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

[John Albert]

As seen on TV: "Your Baby Can Read"

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...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 .

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]

agent alert

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.