"Your Baby Can Read": Is this B.S. or what?

[John Albert]

As seen on TV: "Your Baby Can Read (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR12UAq0rys)"

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22your+baby+can+read%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a86c207b1c79523e

What's the real story behind this educational reading program for infants?

It sure displays a few of the hallmarks of pseudoscientific quackery: Fantastic, extraordinary claims Marketed toward parents' popular insecurities about their childrens' educational development Blatant pretense of medical/scientific authority Conspicuous absence of any verification from conclusive scientific studies Heavy reliance on anecdotal testimony and obviously staged "demonstrations" Underlying theory based on apparent misunderstanding/oversimplification of psychological principles
Promotion via a sleazy website with intrusive pop-ups and deceptive URL redirects

Can this technique really teach infants to read, comprehend and speak written and spoken language, or is it just some kind of trick? Can it be detrimental to future literacy development?

I'd especially like to hear input from anybody with a background in cognitive or developmental psychology.

Discuss.

[Alan]

Here's a blog article from Steven Novella. Spoiler Warning: It doesn't work.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=569

[skullerello]

Thanks. That was very informative. I'm relieved to have read the article in the link as I was beginning to believe that, once again, my own lack of parenting skills would doom my 2-year-old son to a life of illiteracy.

[Foolmewunz]

Scam! No one would (I would hope) do rotten experiments on kids, but if the little darlings can read, maybe someone should explain how you could train them to see the word "teeth" and point to their naughty bits.

It's rather simple, really. They're trained, like seals. Repetitive. Over. And. Over.

They recommend 2 hours a day of flash card sessions, "better if you can do a morning and after session, too...". In short, FOUR HOURS!!! The kid learns to recognize the length of the word and the shape it makes on the card (sticking up part, hangy down part, a lot of round parts, etc....), and if you were to show L'il Isaac Newton the card for "teeth" and point to your crotch ten times a day for two months, the little tyke would think that's what he/she was supposed to respond. If the kid could read, then you'd be able to show it a card with half of a word and it would be able to make sense of it. The child can't because learning to read requires command of the phonetic alphabet we use, and he/she has no such command.

Again, I can't see doing evil tricks on a kid and while I can't see it being harmful, I'd love to teach a kid all sorts of weird things.
>Teach it to recognize "dodecahedron", for instance and have a picture of one nearby.
>Teach it to recognize "flatulent idiot" and have it point to a picture of Uri Geller.
>Or show the word "daddy" and have it point to its little toy Lego milkman :D .

Really freak out the relatives!

[quarky]

You guys are so cynical.

The o.p. mentions "as seen on tv".

Therefore, real.




(get a life)

[ponderingturtle]

Scam! No one would (I would hope) do rotten experiments on kids, but if the little darlings can read, maybe someone should explain how you could train them to see the word "teeth" and point to their naughty bits.


This seems like it could result in problems on trips to the dentist.

[JoeyDonuts]

This seems like it could result in problems on trips to the dentist.

Or if the child grew up to become a practicing urologist.

[jhunter1163]

My mom taught me to read (phonetically) when I was two. Yes, I could actually read; I was reading at the eighth-grade level on my first day of school. I hated her for it; she would take me to her friends' houses and show me off, like I was a trained seal or something, and if I didn't want to go or wouldn't perform on command she would hit me. So I not only learned to read, I learned to fear and resent my mother.

I realize that this wasn't normal, but I wish she had just let me learn to read in school the way the rest of the kids did.

[paiute]

My mom taught me to read (phonetically) when I was two. Yes, I could actually read; I was reading at the eighth-grade level on my first day of school. I hated her for it; she would take me to her friends' houses and show me off, like I was a trained seal or something, and if I didn't want to go or wouldn't perform on command she would hit me. So I not only learned to read, I learned to fear and resent my mother.

I realize that this wasn't normal, but I wish she had just let me learn to read in school the way the rest of the kids did.

You need to crank that story up to about 80,000 words and the literary agents will be all over you like scarab beetles on elephant dung.

[commandlinegamer]

They recommend 2 hours a day of flash card sessions

Reminds of the film Parenthood where Rick Moranis and spouse are trying to bring up a super-genius, but instead have kid who can't relate to others.

[a3sigma]

My mom taught me to read (phonetically) when I was two. Yes, I could actually read; I was reading at the eighth-grade level on my first day of school. I hated her for it; she would take me to her friends' houses and show me off, like I was a trained seal or something, and if I didn't want to go or wouldn't perform on command she would hit me. So I not only learned to read, I learned to fear and resent my mother.

I realize that this wasn't normal, but I wish she had just let me learn to read in school the way the rest of the kids did.

I also was a precocious reader, and consider it the greatest good fortune of my life. For one thing, I was reading fairy tales, mythology, and bible stories concurrently with watching cartoons on TV, and quickly understood that none of them were real.

I don't fully understand how I came to read at such an early age. My mother tells me that she read to me a great deal from infancy, mostly adult material that she was interested in, never supposing that I understood any of it but just liked hearing her voice. She claims that she wasn't trying to teach me to read, and was surprised to find out that I could:

When I was about 7, I was quarantined and bed ridden with scarlet fever. Mom found me one morning reading the newspaper. Thinking I was only pretending, she playfully asked, "What does it say, Davy?" and I read her an editorial. She kept this to herself, and always taught me to keep my head down and try never to be seen as "different".

I do wonder about children today whose main intellectual stimulation is the mind numbing, repetitious, baby talk of Barney and Sesame Street. Even Bugs and Daffy spoke in complete grammatical sentences. If I had a child, I'd be reading her the classics all day.

[commandlinegamer]

I do wonder about children today whose main intellectual stimulation is the mind numbing, repetitious, baby talk of Barney and Sesame Street.

This seems to be an apposite story then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8654963.stm

[Nursedan]

Renowned child psychologist, Terry Brazelton, mentions a study in his book, Touchpoints, regarding children learning to read at an exceptionally early age. The study, he states, concluded that children who were taught in this fashion equated reading with adult praise. As the children got older, adults became less enamored with their ability, because eventually all of the children at their age could read. Because of this, the subjects of the study actually regressed past their classmates and ended up doing worse on reading tests than their peers, because the incentive to read had gone away.

So, we can conclude that while it might be nice to have a child reading at a very early age, this method of teaching is detrimental to their education.

Wish I could remember the study he cites - it may have been from Yale in the 70's.

[pgwenthold]

I do wonder about children today whose main intellectual stimulation is the mind numbing, repetitious, baby talk of Barney and Sesame Street.

For Pete's sake, have you actually SEEN Sesame Street? Goodness that is a wonderful TV show for kids. I would kill to get my kid to grow up watching Sesame Street. I mean, he'd learn a little spanish, opposites, songs, "one of these things is not like another," and, of course, to count ("AH! AH! AH!" - Elmo and friends were counting the other day, and they counted to 4, and they both go "AH! AH! AH!" afterward - it was the funniest thing (my 18 mo old son a) has never actually watched Sesame Street (he doesn't watch TV, even though it's on), and b) LOVES the Count. He has a stuffed Count, and those are among his favorite books)).

That you would call Sesame Street "mind-numbing, repetitious, baby talk" and lump it in with Barney shows that you really don't have a clue.

[Loss Leader]

The program works in that it does exactly what it shows in the commercial. Your child will be able to recognize a few dozen flashcards by sight.

What your child will not be able to do with this system is actually read. He won't be decoding each letter and combining them to make a series of sounds. He won't be able to read a word he's never seen before. He won't be able to read a series of words in a row for comprehension.

He'll just recognize a couple dozen black and white pictures that happen to be made up of smaller pictograms that we call letters.

The research is pretty conclusive that children learn best from actual interaction; even an adult on a closed-circuit tv is not a good substitute for a live person. Reading to your children, singing alphabet songs and pointing out words in context when you're out in the world is still the best way to foster reading and reading comprehension.

[pgwenthold]

The research is pretty conclusive that children learn best from actual interaction; even an adult on a closed-circuit tv is not a good substitute for a live person. Reading to your children, singing alphabet songs and pointing out words in context when you're out in the world is still the best way to foster reading and reading comprehension.

My son is too busy looking for doggies, ducks, kitties, and roosters.

[Rasmus]

The research is pretty conclusive that children learn best from actual interaction; even an adult on a closed-circuit tv is not a good substitute for a live person. Reading to your children, singing alphabet songs and pointing out words in context when you're out in the world is still the best way to foster reading and reading comprehension.

This.

I learned how to read when I was 3 or 5: My dad would read to me and I'd look at the books upside down. Asterix for the win. And my dad.

[a3sigma]

That you would call Sesame Street "mind-numbing, repetitious, baby talk" and lump it in with Barney shows that you really don't have a clue.

OK, I confess I've never been able to stand watching more than a few minutes of it. Elmo's voice just sets my teeth on edge, I'd love to strangle the little monster.

I am aware that the show has been highly regarded by education experts. On the other hand, I've just finished reading an interesting column by Sharon Begley, in the current Newsweek, on how utterly clueless the education experts are.

So, who the hell knows? Nonetheless, If I have unjustly maligned Sesame Street I humbly apologize. But I'd still strangle Elmo.

[pgwenthold]

OK, I confess I've never been able to stand watching more than a few minutes of it. Elmo's voice just sets my teeth on edge, I'd love to strangle the little monster.

I am aware that the show has been highly regarded by education experts. On the other hand, I've just finished reading an interesting column by Sharon Begley, in the current Newsweek, on how utterly clueless the education experts are.

Sharon Begley gets things wrong.

But I don't need education experts to tell me that Sesame Street is NOT "mind-numbing, repetitious, baby talk" or anything like Barney. I'm talking as a parent of a young person.

Elmo has a high voice, yes. Grover sounds like Yoda. Cookie Monster says YUM a lot. Oscar doesn't sound much like anything. Big Bird has a normal voice. Sesame Street has variety all over the place. Kids can watch it, and it is informative. Most importantly, kids DON'T find Elmo's voice to be annoying. He sounds like them. It's an interesting pitch, not unlike Grover, or Kermit, or Big Bird, or Oscar.

Actually, I suspect that is part of the success of Elmo. He is finally a kids character on the show, as opposed to all the others, who are basically adults.

[Loss Leader]

But I don't need education experts to tell me that Sesame Street is NOT "mind-numbing, repetitious, baby talk" or anything like Barney. I'm talking as a parent of a young person.


Sesame Street is about the best children's programming there is out there. One thing I like about it is that it deals with negative emotions. There is no conflict - absolutely none - on Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. They had an episode with a competition between two dogs; five events ended in a tie, 2 1/2 to 2 1/2. Sesame Street routinely covers winning, losing, jealousy, greed and all sorts of other difficult concepts. It's children's programming that: 1) has meaning; and 2) doesn't make me want to kill myself.


Oscar doesn't sound much like anything. Big Bird has a normal voice.


Oscar sounds like Big Bird in a bad mood. And Cookie Monster sounds like Baby Bear, who both sound like Jack from Jack's Big Music Show.

[John Albert]

Cookie Monster says YUM a lot.
I thought they changed his name to "Health Food Monster."

[a3sigma]

With trepidation I meekly inquire: is there any objective evidence that kids raised with Sesame Street benefit in any way? Have better reading skills, for example? to get back to the OP. Social skills, or coping skills? as Loss Leaders observations would suggest. It's been my understanding that opinion is divided on this.

Though I have some experience in adult education, I reiterate that early childhood is not my area of expertise. Rocky and Bullwinkle was the cultural high water mark of my youthful televiewing.

[Dr. Keith]

I've just finished reading an interesting column by Sharon Begley, in the current Newsweek, on how utterly clueless the education experts are.

Education experts have always been portrayed as clueless. And yet none of the critics have ever stepped up to take over.

I remember a sci-fi book where the hero get a doctorate in education by writing a thesis that says absolutely nothing.

Do they get stuff wrong? Yes. Do they study their mistakes and learn from them? Yes. But all you hear about are the failures. Never the success.

[jhunter1163]

I also was a precocious reader, and consider it the greatest good fortune of my life. For one thing, I was reading fairy tales, mythology, and bible stories concurrently with watching cartoons on TV, and quickly understood that none of them were real.

I don't fully understand how I came to read at such an early age. My mother tells me that she read to me a great deal from infancy, mostly adult material that she was interested in, never supposing that I understood any of it but just liked hearing her voice. She claims that she wasn't trying to teach me to read, and was surprised to find out that I could:

When I was about 7, I was quarantined and bed ridden with scarlet fever. Mom found me one morning reading the newspaper. Thinking I was only pretending, she playfully asked, "What does it say, Davy?" and I read her an editorial. She kept this to herself, and always taught me to keep my head down and try never to be seen as "different".

I do wonder about children today whose main intellectual stimulation is the mind numbing, repetitious, baby talk of Barney and Sesame Street. Even Bugs and Daffy spoke in complete grammatical sentences. If I had a child, I'd be reading her the classics all day.

This is the story I was told by my parents about how they figured out I was precocious. I had just turned two and was sitting with my dad watching football. They showed a closeup of one of the players and I said "Forty-two." My dad thought I had heard the announcer say it, so he didn't think anything of it. A minute later, another close-up, "twenty-five." My dad was intrigued, so he turned the sound down and pointed to a number. "What number is that?" "Eighty-one." Somehow, I had figured numbers out on my own. My mom then spent an evening teaching me letters, and the rest was history.

I'm glad I learned early; I could have done without the other stuff though.

[Foolmewunz]

My son is too busy looking for doggies, ducks, kitties, and roosters.

Interesting. My son's 19 months and last month was his looking for animals - only - month. This week, though, he started repeating the letters as he put the pieces into the puzzle (with many animals in the letter slots, which is why he got interested in the puzzle in the first place).

I'll also take Sesame Street over any of the Baby First, Tele-Tubbies, etc.... In a heartbeat. Baby First should be called Baby Sitting First. It's use of the tube to keep your kid engrossed while you go back to sleep or do something else. I'm thankful they took it off of our free channel, here. Marcello loved it but it wasn't teaching him a thing.

[sinclairmcevoy]

My daughter knew the alphabet by 12 months of age. Point, say the name of the letter, repeat. She caught on real quick. Now, at 2 1/2 years, she can name all the planets, their features, like the great read spot on Jupiter, which one is smallest, which is closest to the sun, blah blah blah. I have been teaching her things from day one. Oh yeah, she can name at least 12 different types of dinosaurs as well. And more types of animals than most adults. Uh, what was this thread about again?

[rwguinn]

This.

I learned how to read when I was 3 or 5: My dad would read to me and I'd look at the books upside down. Asterix for the win. And my dad.
In first grade, I was sick with the flu one week. That was the week we got our "See Spot run" books. So I never learned to read.
(The teacher did make me put away the "Hardy Boys Tower Treasure" the next week, though.)
Spot, Dick, and Jane were Boring

[jhunter1163]

You need to crank that story up to about 80,000 words and the literary agents will be all over you like scarab beetles on elephant dung.

Nice simile. I think. :D

[a3sigma]

Parental involvement seems to be the key, certainly in the anecdotal evidence we've posted here. I've just been doing a little googling, trying to find something objective on the benefits of educational TV. Found a range of views, but several researchers assert that any benefit is linked to the amount of time a parent spends interacting with the child as they view the program together. So, back to the OP, perhaps most any activity that gets parents working with their kids will have some success. Problem is, how to compare results of different programs in any controlled study.

[pgwenthold]

With trepidation I meekly inquire: is there any objective evidence that kids raised with Sesame Street benefit in any way? Have better reading skills, for example? to get back to the OP. Social skills, or coping skills? as Loss Leaders observations would suggest. It's been my understanding that opinion is divided on this.
.

I would suggest that plunking a child down in front of a TV is never going to have any benefits in any way, so if that is what is done, then don't expect much.

However, as you note there is the issue of parental involvement, and if the parent is involved, then something like Sesame Street is going to be far more productive than something mindless. And that isn't even considering the fact that parents are more likely to be involved with a stimulating show like Sesame Street as opposed to annoying stuff like Barney.

Although I have to admit, watching Sesame Street now and then when I am home with the Offspring, I haven't seen any bits with Don Music yet. That stuff is awesome...

"Drive, drive, drive your car
Gently down the street
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a treat"

[pgwenthold]

Interesting. My son's 19 months and last month was his looking for animals - only - month. This week, though, he started repeating the letters as he put the pieces into the puzzle (with many animals in the letter slots, which is why he got interested in the puzzle in the first place).

Offspring the Elder has been animal crazy from the beginning. He's been getting to the zoo pretty much once a week since the spring started, and loves it. Duck was his first word, and doggie was pretty early, too. Of course, Mom's a vet, so she influences him a lot.

[Loss Leader]

I haven't seen any bits with Don Music yet. That stuff is awesome...


I had been told that they discontinued Don Music out of fear that children would bash their heads against pianos. Of course, he was also a Jim Henson character, so that might have something to do with it. He is, without question, my all time favorite muppet.

"Mary had a bicycle,
It was painted red as fire,
And whenever Mary wanted to ride
the bicycle had a flat tire."


ETA: My oldest son's first word was duck, as well. My younger son's first words were, "What's all this about, then?"

[patchbunny]

For Pete's sake, have you actually SEEN Sesame Street? Goodness that is a wonderful TV show for kids. I would kill to get my kid to grow up watching Sesame Street. I mean, he'd learn a little spanish, opposites, songs, "one of these things is not like another," and, of course, to count ("AH! AH! AH!" - Elmo and friends were counting the other day, and they counted to 4, and they both go "AH! AH! AH!" afterward - it was the funniest thing (my 18 mo old son a) has never actually watched Sesame Street (he doesn't watch TV, even though it's on), and b) LOVES the Count. He has a stuffed Count, and those are among his favorite books)).

That you would call Sesame Street "mind-numbing, repetitious, baby talk" and lump it in with Barney shows that you really don't have a clue.

Sesame Street and The Electric Company had my brother and I reading before our parents knew we could. Those shows were fantastic.

[Foolmewunz]

Sesame Street and The Electric Company had my brother and I reading before our parents knew we could. Those shows were fantastic.

Can't wait 'til Marcello's ready for The Electric Company. I made my daughter watch it so that I could (at 32 y.o.).

[Cactus Wren]

I also was a precocious reader, and consider it the greatest good fortune of my life. For one thing, I was reading fairy tales, mythology, and bible stories concurrently with watching cartoons on TV, and quickly understood that none of them were real. I was an early reader too, and really I think that's a large part of how I came to be a skeptic: being able to compare the material in The Stars: A New Way to See Them, the young readers' edition of The Epic of Man, and a children's Bible.

(I asked my mother when I was six or seven which origin account was true: the human evolution described in The Epic of Man, or the seven-day creation story from the Bible. She fudged and fuddled and fumfuhed, and went on for a while about metaphors and how no human being knows everything and it's possible for there to be truth in both accounts, and I came away learning only that there were questions that shouldn't be asked. So I didn't ask them any more, at least not out loud; but even then it was obvious to me that EITHER the first humans evolved as a population from non-human ancestors, OR the first humans were a single man made out of mud and a single woman made out of his rib, but it CAN'T BE BOTH. That EITHER the Earth accreted from interstellar matter and life evolved over a period of millennia, OR it was created by a god's magic words {with the sun and moon and stars postdating the Earth} and all living things appeared over a period of six days, but it CAN'T BE BOTH.)

I don't fully understand how I came to read at such an early age. My mother tells me that she read to me a great deal from infancy, mostly adult material that she was interested in, never supposing that I understood any of it but just liked hearing her voice. She claims that she wasn't trying to teach me to read, and was surprised to find out that I could:

When I was about 7, I was quarantined and bed ridden with scarlet fever. Mom found me one morning reading the newspaper. Thinking I was only pretending, she playfully asked, "What does it say, Davy?" and I read her an editorial. She kept this to herself, and always taught me to keep my head down and try never to be seen as "different". Had your mother perchance ever read Wilmar Shiras's Children of the Atom? ;)

[Roboramma]

My oldest son's first word was duck, as well.

Did you?

[Arisia]

I was reading around age 4, and was topping out on school reading tests by 3rd/4th grade (a college reading level at age 8 or 9). My parents were not 'hands on' parents, so my drive to read was pretty much from within.
I tried not to put pressure on my daughter to read that early when she was younger, and she's turned out just fine, getting selected for Advanced Math and Honor Band in middle school and known by her teachers for her writing.

[quarky]

I read books in the womb. My mom would lay a specially lit page on her belly and i could just make out the words. Of course, I read silently. Its difficult to enunciate properly in there. "Ulysses" by Joyce was the first book I read. I wished she tried something else, because i wasn't a big fan of it. All I could do was kick the hell out of her, but she never correctly deciphered the meaning of those kicks.

[ToddH]

My son is almost three and is still not talking all that much. He knows plenty of words though and loves to point at things and ask me "What's that?" We were worried about him and had him tested. Was told by the therapist he's fine and that kids don't all reach developmental milestones at the same time. Heck, I didn't start talking until well after three and turned out pretty well if I do say so myself. :)

He does love counting and numbers though. He's been able to count to ten since around 16 months. I think he's going to be a math guy like his dad.

[pgwenthold]

I had been told that they discontinued Don Music out of fear that children would bash their heads against pianos. Of course, he was also a Jim Henson character, so that might have something to do with it. He is, without question, my all time favorite muppet.

"Mary had a bicycle,
It was painted red as fire,
And whenever Mary wanted to ride
the bicycle had a flat tire."



Thanks for brightening my day. I will chuckle about this all day long.

[maddog]

My daughter could read well before she turned two; probably around 18 months you could call it reading (with comprehension). Possibly sooner, but her speaking wasn't that great yet, so we couldn't tell for sure. We read to her, a lot -- but not as any particular effort to get her "ahead" or anything - she just really liked books!

She was probably eight or nine when her reading ability passed mine. She didn't have as big a vocabulary, but her speed and comprehension clearly exceeded mine.

She was always amazing at absorbing, processing, and comprehending information. The MadPuppy, on the other hand, at 4.5, is still on the verge of reading. He's more interested in riding his bike, playing Legos, or pigpiling on Dad. We read with him a lot, too, but not as much as SopranoHarmony.

Bottom line: kids are different, and learn at their own speed. Trying to force it leads primarily to frustration (says me).

[quarky]

When "Mario Bros" first emerged, and all the folks had it, almost any 6 year old could beat me. My own 6 year old could. I needn't worry about the underlying comprehension:
They were able to save the damn princess and I was not.

reading is held in high esteem, partly for nostalgic reasons, but if we want to brag on the smarts of our kids, computer game skills provide verifiable evidence, even though we pretend to believe that said skills are trashy; not brag-worthy.

Eventually, reading will be seen as akin to starting a fire with flint and tinder...quaint; charming; old fashioned.

Yet, a piss-poor way, by today's standards, of learning about the world.
It pains me a bit to express this, because I have nostalgia...but reading is a very primitive way of absorbing information, compared to modern alternatives.

We continue to hold this 'technology' in high esteem, mostly because we were forced to endure it, before better data flow emerged.

As on old fart grandpa, it is difficult for me to make this argument, divorced of nostalgia.
Sure, I read the classics, because I had to. And I even got good grades on my book reports.

But I had no idea what it was about.
Dickens should be enjoyed by people that like to read.
In 9th grade, its mostly punishment, with certain rewards, like showing the report card to Dad. The underlying art, with its subtleties, is force-fed. That stuff is best approached because you want to; because you can; because you suck at computer games.

As usual, we milk every chance to elevate ourselves, even through our kid's awesome compliance and obedience to our pointless allegiance.

If we could distance ourselves from this phenomena, parents would scold their children for wasting time with Silas Marner, and hassle them to spend more time playing video games. This is what enables them to excel in this new paradigm.


(This post has stretched my liberalness to its breaking point, but I thought it needed to be said, especially from an intellectual with grandchildren.)

Hammer me now, please. Make me atone for this sin.

[a3sigma]

reading will be seen as akin to starting a fire with flint and tinder...quaint; charming; old fashioned.

Yet, a piss-poor way, by today's standards, of learning about the world.

I don't see it. So long as information is conveyed by language, reading wins hands down -- I can read about 5 times as fast as anyone can speak. Non verbal communication? OK, I challenge you to communicate to me the views you have just expressed by any other means than language.

[Arisia]

Using the written word to downplay the importance of the written word in the 21st century? Interesting.

[iknownothing]

I don't see it. So long as information is conveyed by language, reading wins hands down -- I can read about 5 times as fast as anyone can speak. Non verbal communication? OK, I challenge you to communicate to me the views you have just expressed by any other means than language.

Yeah, I have no patience for videos and never click on video links. Reading, you can skim to see if something is worthwhile and if so, read it.

I do believe that reading in terms of long novels is oversold. I love to, but I really don't think everyone needs to. It's not a mark against a kid if they aren't interested in reading for pleasure.

[quarky]

I don't see it. So long as information is conveyed by language, reading wins hands down -- I can read about 5 times as fast as anyone can speak. Non verbal communication? OK, I challenge you to communicate to me the views you have just expressed by any other means than language.

Yeah, some irony there, for sure.
Interesting,though, the old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words".
And now our computers actually quantify the bits.

If you check out the ddwfttw thread, and imagine trying to learn about that cart with words alone, my rant makes more sense.
But I make posts like this quite spontaneously; sometimes to merely stir the pot.
its not a mission or anything.
I'm likely to have a different opinion tomorrow.

[barrymore]

It is one thing to introduce kids to math, science, literature, etc--to push them once in a while. But if you force kids to do stuff like this, as far as I am concerned, you are a bad parent. Just because little Jonny is not exactly the genius you want him to be at age 3, does not mean you should take it upon yourself to make him one. This is almost as bad as parents creepily dressing their daughters up and putting them in beauty pageants.

[quarky]

It is one thing to introduce kids to math, science, literature, etc--to push them once in a while. But if you force kids to do stuff like this, as far as I am concerned, you are a bad parent. Just because little Jonny is not exactly the genius you want him to be at age 3, does not mean you should take it upon yourself to make him one. This is almost as bad as parents creepily dressing their daughters up and putting them in beauty pageants.

I can almost see the winner of the next national 3 year olds beauty pageant:
Teased hair; thong; make-up; and college level reading skills.

[MikeMangum]

The program works in that it does exactly what it shows in the commercial. Your child will be able to recognize a few dozen flashcards by sight.

What your child will not be able to do with this system is actually read. He won't be decoding each letter and combining them to make a series of sounds. He won't be able to read a word he's never seen before. He won't be able to read a series of words in a row for comprehension.

He'll just recognize a couple dozen black and white pictures that happen to be made up of smaller pictograms that we call letters.

My wife bought some of these tapes for our daughter. She actually did learn to read (I guess she was 2 or 3) just by watching the tapes on average about 30 minutes a day - she enjoyed them, it was 30 minutes of the electronic babysitter. It was not just memorization of a few words; she learned the basic sounds of the letters and she was actually able to read words she had never seen before. The thing is, beyond being able to read earlier, it didn't do much for her. She is ahead of the average for her peers in reading ability, but I don't think that learning to read as a toddler had much to do with it.

The one area where it did help was the computer. She was able to read very early, and we gave her own computer. She essentially learned how to operate the computer through trial and error, but being able to read was critical to her doing so. We weren't attempting to teach her how to use the computer, we simply had a couple of games installed for her to play with. Without anyone showing her how, she learned how to go online and use the default search engine to find kids' games to play. Of course that meant her computer was completely loaded down with spyware.

And yes, I'm pretty confident that she was actually able to read at age 3 because she didn't just randomly click a link from a list of links returned by a search query. Links that had the word "game" and one other of "princess", "pony", "dress up", or "spongebob" were preferentially clicked. ;)

She would read the instructions for how to get started, or how to install the game. Most of these games were time limited trials, and I distinctly remember that when first prompted with a message along the lines of 'you need to buy the game to continue playing' she asked if we could buy the game so that she could continue playing. In other words, she read and understood exactly what it said.She didn't say 'it stopped working', or 'Daddy can you fix my game', she said 'Daddy, will you buy this game for me'.

Another piece of data. During this time, my wife and I played Everquest, and often one of us would have our daughter sitting on lap while we played. We didn't realize just how well she could read until she asked us what one of the naughty words in chat meant. She even pronounced it correctly, and I don't believe that the tapes even had either of the words "ship" or "sit" in it, which would be the closest words to the one she read - correctly - to my chagrin.

Again, I don't think it has had much if any impact on how well she reads now, but I'm extremely confident that it actually taught her the basics of how to read.

[Richard Masters]

My mom taught me to read (phonetically) when I was two. Yes, I could actually read; I was reading at the eighth-grade level on my first day of school. I hated her for it; she would take me to her friends' houses and show me off, like I was a trained seal or something, and if I didn't want to go or wouldn't perform on command she would hit me. So I not only learned to read, I learned to fear and resent my mother.

I realize that this wasn't normal, but I wish she had just let me learn to read in school the way the rest of the kids did.

I learned to read at about the age of 2. They had me skip one year of kindergarden, so I was almost the youngest in my class. I used to also speak two languages, so my dad liked to show me off. I don't particularly resent it, but I do wish I had developed better social skills: I used to think that the way to make friends was to impress them with intellectual savvy. I still do.

[jhunter1163]

I learned to read at about the age of 2. They had me skip one year of kindergarden, so I was almost the youngest in my class. I used to also speak two languages, so my dad liked to show me off. I don't particularly resent it, but I do wish I had developed better social skills: I used to think that the way to make friends was to impress them with intellectual savvy. I still do.

I spent three months in kindergarten and three months in first grade; that was as far as the school district would let my parents advance me, although academically I was probably junior-high material at the age of five. I agree about the social-skills thing, I was kind of stunted socially because I was a year younger than everyone else in my class. It took me a while to adjust.

[Belgian thought]

Meye dady iz asslip so Ai am riting on his peeC, and yes baybys kan read, but we kannot spell/

[Nosi]

For Pete's sake, have you actually SEEN Sesame Street? Goodness that is a wonderful TV show for kids. I would kill to get my kid to grow up watching Sesame Street. I mean, he'd learn a little spanish, opposites, songs, "one of these things is not like another," and, of course, to count ("AH! AH! AH!" - Elmo and friends were counting the other day, and they counted to 4, and they both go "AH! AH! AH!" afterward - it was the funniest thing (my 18 mo old son a) has never actually watched Sesame Street (he doesn't watch TV, even though it's on), and b) LOVES the Count. He has a stuffed Count, and those are among his favorite books)).


My niece had a flaming crush on the Count when she was four.

[Nosi]

He'll just recognize a couple dozen black and white pictures that happen to be made up of smaller pictograms that we call letters.

The research is pretty conclusive that children learn best from actual interaction; even an adult on a closed-circuit tv is not a good substitute for a live person. Reading to your children, singing alphabet songs and pointing out words in context when you're out in the world is still the best way to foster reading and reading comprehension.

The closest thing I had when I was a kid was those read-along books with a vinyl record enclosed. I enjoyed playing them, even after I learned to read. I understand now that they come on MP3 with downloadable books you buy. (http://www.readalongadventures.com/) God I'm old!:eek:

[Nosi]

And yes, I'm pretty confident that she was actually able to read at age 3 because she didn't just randomly click a link from a list of links returned by a search query. Links that had the word "game" and one other of "princess", "pony", "dress up", or "spongebob" were preferentially clicked. ;)

She would read the instructions for how to get started, or how to install the game. Most of these games were time limited trials, and I distinctly remember that when first prompted with a message along the lines of 'you need to buy the game to continue playing' she asked if we could buy the game so that she could continue playing. In other words, she read and understood exactly what it said.She didn't say 'it stopped working', or 'Daddy can you fix my game', she said 'Daddy, will you buy this game for me'.

Another piece of data. During this time, my wife and I played Everquest, and often one of us would have our daughter sitting on lap while we played. We didn't realize just how well she could read until she asked us what one of the naughty words in chat meant. She even pronounced it correctly, and I don't believe that the tapes even had either of the words "ship" or "sit" in it, which would be the closest words to the one she read - correctly - to my chagrin.


Beware of the Star Ship(t) Petard! (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hoist%20by%20your%20own%20petard.html):D

[Foolmewunz]

<snipped all the stuff based on Mike's not having read the OP nor checked the link>

The OP refers to infants. These programs claim to teach pre-toddlers to read. They do not. They teach them, by rote, to recognize the shapes of words - as pictures, if you will.

LossLeader's post, which you seem to be responding to, is quite correct. And as you can see from other posts in the thread, many people elect to teach their 2 to 3 year old to read. The system they're selling and which the OP refers to is supposedly teaching infants to "read". And since "read", in English, connotes an understanding of the phonetic alphabet that means that the answer to the OP is "Yes, it's B.S.!"

[Greediguts]

I had been told that they discontinued Don Music out of fear that children would bash their heads against pianos. Of course, he was also a Jim Henson character, so that might have something to do with it. He is, without question, my all time favorite muppet.

"Mary had a bicycle,
It was painted red as fire,
And whenever Mary wanted to ride
the bicycle had a flat tire."


ETA: My oldest son's first word was duck, as well. My younger son's first words were, "What's all this about, then?"

Thanks for brightening my day. I will chuckle about this all day long.

You asked for it-

eneNtW-lVhE

[Comrade Raptor]

Oscar sounds like Big Bird in a bad mood.



Good ear, it's the same guy.

I didn't actually know that, but the other day I saw a picture of him puppeteering Oscar while still wearing his Big Bird legs. I forget where I came across that.

[pgwenthold]

You asked for it-

eneNtW-lVhE

Darn that's funny.

"BUT CANARIES AREN'T BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[John Albert]

You asked for it-

eneNtW-lVhE

Brilliant!

Those were the days when Sesame Street had real content. Good writing that explored the creative process in a fun way, while teaching basic lessons.

Today's Sesame Street prominently features Elmo acting moronic and repeating a single word over and over in that obnoxious voice to the tune of "Jingle Bells." The new approach seems more geared toward training children to be brain-dead TV viewers who delight in banal repetition.

[CORed]

Renowned child psychologist, Terry Brazelton, mentions a study in his book, Touchpoints, regarding children learning to read at an exceptionally early age. The study, he states, concluded that children who were taught in this fashion equated reading with adult praise. As the children got older, adults became less enamored with their ability, because eventually all of the children at their age could read. Because of this, the subjects of the study actually regressed past their classmates and ended up doing worse on reading tests than their peers, because the incentive to read had gone away.

So, we can conclude that while it might be nice to have a child reading at a very early age, this method of teaching is detrimental to their education.

Wish I could remember the study he cites - it may have been from Yale in the 70's.

I learned to read before I was in school. I don't believe my parents set out to teach me. They just read to me a lot and I picked it up. I also pretty much taught myself to add and subtract. I had some problems in the early grades in school because I was bored. They were trying to teach me stuff I already knew. A very good fourth grade teacher helped a lot when she figured out what the problem was and moved me to advanced math class, and then I was in the advanced class for everything in the fifth grade.

[Foolmewunz]

Brilliant!

Those were the days when Sesame Street had real content. Good writing that explored the creative process in a fun way, while teaching basic lessons.

Today's Sesame Street prominently features Elmo acting moronic and repeating a single word over and over in that obnoxious voice to the tune of "Jingle Bells." The new approach seems more geared toward training children to be brain-dead TV viewers who delight in banal repetition.

I just took Marcello to his second visit to HK Disneyland. His first was only about six weeks earlier, so he actually remembered part of the arrival drill and as we got off the MTR and were pushing his stroller along the festive walkway towards the park entrance, he started literally doing the chair boogie - dancing around in his seat! Whether or not I think Disneyland is the perfect venue for a toddler was the farthest thing from my mind at that point. His utter joy actually brought tears to my eyes. I walked along crying and laughing and pushing his stroller. So, whether you or I think Barney is retarded or Elmo is infantile? Doesn't matter a wit! Anything that brings that much joy to my child - to any child - is okay by me.

So I'm going to disagree - but solely based on the age group of the kids - on your take on the Elmo nonsense. They're certainly better than Baby First and TeleTubbies, which are just baby-sitting-video-frames. I think that what we're seeing with Elmo nowadays is that Sesame Street has shifted to a slightly younger audience. I wouldn't have ever put my first daughter in front of a Sesame Street broadcast at 19 months, but my son loves them. The broadcasts from 30 years ago would've been beyond him, I think.

I don't get the show, mind you. We've bought some of the extended Elmo DVDs, and they're like 20 minute segments on, say, Books or Dancing or Hands or Feet. If they do shorter versions of those segments on the show, then I'd probably agree that it's just cutesy nonsense. But in 20 minutes, they cover a whole lot of territory, develop little sub-plots, and actually have some material that can challenge kids a bit.

SS also has a great, if a little too politically correct* for my tastes, full-length Elmo DVD on "Holidays" (Christmas, Kwanza, Channukah, etc...). But that's 'cuz I'm an old fart. I can remember when they invented Kwanza, and as a result it seems as silly to me as Festivus does to people who grew up in the 80s and 90s. But for kids - it's a great video, but I don't see how it plays to the toddlers that Elmo appeals to. It's got too much meat in it. Marcello doesn't like it, so we put it away until he's older.

I think Sesame Street still does great stuff. I just think the original shows were so refreshing and so terrific that we always expect them to seem that way. But those shows were primarily for actual pre-schoolers and after-school K levels, I feel. Today's version, at least the Elmo segments, is geared towards a younger set. All the parents I know who have kids who love Elmo usually start 'em out at 15/18 months or so.

I also believe that the original shows worked for adults and were sometimes over the heads of the kids. Today's variations may be a little more kid-appropriate.


*As to the politically correct thing.... I actually find myself looking for Asians in the cast and in the participating kids, so I'm falling afoul of that, myself. Am I wrong? On this skeptics' forum, apparently so. To my kid, though? I want him to see great movies and tv shows, but I want him to see himself or versions of himself in them. Selfish? I don't know.

[Nosi]

From what I understand (it's been years sense I did any SS watching) they simply raided local nurseries for extras.

[sgtbaker]

With trepidation I meekly inquire: is there any objective evidence that kids raised with Sesame Street benefit in any way? Have better reading skills, for example? to get back to the OP. Social skills, or coping skills? as Loss Leaders observations would suggest. It's been my understanding that opinion is divided on this.

Though I have some experience in adult education, I reiterate that early childhood is not my area of expertise. Rocky and Bullwinkle was the cultural high water mark of my youthful televiewing.

I can say the opposite end of the spectrum seems to relate. Little boys who have fathers who are die-hard Simpson fans (to the point of paying satellite tv for Fl, NY, and Ca local channels just so they can watch The Simpsons six times a day, and having no sense of what a three year old should be watching) are likely to grow up idolizing and attempting to copy Bart Simpson. Alright, so there may not be a study but I've seen it happen.

[dudalb]

It's a balancing act. You have to see that your kid learns what he needs to,but you have to be careful not to overload him.
In the 80's, you had a number of cases of kids of Yuppies having nervous breakdowns because they were pushed to suceed so hard by their parents.

[John Albert]

I think Sesame Street still does great stuff. I just think the original shows were so refreshing and so terrific that we always expect them to seem that way. But those shows were primarily for actual pre-schoolers and after-school K levels, I feel. Today's version, at least the Elmo segments, is geared towards a younger set. All the parents I know who have kids who love Elmo usually start 'em out at 15/18 months or so.
You may be right. PBS may be playing to a younger audience with Sesame Street.

I don't have kids of my own, so I'm largely unfamiliar with the joys of hours and hours of Sesame Street, Barney, Thomas the Tank Engine and the exquisite music of Raffi. Just think... in a few short years, you have the Disney Channel and Disney Radio to look forward to! :p

Perhaps SS is a lot like SNL, in that successive generations of viewers tend to judge the current episodes/cast members against the ones they enjoyed in their youth. For me, Snuffalupagus is a figment of Big Bird's imagination, Cookie Monster is still pigging on sugar, and no SNL cast will never live up to the original "Not ready For Prime-Time Players."

[eeyore1954]

I don't think Barney is that bad. It teaches about love , friendship , sharing etc. These are all traits that are good for toddlers to see. And kids generally like it.
Even when watching teletubbies toddlers can learn getting along is better than grabbing another childs toys and hugging is a good thing.
They don't learn numbers or letters but do they need to at that age.

[marplots]

Screw reading. What is a two-year-old going to read anyhow? It's not like they care about some oil leak in the gulf.

What you need to do is give them a useful skill: http://www.break.com/index/two-year-old-toddler-smokes-cigarettes.html

[Danmotron]

Glancing over some consumer complaints site, it seems this scam ropes people in by promising them things they simply can't deliver on - and then when people want a refund, the company refuses to acknowledge the return, and sends the bill for the overpriced useless crapola to a collection agency. (PS - you will be billed multiple times from CHINA after ordering this crap btw...can you teach your baby to say 'money laundering'?)

Basically this is the old old old confidence game of promising something fake and then *********** over the victim with billing contract BS. This same thing is done for those penis enlargement pills. (zero of which work btw - capitalizing on people's ignorance about how sexual organs work on how penile growth beyond dangerous surgery is impossible out of puberty is quite lucrative it seems)

What's laughable to me is how obviously phony and staged the 'testimonials' videos of kids in the ads are. It's patently obvious that they are dubbing audio onto the kids, and picking out moments where it appears the child is picking the correct answer - you just know that they basically filmed a baby doing random baby things until they got footage that looked like he was picking the right thing. Why these ******** aren't in jail for fraud i don't know, and consider their continued existence a blemish on our government's consumer watch-dogs who are supposed to protect people from scams like this.

[Nosi]

Basically this is the old old old confidence game of promising something fake and then *********** over the victim with billing contract BS. This same thing is done for those penis enlargement pills. (zero of which work btw - capitalizing on people's ignorance about how sexual organs work on how penile growth beyond dangerous surgery is impossible out of puberty is quite lucrative it seems)



A man with a micro- (a truely abnormally small) penis could become desperate. However, good sex education would cut down on those enlargement pills. I'm not posting links as they are certainly not safe for work, do your own Google.

[Foolmewunz]

Glancing over some consumer complaints site, it seems this scam ropes people in by promising them things they simply can't deliver on - and then when people want a refund, the company refuses to acknowledge the return, and sends the bill for the overpriced useless crapola to a collection agency. (PS - you will be billed multiple times from CHINA after ordering this crap btw...can you teach your baby to say 'money laundering'?)

Basically this is the old old old confidence game of promising something fake and then *********** over the victim with billing contract BS. This same thing is done for those penis enlargement pills. (zero of which work btw - capitalizing on people's ignorance about how sexual organs work on how penile growth beyond dangerous surgery is impossible out of puberty is quite lucrative it seems)

What's laughable to me is how obviously phony and staged the 'testimonials' videos of kids in the ads are. It's patently obvious that they are dubbing audio onto the kids, and picking out moments where it appears the child is picking the correct answer - you just know that they basically filmed a baby doing random baby things until they got footage that looked like he was picking the right thing. Why these ******** aren't in jail for fraud i don't know, and consider their continued existence a blemish on our government's consumer watch-dogs who are supposed to protect people from scams like this.

Have any links to the phony/staged videos? I'm at work, but I'll look at them later. I just know one that they use over here, and it does not have a lot of cutting, as I've watched it in a store window about forty times (my son loves looking at the baby, not trying to play along, just the excitement any 20 month old gets when he sees another baby).

But I've never heard that the videos themselves were faked. Rather, that its the constant repetition of the flash cards and that they associate the picture of the word (e.g. the shapes the letters form as a design, not working the word out phonetically) with the desired object after having this drilled into their little heads for a couple of hours a day.

[Danmotron]

Have any links to the phony/staged videos? I'm at work, but I'll look at them later. I just know one that they use over here, and it does not have a lot of cutting, as I've watched it in a store window about forty times (my son loves looking at the baby, not trying to play along, just the excitement any 20 month old gets when he sees another baby).

But I've never heard that the videos themselves were faked. Rather, that its the constant repetition of the flash cards and that they associate the picture of the word (e.g. the shapes the letters form as a design, not working the word out phonetically) with the desired object after having this drilled into their little heads for a couple of hours a day.

They do that too - it's just that several of the shots in one of the commercials I saw in particular looked and sounded like it was obvious dubbing. As in the baby made a sound that sounded really really really uncharacteristic for a baby, and the noise had a sound booth ish quality that stood out over the home video recording quality of the video. I'm guessing to a degree here, but it just seemed so transparently fake and awkward.

[Foolmewunz]

They do that too - it's just that several of the shots in one of the commercials I saw in particular looked and sounded like it was obvious dubbing. As in the baby made a sound that sounded really really really uncharacteristic for a baby, and the noise had a sound booth ish quality that stood out over the home video recording quality of the video. I'm guessing to a degree here, but it just seemed so transparently fake and awkward.

Ah, okay. I haven't seen the commercials over here. But I can imagine you're likely right. The one I've seen over here is a long tape of just the daddy showing the kid the words and the kid pointing to the named body parts. They rely on the video to hook you into their booth or shop and then the sales slickies go at you.

[Trakar]

My mom taught me to read (phonetically) when I was two. Yes, I could actually read; I was reading at the eighth-grade level on my first day of school. I hated her for it; she would take me to her friends' houses and show me off, like I was a trained seal or something, and if I didn't want to go or wouldn't perform on command she would hit me. So I not only learned to read, I learned to fear and resent my mother.

I realize that this wasn't normal, but I wish she had just let me learn to read in school the way the rest of the kids did.

In some ways I mirror your learning and had read "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" when most kids my age were struggling to get through "See Spot Run." Of course, my mother bragged a bit among her friends but I never had any bad experiences associated with early reading, only a lifetime's worth of advantages from being an engaged early reader. My son has struggled with reading his whole life, after witnessing and working with son, when my daughter arrived, I started working with her early so that she was reading, writing and performing basic math before she ever started school, their educational and career histories are dramatically different.

As for the detractions from this system, I haven't looked too hard into it, but if the only draw back, is that it is a form of rote repetitious memorization, then that is hardly a detraction, that is what all reading is when it is first learned. If this system can get infants to memorize letters and their phonetic associations into words and then learn to associate some of those words with the appropriate physical objects they represent, then they have gone a long ways toward accomplishing things that usually take most of the first two grades to accomplish.

I don't see what the big issue is? Many parents teach their children to read before they begin school, and this system just seems to be a composite of many of those systems with audio-visual aids. I wouldn't have thought this a terribly controversial or extraordinary system.

[Foolmewunz]

In some ways I mirror your learning and had read "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" when most kids my age were struggling to get through "See Spot Run." Of course, my mother bragged a bit among her friends but I never had any bad experiences associated with early reading, only a lifetime's worth of advantages from being an engaged early reader. My son has struggled with reading his whole life, after witnessing and working with son, when my daughter arrived, I started working with her early so that she was reading, writing and performing basic math before she ever started school, their educational and career histories are dramatically different.

As for the detractions from this system, I haven't looked too hard into it, but if the only draw back, is that it is a form of rote repetitious memorization, then that is hardly a detraction, that is what all reading is when it is first learned. If this system can get infants to memorize letters and their phonetic associations into words and then learn to associate some of those words with the appropriate physical objects they represent, then they have gone a long ways toward accomplishing things that usually take most of the first two grades to accomplish.

I don't see what the big issue is? Many parents teach their children to read before they begin school, and this system just seems to be a composite of many of those systems with audio-visual aids. I wouldn't have thought this a terribly controversial or extraordinary system.

This is not reading. You are assuming that they're teaching the kid to recognize and associate a letter with a sound. They are not. They are teaching the kid to recognize a word by its physical characteristics. Foot, in this system, is not fuh uhhh teh, phonetically. It is hooked sticking up letter next to two circles next to criss-cross letter. They see a picture made up of the letters. If you know anyone who's got this system read the instructions. Drill them an hour or two a day, preferrably two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon,... or something like that.

Any kid would learn to recognize the shapes and pictures that the words make (in their minds) with that much drilling. My son is twenty months and can put together his alphabet puzzle, all 26 letters, in less than two minutes. He doesn't recognize the letters or the sounds they're associated with, though. They're pictures, and kids have great visual memories.

[Trakar]

It is one thing to introduce kids to math, science, literature, etc--to push them once in a while. But if you force kids to do stuff like this, as far as I am concerned, you are a bad parent. Just because little Jonny is not exactly the genius you want him to be at age 3, does not mean you should take it upon yourself to make him one. This is almost as bad as parents creepily dressing their daughters up and putting them in beauty pageants.

Lots of room for personal interpretation.

Who gets to decide what is forcing a kid to be a genius, and what is introducing kids to new educational material and occassionally pushing them to focus on that material? To some people, making kids clean up after themselves and take time-outs when they misbehave, is cruel and unusual to the point of abuse. To others, dedicated tutors and fully scheduled and structured learning plans are simply the minimum they feel is necessary to insure that their children are where they need to be to get an early jump on their education and compete successfully with their peers.

The pageants as they have evolved over the last couple of decades are bizarre.

[Trakar]

Foot, in this system, is not fuh uhhh teh, phonetically.

as opposed to Phh ooooo t (soft "F", umlauted "o" and a hard "T")?


Any kid would learn to recognize the shapes and pictures that the words make (in their minds) with that much drilling. My son is twenty months and can put together his alphabet puzzle, all 26 letters, in less than two minutes. He doesn't recognize the letters or the sounds they're associated with, though. They're pictures, and kids have great visual memories.

And that is a big part of what early reading is all about, memorizing that this word sounds like this and means that object or action. I've only seen one of the commercials and it was a few years ago, so I may be mistaken about the letter sounds and combinations, but even if it is just the rote memorization of a few hundred words and what those words stand for, phonetics is much easier to teach when a child has an established vocabulary and already made the mental connection that words are related to objects and actions.

You make it sound like spending a couple of hours a day focussed on a specific learning task with infants is unusual or somehow excessive?

[Trakar]

The largest legitimate concerns I see with the program are:

a) parents are spending $200+ on a package of materials that they could largely put together themselves for little or no money.

b) too many parents try to implement the program by sitting their child in front of a TV and putting one of the disks in the DVD player, rather than spending interactive time with the child, engaging them throughout the recommended 2+ hours of daily focus time on reading.

I didn't see any of the early child literacy experts knocking the rote memorization techniques of early reading which the program utilizes.

[Dr. Keith]

I didn't see any of the early child literacy experts knocking the rote memorization techniques of early reading which the program utilizes.

My main problem is the implication that teaching your child to read early = success in life. It just plays off the fears of parents.

Here is a more reasoned dissection of this particular program, with some comment on the "whole word" approach used therein: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=569

[Trakar]

My main problem is the implication that teaching your child to read early = success in life. It just plays off the fears of parents.

Here is a more reasoned dissection of this particular program, with some comment on the "whole word" approach used therein: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=569

I would really be interested in reading the argument and examining the references with regards to your implication that early reading is detrimental to later success in life, or even completely unrelated to success in school and later life.

The Blog post is reasoned, perhaps, but definitely not unbiased and without prejudicial influence in its assessment. Overall, however, despite the author's obvious rejection of the commercial product and approach, I don't see anything in his assessment that dismisses or soundly disputes the rote memorization of "whole word" learning to read concept. I'm a proponent of learning and understanding the phonetic system, but I don't see why this should be an absolutist either/or proposition. Show me the large, widespread, multiple studies done which indicate that this type of system is detrimental to infants and the adults that they become and I will take up my pitchfork and join the mob, but if anything, we've seen the dangerous results of knee-jerk pseudoskepticism too often over the last decade or so, and I'm leery of reactionarism that tries to pump up fervent responses among followers based upon subjective personal issues and perceptions rather than compelling evidences.

There are claims that there is no solid scientific evidence supporting the method or product, I'm willing to investigate that issue further, especially as there do seem to be some marketing claims made which imply some degree of supporting evidences. I'm curious, however to see what scientific evidences there are which discredit the "whole word" method.

Ultimately, we probably need to divide the discussion between discussions of this particular product, and the learning concept/principles upon which the product is based.

[Skeptical Greg]

I would really be interested in reading the argument and examining the references with regards to your implication that early reading is detrimental to later success in life, or even completely unrelated to success in school and later life.
Where was that implied ?

The suggestion is that there is no indication,that there is any advantage to early reading development.

Besides, this program does not teach reading, with any reasonable definition of the word..

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a blog article from Steven Novella. Spoiler Warning: It doesn't work.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=569
Guess it's too late to reply to Steve's blog entry. That Cambridge claim is a hoax. I find it amazing that after being revealed as a hoax, this is the second time in as many months I've seen a skeptic reference to the supposed study.

I think I need to dig up the links and post a reminder thread on it.

[Trakar]

Where was that implied ?

If there is not a detriment, then the argument is more with the marketing of this particular product, moreso than any issue of whether there are demonstrable benefits or harms inherent to the infant learning system exemplified in the product.

The suggestion is that there is no indication,that there is any advantage to early reading development.

I think you'll find that, as stated, this is a highly contentious assertion that is largely rejected by many if not most early childhood development and education professionals and specialists.

There are significant and profound differences in stating that children of average intelligence usually catch up to the reading abilities of children taught to read early at around third grade, and saying that there is no advantage to early reading development.


Besides, this program does not teach reading, with any reasonable definition of the word..

What reasonable definition of beginning reading skills would you propose, which would be excluded by what this program offers?

[Skeptical Greg]

Learning the letters of the alphabet and the sounds they represent ...

[Foolmewunz]

as opposed to Phh ooooo t (soft "F", umlauted "o" and a hard "T")?



And that is a big part of what early reading is all about, memorizing that this word sounds like this and means that object or action. I've only seen one of the commercials and it was a few years ago, so I may be mistaken about the letter sounds and combinations, but even if it is just the rote memorization of a few hundred words and what those words stand for, phonetics is much easier to teach when a child has an established vocabulary and already made the mental connection that words are related to objects and actions.




Huh? No, reading is not recognizing that a combination of shapes makes up a heiroglyph. Reading is recogonizing that letters and letter combinations have sounds, and that put together they make up a word and a word has a meaning. One of the words they use in the demo I've seen is bellybutton. Wow! And such a big word, too! Isn't little Johnny smart?

But then why not navel? That's the proper word, after all. It's shorter and would be easier to read. Well here's the trick. The total combination of letters is easier to recognize if you compare

b e l l y b u t t o n

n a v e l

The kid recognizes the 11 letters as a picture of a word, not as a word that he/she has worked out, letter by letter. We have a phonetic alphabet.

You make it sound like spending a couple of hours a day focussed on a specific learning task with infants is unusual or somehow excessive?

Four hours a day? Yes, I'd say that's excessive. I've got a toddler at home, and even with mom and the amah switching off, they'd never get him to sit still for more than 30 minutes on that task. And the more important thing is that infants and toddlers are supposed to be mucking about in their world and learning things that are useful to them, not impressive to us. Exploring and learning to crawl and walk are actually very important to physical brain development.

To be clear - I am not against early reading..... If It Is Reading. I'm against this sort of parlor trick. As I said before, it's like the amazing baby who can look at the pictures of all the presidents and name them. It's a trick. Constant repetition and drilling.

[Foolmewunz]

Learning the letters of the alphabet and the sounds they represent ...

Oh, sure! Say what I was saying (in several over-worded paragraphs) in less than fifteen words! ;)

[Skeptical Greg]

I enjoyed what you had to say. It did a good job of elaborating on my point ...

Thanks for taking the time and effort..

[Foolmewunz]

Except for the fact that I'd never do it to my kid, and thus I hope no one would make the same experiment on theirs..... Well, I think you could prove the efficacy of this "reading".

Make a flash card with 83@&&! on it. Every time you show the card, say "nose" and point to your nose. After you've done this fifty times, show the card and point to the baby's nose and then your nose, each time, saying, "nose".

What would the result be?

Again, anyone having a toddler at home wouldn't have to make the test. We know exactly what would happen. Little Marcello would se 83@&&!, and point to his nose. See how smart my little boy is, I tricked him into showing off by making a mistake. (But it wouldn't be a mistake to him, because he'd have learned it by repetition from me, someone he trusted..... yet, is it reading?)

[pgwenthold]

"I have a great practical joke you can play on a two year old child. If you have a two year old child, and you want to play a practical joke on them, every time you are around them, talk _wrong_. Then, on his first day of school, he asks the teacher, 'May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?'"

Steve Martin - A Wild and Crazy Guy

[Skeptical Greg]

Two year olds are so easy ...:D

[Nosi]

Two year olds are so easy ...:D

Almost as easy as Truthers.:D