YourBabyCanRead.com?

[Professor Yaffle]

I just think they can get pretty much all the interaction they can handle with general play, reading books to them and wide variety of experiences. You don't need anything specifically oriented to teaching them something - incidental learning I think of it as. Indeed I think it can be harmful when too much focus is put on any one ability because it can make the child frustrated that they don't understand it yet and turn them off whatever it is you are trying to teach them.

In most of europe there is no formal type learning of reading, writing etc until the age of about 6 and their kids seem to have "caught up" to places like the UK and US (where we start this earlier) within a couple of years.

ETA - and I remember that some of the "pushy" programmes have been criticised because they use DVDs a lot, leading to reduced interaction, and actually slightly delayed language skills.

ETA2: I think it is far more important to show kids that books are fun and pleasurable than to teach them to read a couple of months earlier.

 

[drkitten]

I just think they can get pretty much all the interaction they can handle with general play, reading books to them and wide variety of experiences.

... which a lot of parents don't give. In fact, a lot of products are pushed to persuade parents not to give that.

Dora the Explorer, for example, is actually a lousy babysitter, as are the Teletubbies.

But they're used for that purpose a lot, even among some professional child care companies, because it reduces the demand for staff.

 

[pgwenthold]

ETA2: I think it is far more important to show kids that books are fun and pleasurable than to teach them to read a couple of months earlier.

I have been reading Encyclopedia Brown with my 5 month old. He hasn't quite solved any of the cases yet, but then, he tends to get a little fussy halfway through the second case of the night, so he really only has a real chance on half of them.

 

[Ernie M]

Although the OP mentioned yourbabycanread.com specifically, here are some brief articles about a similar help-your-baby-be smarter-faster concept, about Baby Einstein products.

Videos as a baby brain drain - A study finds infants who view some popular educational products learn fewer words.

TIME Health & Science
Baby Einsteins: Not So Smart After All

Disney No Longer Marketing Baby Einstein Videos as Educational
Here's the first sentence in the opening paragraph:

As a result of CCFC’s Federal Trade Commission complaint, Baby Einstein has completely redesigned its website and is no longer making educational claims about its DVDs and videos.

The Genius of 'Baby Einstein'

Just thought I'd pass these on for your reference.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Thanks Ernie, that's the one I was thinking about in my earlier post.

 

[pgwenthold]

We have a couple of the Baby Einstein books (and one of the videos, but we tend to not watch it). The books to me don't seem any more special than any other non-fiction children's books. They play on the same sort of idea, that it is somehow "smarter" to learn words in different languages, for example, than to learn different animals/sounds or the different kinds of construction equipment.

I read them to my son, on occasion, just for variety, but Dr Seuss books with the made up words are just as useful, I think (and something like On Beyond Zebra by Dr. Suess is spectacular, with a depth that makes it revelant for many years)

 

[Foolmewunz]

... which a lot of parents don't give. In fact, a lot of products are pushed to persuade parents not to give that.

Dora the Explorer, for example, is actually a lousy babysitter, as are the Teletubbies.

But they're used for that purpose a lot, even among some professional child care companies, because it reduces the demand for staff.

I first saw the Teletubbies a couple of years ago. I hadn't realized it was a Babysitter-In-A-Box. It really is just repetitive words and images, the kind of stuff that a decent (sorry to be so judgmental) parent or caregiver would be doing. We get Baby First here, and I think it's a little better as you can be more interactive with the baby, but the Teletubbies has almost nothing beyond things to distract the kid while you have your second cup of cha.

Apropo to the OP, I passed a playgroup in a mall near my new flat (I just moved about seven days ago) and they're playing a video in the window; yet another one of these "teach baby to read" products. It's neither of the two already mentioned, so this is evidently quite the cottage industry. (But this is Asia - Hong Kong in particular, and there's such a trend towards pressuring your kids here that in that same indoor mall there are no fewer than seven different professional outlets for kids:

1 piano school
1 stringed instrument school
1 art center
1 learn to read center
1 'numbers can be fun' center
2 day care

and they're all packed with kids as late as 7 to 7:30 when I'm traversing the area on my way home.

 

[drkitten]

I first saw the Teletubbies a couple of years ago. I hadn't realized it was a Babysitter-In-A-Box.

Well, if you can get the little angel to sit down in front of the television and shut the hell up for half an hour while you get dinner ready, it can be a godsend to a busy parent. In that sense, it can be a very effective babysitter.

The problem is that if you overuse it, you really damage the child. Half an hour once in a while is fine. But if you use it in lieu of interacting with the kid there's an issue.

I first noticed this with my then-quite-young niece. She had been raised by her (non-working) mother and hadn't set foot in a day care. As a result, she hadn't learned about "sitting still and playing with nicely your toys while the caregiver deals with one of the fifteen other children"; she was much more interactive, insisted on showing what she was doing to everyone around, talked to everyone, &c. Because more or less from day 1, everything she did involved interaction with other people.

It really is just repetitive words and images, the kind of stuff that a decent (sorry to be so judgmental) parent or caregiver would be doing.

Except that the baby doesn't interact with Teletubbies (or any TV show, for that matter, even Dora). The child sees and responds to what's on the screen, but the screen doesn't see and respond to what the child does, the way a person can't help but do.

 

[pgwenthold]

I first noticed this with my then-quite-young niece. She had been raised by her (non-working) mother and hadn't set foot in a day care. As a result, she hadn't learned about "sitting still and playing with nicely your toys while the caregiver deals with one of the fifteen other children";

I have a feeling my son is going to be the same. For the first year, his mom and I are taking turns caring for him during the day, while the other works (we each work 2-3 days a week). When he's not napping (like now), he's pretty much with us to some extent full time. He'll start daycare after his first birthday, and who knows what's going to happen when he has to share attention. Then again, there will be other kids around, and he'll be old enough to interact with them.

He's still pretty young (5 mos), but I do try to encourage him to play on his own here and there. But of course, with a baby that young, it might last 10 mins, if I am nearby to encourage him (and retrieve the toys he's thrown)

 

[Jeff Corey]

Well, if you can get the little angel to sit down in front of the television and shut the hell up for half an hour while you get dinner ready, it can be a godsend to a busy parent. In that sense, it can be a very effective babysitter.

The problem is that if you overuse it, you really damage the child. Half an hour once in a while is fine. But if you use it in lieu of interacting with the kid there's an issue.

I first noticed this with my then-quite-young niece. She had been raised by her (non-working) mother and hadn't set foot in a day care. As a result, she hadn't learned about "sitting still and playing with nicely your toys while the caregiver deals with one of the fifteen other children"; she was much more interactive, insisted on showing what she was doing to everyone around, talked to everyone, &c. Because more or less from day 1, everything she did involved interaction with other people.



Except that the baby doesn't interact with Teletubbies (or any TV show, for that matter, even Dora). The child sees and responds to what's on the screen, but the screen doesn't see and respond to what the child does, the way a person can't help but do.

Good point. The important factor in all learning is the consequences of behavior. When you interact with a child, that means they have the opportunity to form cause and effect relationships. Passive learning doesn't work older people, either.

 

[YeahDude]

When your baby can calculate surface integrals, let me know.

It has been 5 minutes since I read this and I am still laughing... Hilarious.


My 20 month old seems to have a larger vocabulary than a lot of other children her age(but then again I am on the ground floor and cannot see the whole field, it could just be my limited interaction with other 2 and unders). I am going to create my own system based on this result. It involves actual parenting. It is amazing what children can learn if you just spend some time WITH them. I will iron out the details and sell it for the low cost of 6 installments of $17.23!

 

[PixyMisa]

My three year old wants to learn physics. I've been teaching her everything she can comprehend at this point. We're working on Newton's 3rd Law of Motion right now and it's giving her some trouble. It usually gives high school kids trouble too though, honestly. She loves pointing out instances where inertia explains the behavior of objects.

There was this series of books published in Australia back in the early 70's, the Headstart Science Series. If I Were an Atom, If I Met a Molecule, If I Were Radioactive, If I Were an Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifold...

Taught me everything a preschooler needs to know about particle physics, quantum mechanics, and the correct grammatical use of the subjunctive.

I still have them.

 

[arthwollipot]

If I Were an Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifold...

Borzhe moi!

 

[drkitten]

Borzhe moi!

This I know from nothing.

 

[Prometheus]

YBCR are just over-priced flashcards. You can accomplish much the same thing by just taping handwritten labels to common objects in your home. Lot's of interaction time with parents and other people is far more useful IMHO.

That said, I don't want to be too down on products like YBCR, as they may well help to educate parents who all too often underestimate their children's abilities.

Shameless Parental Bragging: My two year old floored me last month when she started spontaneously translating between English and French (My wife speaks to her in French, and I speak to her in English; now whenever one of us says something to her, she repeats it in the other language to the other parent). [/proud-daddy]

 

[arthwollipot]

*Forum love at recognition of obscure pop-culture references*

 

[SusanB-M1]

YBCR are just over-priced flashcards. You can accomplish much the same thing by just taping handwritten labels to common objects in your home. Lot's of interaction time with parents and other people is far more useful IMHO.

And of course costs a whole lot less! When my children were small (nearly 50 years ago now) there was a teaching kit called 'Teach Your Baby To Read', which was really just as you say - clear, lower case, large, black lettering on a large card which should be attached to its object, so that the child would always associate the word with the object and the sound. Seems like a sensible sort of idea.

Shameless Parental Bragging: My two year old floored me last month when she started spontaneously translating between English and French (My wife speaks to her in French, and I speak to her in English; now whenever one of us says something to her, she repeats it in the other language to the other parent). [/proud-daddy]

Oh, that is excellent! It just goes to show that the very best way for children to learn two languages (or even three) is to have those first two years hearing them used all the time.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Shameless Parental Bragging: My two year old floored me last month when she started spontaneously translating between English and French (My wife speaks to her in French, and I speak to her in English; now whenever one of us says something to her, she repeats it in the other language to the other parent). [/proud-daddy]

Call me a sceptic.

She has an extensive adult vocabulary in either language?

Or would you and spouse maybe be talking to each other in Franglish baby talk by any chance? Ce n'est ce pas un problem, mais je just wondered...

 

[quixotecoyote]

Shameless Parental Bragging: My two year old floored me last month when she started spontaneously translating between English and French (My wife speaks to her in French, and I speak to her in English; now whenever one of us says something to her, she repeats it in the other language to the other parent). [/proud-daddy]

Mrs. Coyote and I were pondering the best way to raise a bilingual English/French speaking child. You'll have to let us know how it goes.

 

[Prometheus]

Call me a sceptic.

She has an extensive adult vocabulary in either language?

Or would you and spouse maybe be talking to each other in Franglish baby talk by any chance? Ce n'est ce pas un problem, mais je just wondered...

No, of course she doesn't have an adult vocabulary. Her vocabulary in English is perhaps slightly above average for her age, and a little bit less in French, since she doesn't have as many French speakers to practice with (just my wife and her sister + whenever we watch videos with her we get DVD's with both languages and watch the same program twice, once in each language). It's difficult to assess just what her vocabulary is, though, since she's learning new words almost every day.