PDA

View Full Version : Do you guys trust "Your Baby Can Read"?




RileyE104
08-25-2010, 12:17 PM
YouTube - Demo DVD of Your Baby Can Read (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsWyoBAqIE8)


I'm not sure what to think about it...

AlexMerced
08-25-2010, 12:21 PM
j/k... it's a CFR plot to indoctrinate you baby with the power to stop a goats heart with it's mind... j/k

Deborah K
08-25-2010, 12:25 PM
I've seen the ads and have thought about buying it for my grandchildren but one thing stops me: How can they learn to sound out words phonetically that they didn't learn using this program without having first learned the alphabet? It is impossible to associate every word in the english language with a picture.

TheState
08-25-2010, 12:26 PM
I've seen the ads and have thought about buying it for my grandchildren but one thing stops me: How can they learn to sound out words phonetically that they didn't learn using this program without having first learned the alphabet? It is impossible to associate every word in the english language with a picture.

That's what I've always heard. That these kinds of programs can be detrimental b/c the kid doesn't learn how to actually read the word, but simply to associate a blob of symbols with a particular sound.

Eroberer
08-25-2010, 12:42 PM
I learned to read when I was three years old. I thought it was normal and that everyone learned at such an early age. Not so, as I would later learn that children in Germany, for the most part, learn to read in the first grade (at 6). You could compare German literacy to American literacy and see if the claims are still valid.

jmdrake
08-25-2010, 01:00 PM
It works. I used the book. The thing to remember is that different children learn different ways. One of my kids was doing great with this system and the other wasn't. I eventually got tired and quit doing it. (It's a lot of work to do by the book. I wish I had the DVD.) Eventually he lost the gains he made. Then when they went to school the other kid did much better using the "alphabet" method and the first kid fell behind. Now some might think "See! That proves the alphabet system works better!" I disagree. I think it shows that we do a grave disservice to our children by teaching them all through the "cookie cutter one size fits all" approach and not trying different things with different kids. "Hooked on phonics" isn't best for everyone. "Teach your baby to read" isn't best for everyone. But whatever you do, it's better than letting the kid sit there and watch cartoon network. I so go for it! Small return for little financial investment. And if you have a DVD then there's very little time investment.

jmdrake
08-25-2010, 01:00 PM
That's what I've always heard. That these kinds of programs can be detrimental b/c the kid doesn't learn how to actually read the word, but simply to associate a blob of symbols with a particular sound.

There is no such thing as "detrimental learning".

MelissaWV
08-25-2010, 01:14 PM
There is no such thing as "detrimental learning".

Teaching someone the wrong "method" to arriving at conclusions can be detrimental. As your post earlier pointed out, though, each child's methods are going to be a bit different. The child learning purely to associate a set of sounds with a certain picture may have problems later with synonyms and abstract concepts. The child learning via phonics will have problems with all the exceptions and rules involved at some point. English is a hodgepodge of other linguistic families, which makes it rough to learn. Some children are learning more than one language at the same time, and might do extremely well with that; others will just get confused and learn neither language to anyone's satisfaction.

I learned to read very, very early, and would read beyond my grade level. It was almost like cheating. I would find words that were unknown to me, look them up, and process their definition within the context of whatever book I'd found them in. I might not have the slightest idea how to pronounce it, but I know what it means! Later on, when such words were brought up as part of vocabulary, the only thing I needed to learn was how to say them (and by then it was largely intuitive), while others were struggling with definitions as well.

Working Poor
08-25-2010, 01:27 PM
I learned to read at a very early age and was confused at the way reading was taught in school. I am dsylexic though.

I would try the program with my child but, if it did not interest them I would not force it.. My son loves to read. I also love to read. I loved reading him stories. He loved "the Little Engine that Could". Some of the sweetest memories I have.

jmdrake
08-25-2010, 01:40 PM
Teaching someone the wrong "method" to arriving at conclusions can be detrimental. As your post earlier pointed out, though, each child's methods are going to be a bit different. The child learning purely to associate a set of sounds with a certain picture may have problems later with synonyms and abstract concepts. The child learning via phonics will have problems with all the exceptions and rules involved at some point. English is a hodgepodge of other linguistic families, which makes it rough to learn. Some children are learning more than one language at the same time, and might do extremely well with that; others will just get confused and learn neither language to anyone's satisfaction.

I learned to read very, very early, and would read beyond my grade level. It was almost like cheating. I would find words that were unknown to me, look them up, and process their definition within the context of whatever book I'd found them in. I might not have the slightest idea how to pronounce it, but I know what it means! Later on, when such words were brought up as part of vocabulary, the only thing I needed to learn was how to say them (and by then it was largely intuitive), while others were struggling with definitions as well.

My argument is that it is only "detrimental" if you listen to the naysayers and stop doing it. Going by your own example, early reading (however it was done) didn't turn out to be a problem. I believe that the child who "later has problems with synonyms and abstract concepts" would have had them anyway. Such children get labeled as "developmentally delayed" when really the only problem is the teaching method being employed. They have a "metric mind" and teachers try to open it with "English standard unit" tools. The reason homeschoolers, Montossori kids and Waldorf children do so well is that the education system is bent to them as opposed to bending them to the system.

I would bet my life savings (as little as it is) that if you took 50 kids and did nothing but "hooked on phonics", 50 kids and did nothing but "Teach your baby to read" and 50 kids and did nothing but "cartoon network" the kids in the 1st two groups would by age six be across the board significantly more advanced then the cartoon network kids. If one either style of learning was by itself "detrimental" than I would suspect one or both would be behind the "cartoon network" kids. I've seen enough kids raised on "cartoon network" to be certain the experiment wouldn't turn out that way.

MelissaWV
08-25-2010, 01:54 PM
...

I would bet my life savings (as little as it is) that if you took 50 kids and did nothing but "hooked on phonics", 50 kids and did nothing but "Teach your baby to read" and 50 kids and did nothing but "cartoon network" the kids in the 1st two groups would by age six be across the board significantly more advanced then the cartoon network kids. If one either style of learning was by itself "detrimental" than I would suspect one or both would be behind the "cartoon network" kids. I've seen enough kids raised on "cartoon network" to be certain the experiment wouldn't turn out that way.

English is a bit of a bad example on the detrimental learning thing. Think, instead, of math problems. There are a variety of ways of arriving at an answer, but if you teach someone a shortcut (that doesn't work every time) and they use it every time... they are going to start having problems. Additionally, they don't know WHY they're wrong, because per the method they were taught they should be correct. It's the same way with reading. Let's say you teach a kid "i before e except after c" and they use that every time they see an "ie" or "ei" possibility. They are going to be wrong a surprising percentage of the time. Neighbor, weight, weigh, reins, reign, weird, neither, and so on, would become problematic for that child because they were taught things in an oversimplified way.

Incidentally, cartoons make awesome memory exercises when done in short bursts :)

How doooooooooo?
Welcome to my shop, let me cut your mop, let me shave your crop!
~Daintily~
~Daintily~
Hey, you!
Don't look so perplexed! Why must you be vexed? Can't you see you're next!?
Yes, you're next... ~you're~ so next!

How about a nice close shave, teach your whiskers to behave?
Lots of lather lots of soap (please hold still don't be a dope)!

I remember a lot of things. A disturbing number finds their roots in Saturday morning cartoons, but to me it was a great way of remembering things and being entertained at the same time.

Kill the wabbit ;)

amy31416
08-25-2010, 02:03 PM
I learned to read very, very early, and would read beyond my grade level. It was almost like cheating. I would find words that were unknown to me, look them up, and process their definition within the context of whatever book I'd found them in. I might not have the slightest idea how to pronounce it, but I know what it means! Later on, when such words were brought up as part of vocabulary, the only thing I needed to learn was how to say them (and by then it was largely intuitive), while others were struggling with definitions as well.

We know, we know...you were a genius compared to the 2nd graders, probably still are.

:D

heavenlyboy34
08-25-2010, 02:05 PM
Teaching someone the wrong "method" to arriving at conclusions can be detrimental. As your post earlier pointed out, though, each child's methods are going to be a bit different. The child learning purely to associate a set of sounds with a certain picture may have problems later with synonyms and abstract concepts. The child learning via phonics will have problems with all the exceptions and rules involved at some point. English is a hodgepodge of other linguistic families, which makes it rough to learn. Some children are learning more than one language at the same time, and might do extremely well with that; others will just get confused and learn neither language to anyone's satisfaction.

I learned to read very, very early, and would read beyond my grade level. It was almost like cheating. I would find words that were unknown to me, look them up, and process their definition within the context of whatever book I'd found them in. I might not have the slightest idea how to pronounce it, but I know what it means! Later on, when such words were brought up as part of vocabulary, the only thing I needed to learn was how to say them (and by then it was largely intuitive), while others were struggling with definitions as well.

We have that in common as well. I distinctly remember being asked to read to the other children my age who were still learning. :cool:

MelissaWV
08-25-2010, 02:37 PM
We know, we know...you were a genius compared to the 2nd graders, probably still are.

:D

Given the public school system, the ability to post on here qualifies most of us for that distinction. Not much to brag about ;)

ChaosControl
08-25-2010, 02:40 PM
Sounds kind of like those math things you see which essentially just teach you tricks instead of how to actually do the problems. I don't think I'd go for it.

Edit: Bah late to the point. :o

jmdrake
08-25-2010, 02:56 PM
English is a bit of a bad example on the detrimental learning thing. Think, instead, of math problems. There are a variety of ways of arriving at an answer, but if you teach someone a shortcut (that doesn't work every time) and they use it every time... they are going to start having problems. Additionally, they don't know WHY they're wrong, because per the method they were taught they should be correct. It's the same way with reading. Let's say you teach a kid "i before e except after c" and they use that every time they see an "ie" or "ei" possibility. They are going to be wrong a surprising percentage of the time. Neighbor, weight, weigh, reins, reign, weird, neither, and so on, would become problematic for that child because they were taught things in an oversimplified way.

Incidentally, cartoons make awesome memory exercises when done in short bursts :)

How doooooooooo?
Welcome to my shop, let me cut your mop, let me shave your crop!
~Daintily~
~Daintily~
Hey, you!
Don't look so perplexed! Why must you be vexed? Can't you see you're next!?
Yes, you're next... ~you're~ so next!

How about a nice close shave, teach your whiskers to behave?
Lots of lather lots of soap (please hold still don't be a dope)!

I remember a lot of things. A disturbing number finds their roots in Saturday morning cartoons, but to me it was a great way of remembering things and being entertained at the same time.

Kill the wabbit ;)

Interestingly enough I learned the "i before e except after c" by osmosis. (As in I don't remember when I learned it. I just did.) When I later learned the "or when sounded as "a" as in neighbor and weigh" exception it wasn't a problem at all. No "detriment" than I can fathom. So much for the theory. ;)