I would recommend a science encyclopedia, a single but large book with approximately 1-2 pages on a huge variety of topics. The reason I recommend this is because a person can develop a relationship with a hard copy book they can’t develop with an internet encyclopedia (my daughter’s favorite page is the one on the sun, and she can rattle off, ‘a ball of burning hot gases...’ from memory) and one can flip through the pages looking for something that looks interesting to them—this is self-guided education at its best.
Another advantage of the encyclopedia is that it much more likely you will read about a topic you wouldn’t have guessed you were interested in due to a particularly catching photograph (for example, about spiders) and it feels far more safe to surreptitiously or casually look up topics one might be uncomfortable about—that is, without making a very strong commitment that that is something you want to read about. While looking up certain topics online requires a definitive decision (you don’t accidentally end up at a site about the onset of puberty) and is (unfortunately) likely to encourage Google to give discomfiting or indiscreet ads, turning pages in your own Encyclopedia is entirely innocent. (It’s your book, after all.)
My daughter’s book has a page on religion (and it’s on the surface a perfectly reasonable and unoffensive description, but I expect it will inevitably sink in that each culture and time in history has it’s own religion...) and while our particular encyclopedia doesn’t have a page on evolution, there are plenty of good pages on biology and the different kingdoms. I feel that each page is interesting enough that as my daughter spends time with her encyclopedia, she would be developing a fairly broad—and occasionally detailed—education in science.
Seconded—during most of my childhood/teenagerhood, I had a big encyclopediaish dictionary with plenty of illustrations on my desk; browsing it was a good way of procrastinating. One can find worse!
I had an encyclopedia while growing up, which gave the ability to address an intellectual interest on a topic, and just browse and see interesting things too. I read a lot of that. I don’t know that kids get a lot of encouragement to read non fiction.
I like your impulse to physicality. There’s something to be said for a book as a fixed object that you have a relationship with. You get a sense of completion, advancement, and accumulation that way. I don’t know that it has to be a physical object, however, just something with object permanence. Khan Academy might be an alternative. A growing collection of knowledge, which will display to you your growing body of knowledge. I’m sure I would have liked that as a kid.
Some basic tools and a pile of things that are kind of broken? I do think there is something to just taking physical things apart and putting them back together. Getting acquainted with the idea of mechanism. How about a kit to build something? A go cart?
I like the go cart better than even the encyclopedia for the physicality of it. Get her something where she thinks without words. I think that’s important, and increasingly missing in the industrialized world.
No, I would just recommend that it is at the child’s reading level, rather than above, since a higher level can be intimidating. Encyclopedia’s are inexpensive and it is better to just purchase another one as a child gets older. This encyclopedia I’m speaking of is already narrowed down to a child’s science encyclopedia, so my feeling is that any one of them would be a good one. Lots of attractive photos, of course, and a broad variety of topics.
I had several growing up, and really loved them. One of them (my first) I believe was called the “I Wonder Why Encyclopedia”. I looked on Amazon for it, and it appears to be a rather popular title. I would be inclined towards just going to a bookstore and investigating their selection.
I would recommend a science encyclopedia, a single but large book with approximately 1-2 pages on a huge variety of topics. The reason I recommend this is because a person can develop a relationship with a hard copy book they can’t develop with an internet encyclopedia (my daughter’s favorite page is the one on the sun, and she can rattle off, ‘a ball of burning hot gases...’ from memory) and one can flip through the pages looking for something that looks interesting to them—this is self-guided education at its best.
Another advantage of the encyclopedia is that it much more likely you will read about a topic you wouldn’t have guessed you were interested in due to a particularly catching photograph (for example, about spiders) and it feels far more safe to surreptitiously or casually look up topics one might be uncomfortable about—that is, without making a very strong commitment that that is something you want to read about. While looking up certain topics online requires a definitive decision (you don’t accidentally end up at a site about the onset of puberty) and is (unfortunately) likely to encourage Google to give discomfiting or indiscreet ads, turning pages in your own Encyclopedia is entirely innocent. (It’s your book, after all.)
My daughter’s book has a page on religion (and it’s on the surface a perfectly reasonable and unoffensive description, but I expect it will inevitably sink in that each culture and time in history has it’s own religion...) and while our particular encyclopedia doesn’t have a page on evolution, there are plenty of good pages on biology and the different kingdoms. I feel that each page is interesting enough that as my daughter spends time with her encyclopedia, she would be developing a fairly broad—and occasionally detailed—education in science.
In particular, the DK Science Encyclopedia was my most prized possession when I was about that age. I strongly recommend it.
Seconded—during most of my childhood/teenagerhood, I had a big encyclopediaish dictionary with plenty of illustrations on my desk; browsing it was a good way of procrastinating. One can find worse!
Thirded. Sort of.
I had an encyclopedia while growing up, which gave the ability to address an intellectual interest on a topic, and just browse and see interesting things too. I read a lot of that. I don’t know that kids get a lot of encouragement to read non fiction.
I like your impulse to physicality. There’s something to be said for a book as a fixed object that you have a relationship with. You get a sense of completion, advancement, and accumulation that way. I don’t know that it has to be a physical object, however, just something with object permanence. Khan Academy might be an alternative. A growing collection of knowledge, which will display to you your growing body of knowledge. I’m sure I would have liked that as a kid.
Some basic tools and a pile of things that are kind of broken? I do think there is something to just taking physical things apart and putting them back together. Getting acquainted with the idea of mechanism. How about a kit to build something? A go cart?
I like the go cart better than even the encyclopedia for the physicality of it. Get her something where she thinks without words. I think that’s important, and increasingly missing in the industrialized world.
There are many of these of varying quality. Anything you can recommend?
No, I would just recommend that it is at the child’s reading level, rather than above, since a higher level can be intimidating. Encyclopedia’s are inexpensive and it is better to just purchase another one as a child gets older. This encyclopedia I’m speaking of is already narrowed down to a child’s science encyclopedia, so my feeling is that any one of them would be a good one. Lots of attractive photos, of course, and a broad variety of topics.
I had several growing up, and really loved them. One of them (my first) I believe was called the “I Wonder Why Encyclopedia”. I looked on Amazon for it, and it appears to be a rather popular title. I would be inclined towards just going to a bookstore and investigating their selection.
Why would you be uncomfortable when you can just enable private browsing mode and look it up when you are alone?