shakespeare.

 

While technically it isn't "reading" them, they were also not written to be read. I personally think that listening to them is more beneficial.

[Michelle in MO]

voted "it depends". Momof7 is right; the Iliad and the Odyssey originally were oral works and were meant to be listened to. The same is true of Shakespeare---his plays were originally meant to be watched.

 

However, I think that I'm such a visual person that it's hard for me to listen to a book on CD and comprehend as much as if I was reading it. We're on our way back from a family reunion and bought His Excellency by Joseph Ellis about George Washington to listen to. It's good, but I'm not catching nearly as much as if I was reading it at home. When I read a book, I find myself re-reading certain portions over again to make sure that I understand them. That's not as easy for me with a book on CD.

 

Now, a lecture I can listen to, like the Teaching Company CD's! But, even those are not the same as actually being in the room with a professor delivering a lecture, taking notes, etc. I guess I'm more of a traditionalist. :)

[Twinmom]

I voted yes. Though I don't believe you should neglect one for the other, KWIM?

 

My DD8 (well, 9 tomorrow!) and I have spent the summer driving 3 hrs round trip to vision therapy 3x a week. We've "redeemed" the car time by listening to great books on tape. She begs for another CD, she'll sit in literal dead silence the whole time, completely absorbed by the material and in her own little creative world, and she's be able to recount huge chunks of what she heard in detail. Stuff far above her grade level.

 

As a result of the books on tape, her interest in reading a print book has risen tremendously. She previously struggled a lot to read due to a visual processing disorder, so she did not get into some of the really great books we had around (I can only do so much read aloud!). Books on CD have given her that chance, and now she loves reading. Oh, and btw...between the therapy and the CDs, she's gained 2 grade levels in reading in just the last two months! :D

[PariSarah]

The physical and mental act of decoding the words on a page and understanding what they mean is a minimal part of reading a book. It's the main part while you're still learning to read, of course, and I wouldn't count audiobooks as "assigned reading" for the kids.

 

The largest part of my definition of reading is the mental act of engaging with the ideas, the history, the story, the meaning. I can't for the life of me see how an audiobook diminishes that. There are books, I suppose, that deserve extended, slow, careful re-reading, and that's not really possible with an audiobook. With those sorts of books, I sometimes make the distinction between having read them, and having read them carefully. And I wouldn't count something I've listened to as something I've read carefully.

 

But apart from that sort of work, the only time that I can see distinguishing between having read and having listened to a book is when the capacity to read is in question. When the book itself is in question, there isn't much useful distinction between having read the book and having had the book read to one.

 

ETA: I have a professor that is profoundly afflicted with dyslexia. He does a good bit of his reading through audiobooks, even getting some of his scholarly work through recordings designed for the blind. I wouldn't say he is any less well-read than the professors who are physically capable of the act of reading. And I doubt, when someone in his field asks him whether he's read this or that new book, he answers, "Sort of." He says, "Yes, and I think he's dead wrong about such-and-so." Or, "Yes, and I love how she deals with the problem of bladdity blah."

[TravelingChris]

I said yes, always, but I guess I should have said it depends. Yes, always for the type of books I get on tapes- unabridged. I wat thinking about those. Both of my daughters used tapes this summer for a summer reading program. In the first case, my 11 yo (and the entire family) heard The Prince and the Pauper on tape unabridged. SHe was listening to this for her book club. The other girls in the club read abridged versions or didn't finish the book. My daughter was the best able to discuss the book. The reading level was too difficult for her and after a good try of about five pages, we got her the tapes. She knows how to read, reads plenty of books, but uses tapes for books that she wants to read and are still above her reading level.

 

My older dd is an auditory child. She read The Tale of Two Cities, was reading the Cliff Notes for it, and still has trouble remembering what happened. I am going to look for a movie version for her to have her recollect what the differences are. Then later on in the summer, she hear the unabridged version of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. She remembered great details from it and can discuss it very well. Can she read- yes, she reads a lot. But unless a book is highly engaging, she won't remember well what she read. She needs to hear to have a good memory of it.

[Alice]

I like audiobooks, especially for the kids. We almost always have a "story" going in the car. And I used to listen to audiobooks when I would exercise (I'd puposefully not let myself listen except when I exercised. Then I'd get a mystery or something so I'd be really motivated to work out again. :))

 

But...I still find reading a book myself so much more enjoyable. Maybe it's being a very visual learner. I don't like being read to by others. I have a hard time listening during lectures.

 

I'm selective about which books I pick for ds to listen to. There are some that I'm "saving" so he can discover them first by reading them (I'm also purposefully not reading them aloud to him.)

 

So, I wouldn't say they are the same but I don't necessarily think that listening is somehow inferior. I don't enjoy it as much myself, but I can see how someone with a different learning style or as Sarah mentioned with a learning disability would get the same thing out of listening as by reading it.

[Jenny in Atl]

No, but I love doing both. I would say they are very different experiences for me. Some bks I like so much, I will do both if I know the narrator is good.

[LaMere Academy]

No I don't consider it reading, I would say I listened to the book.

[Rhonda in TX]

My children are not auditory learners (almost to a detriment), so I cannot expect them to really learn from an audio book. However, there are many books that I would like them exposed to, but they don't necessarily have interest in reading. (For example - horror of horrors - the Little House books) We will listen to those in the car and I'm fine with that.

[Nicole M]

The physical and mental act of decoding the words on a page and understanding what they mean is a minimal part of reading a book. It's the main part while you're still learning to read, of course, and I wouldn't count audiobooks as "assigned reading" for the kids.

 

The largest part of my definition of reading is the mental act of engaging with the ideas, the history, the story, the meaning. I can't for the life of me see how an audiobook diminishes that. There are books, I suppose, that deserve extended, slow, careful re-reading, and that's not really possible with an audiobook. With those sorts of books, I sometimes make the distinction between having read them, and having read them carefully. And I wouldn't count something I've listened to as something I've read carefully.

 

But apart from that sort of work, the only time that I can see distinguishing between having read and having listened to a book is when the capacity to read is in question. When the book itself is in question, there isn't much useful distinction between having read the book and having had the book read to one.

 

ETA: I have a professor that is profoundly afflicted with dyslexia. He does a good bit of his reading through audiobooks, even getting some of his scholarly work through recordings designed for the blind. I wouldn't say he is any less well-read than the professors who are physically capable of the act of reading. And I doubt, when someone in his field asks him whether he's read this or that new book, he answers, "Sort of." He says, "Yes, and I think he's dead wrong about such-and-so." Or, "Yes, and I love how she deals with the problem of bladdity blah."

 

This is what I would have said, but less well. :D

 

The main thing for me is engaging with the text. For clarity's sake, we make the distinction in our house between reading with our eyeballs and reading with our ears. Although I am capable of reading sophisticated material with my eyes, I remember more reading with my ears, perhaps because of a learning style thing, though those distinctions in kinds of learning don't make much sense to me.

 

Also, I'm biased - I feels strongly that language is meant to be spoken, savored, tasted and, hence, heard. Frozen words on a page can be lovely but are not shared in the same way (for me).

[Ashleen]

I have to say that I'm shocked that some people don't consider books listened to "books read." I mean, if you were in a reading group and discussing the characters and plot, you would dismiss the opinions of someone if you found out she "didn't read it" but listened in her car? I fail to understand that. I read with my eyes several books a week and listen to books while I'm doing housework or falling asleep, and I consider all of them books I've read. My husband doesn't have time to read with his eyes but he drives a lot and if I read the book and he listens to the audio, we can discuss books together, which we could not do otherwise.

 

Books were originally intended to be read aloud. They were expensive and when a new one was published, you could buy it and invite the neighborhood over and read aloud. Then everyone had "read" the book; it's not as though only the person holding it had read that book. They could all discuss.

 

The reason libraries used to have "no talking" rules is because everyone used to read aloud and it was chaos if 100 people were reading different books aloud. Reading aloud, and having people listen, is thousands of years old. Reading quietly to oneself is relatively new and only occurred when books became cheap enough for each person to have his own.

 

I absolutely consider listening to an audio book "reading." And in fact I've found that listening to a really good reader enhances personal reading skills (my children have never read by rote word for word, for example, but have always read with inflection).

[laylamcb]

The physical and mental act of decoding the words on a page and understanding what they mean is a minimal part of reading a book. It's the main part while you're still learning to read, of course, and I wouldn't count audiobooks as "assigned reading" for the kids.

 

The largest part of my definition of reading is the mental act of engaging with the ideas, the history, the story, the meaning. I can't for the life of me see how an audiobook diminishes that. There are books, I suppose, that deserve extended, slow, careful re-reading, and that's not really possible with an audiobook. With those sorts of books, I sometimes make the distinction between having read them, and having read them carefully. And I wouldn't count something I've listened to as something I've read carefully.

 

But apart from that sort of work, the only time that I can see distinguishing between having read and having listened to a book is when the capacity to read is in question. When the book itself is in question, there isn't much useful distinction between having read the book and having had the book read to one.

 

ETA: I have a professor that is profoundly afflicted with dyslexia. He does a good bit of his reading through audiobooks, even getting some of his scholarly work through recordings designed for the blind. I wouldn't say he is any less well-read than the professors who are physically capable of the act of reading. And I doubt, when someone in his field asks him whether he's read this or that new book, he answers, "Sort of." He says, "Yes, and I think he's dead wrong about such-and-so." Or, "Yes, and I love how she deals with the problem of bladdity blah."

 

:iagree:

[dirty ethel rackham]

I, too, voted "It depends." I like momof7's reasoning. However, my original thought process had to do with what my purpose is for "reading" the book. If I am looking for reading comprehension and application, then I would not consider it reading. However, if I am interested in other analytical skills or for story enjoyment, having listened to the book would count as reading for me. For my kids' book clubs selections or literature assignments, I do require them to sit down and read the books. Otherwise, since my kids are avid readers, I don't sweat it too much.

 

For an adult (especially one who had limited time to sit down with a book,) I would consider listening to be reading.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

It depends. If it's an adaptation, I don't consider that as reading the book, but, if it's the book being read verbatim, it's okay to me. I try not to do too much of it, though, I like actually reading and absorbing the book. I'm a little weird that way.:001_smile:

[Peela]

They're different skills for sure but I think we are moving into a time where more and more poeple are goign to be listening as they commute or whatever,and I think its great! And I dont see how it is inferior at all in terms of absorbing and digesting the material, that being the point, not the actual art of reading, which is more a skill. I wouldn't like to see listening replace reading altogether- because reading is harder work, in some ways, and it is a different "feel"- but it is great that people are getting exposed to more good literature.

In fact, I dont tend to do audios much because I find it harder to listen than to read- i am very visual- and my mind wanders all over the place when I listen. I intend to train myself to listen more, though, because I can see it would be useful.

[Suzannah]

Before I met my DH I wouldn't have considered listening to a book on tape or CD "reading". However, DH (and many in his family) have vision problems and they do most if not all of their "reading" in audio format via Recording for the Blind, Books on Tape from the Library of Congress, or more recently, audio books downloaded to their iPods.

 

For my own DC, I like to see a mix. DS (11) has listened to audio books since he was about 18mos when I first made a tape of myself reading and singing for him to listen to at bedtime. I have never really set quotas for what he was allowed to listen to or set time limits or other restrictions, but I do try to keep him in good paper and ink books. He reads by sight a lot. Listening is more for bed time, car trips and when the family gathers around the fireplace on winter evenings. If we are studying a book (such as Beowulf this coming year) I will make him read by sight to make sure he takes his time and "sees" the words so they will make an impression. However, we just listened to The Hobbit as a family over the weekend and I count that as reading too.

[dawn of ns]

Not the same thing. They're both very different activities and I love both. I used to read a couple of books a week but find the time and concentration hard to find these days so audio books and lectures have been wonderful. I've also really enjoyed the flip side of that; reading aloud to the kids. Nowadays I even prefer rouding aloud and even do it to myself sometimes.