TJ's Dad has been watching the videos with TJ lately in the evening. They invariably put TJ's Dad to sleep within 20 minutes, so take note for those of you who have insomnia!
He's quite the comedian, and has started getting involved by sprinkling Your Baby Can Read style descriptions when TJ asks "Wuss dat?" He says the word once, then the 2nd time with emphasis, uses the word in a sentence, then asks TJ a question about the word. It has gotten to be increasingly silly and hilarious for me, as TJ's Dad will use a slang meaning or idiom of the word to make a sentence, or follow up with a borderline nonsense question. He also refers to Aleka, Johnella, Hayden, and the other kids as if they are kids we actually know.
Showing posts with label teaching a baby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teaching a baby. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Debate
I enjoy some of these lively debates I stumble across sometimes.
I've had many online discussions about this program as well. There seems to be 3 camps, and many people cross over or straddle a line within these three groups.
1) People who believe that the program works for its intended purpose, whether they would like to do this program with their children or not.
2) People who do not believe that the program works, meaning children cannot learn to read by using this program and that other methods should be used.
3) People who do not believe that children this age should learn to read at all, and whether the program works is irrelevant.
Further, there are 2 groups that cut across all of these groups: people who have have seen and used the materials, and people who have not. Seeing and using the materials convinced me to make the purchase. We actually did not do the trial, we paid for the full package because I already knew that the package was well worth the money.
I understand the point of view of group 3, although I do not agree. The most nonsense seems to come from group number 2 as they seem to cross over into group number 1 and 3 often, and their response tends to be emotional on some level. Something about this program disturbs their world view, views about themselves, and children. Parents should not bring their personal emotional baggage about their upbringing to the table when making decisions about their children's education.
I've had many online discussions about this program as well. There seems to be 3 camps, and many people cross over or straddle a line within these three groups.
1) People who believe that the program works for its intended purpose, whether they would like to do this program with their children or not.
2) People who do not believe that the program works, meaning children cannot learn to read by using this program and that other methods should be used.
3) People who do not believe that children this age should learn to read at all, and whether the program works is irrelevant.
Further, there are 2 groups that cut across all of these groups: people who have have seen and used the materials, and people who have not. Seeing and using the materials convinced me to make the purchase. We actually did not do the trial, we paid for the full package because I already knew that the package was well worth the money.
I understand the point of view of group 3, although I do not agree. The most nonsense seems to come from group number 2 as they seem to cross over into group number 1 and 3 often, and their response tends to be emotional on some level. Something about this program disturbs their world view, views about themselves, and children. Parents should not bring their personal emotional baggage about their upbringing to the table when making decisions about their children's education.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
E-I-E-I-OOOOOO!!!!
Volume 2 was a delight for us. Like I said before, it introduces a lot of new words at a faster pace. There's less explanation and repetition. TJ enjoyed trying to new words out (tig=pig!). He's always loved the song "Old MacDonald" and went around saying nothing but "E-I-E-I-O!" for about a week a month or so ago. And revisiting the Itsy Bitsy Spider was fun. He can do all of the motions except the finger part, which he does try to do but with only one hand. It's too cute for words. He watched nearly the whole thing with interest, and I tried to reinforce the body part words, like chin, fingers, foot, and leg. Oh, and the best of all, bellybutton.
The body part words and action words are the good part of the program. I will be purchasing a video called Kid 20/20 which introduces the 220 Dolch sight words that early readers need to transition to fluency. We will also be doing Leapfrog Letter Factory, which is supposed to be the gold standard introduction to phonics along with Starfall.com. We are still working on Dr. Titzer's first milestone. I figure when TJ's talking catches up, and he is becoming more verbally communicative every day, it will be much easier to get an accurate assessment of whether my baby can read.
The body part words and action words are the good part of the program. I will be purchasing a video called Kid 20/20 which introduces the 220 Dolch sight words that early readers need to transition to fluency. We will also be doing Leapfrog Letter Factory, which is supposed to be the gold standard introduction to phonics along with Starfall.com. We are still working on Dr. Titzer's first milestone. I figure when TJ's talking catches up, and he is becoming more verbally communicative every day, it will be much easier to get an accurate assessment of whether my baby can read.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Implementing Strategy
So, Dr. Titzer's blog gives many more practical insights into the use of the system. Yes, he probably wrote this somewhere in the Parent Guide, but I guess I am in need of a refresher.
"It is helpful to repeat a subset of the words more frequently than the other words. In the DVDs we repeat the words “clap,” “wave,” “mouth,” and “nose” more than we repeat other words. Please repeat these four words more than other words when your child has just started our program. Use our books, sliding word cards, and our other word cards. Also, show the child these words in other contexts on paper, whiteboards, signs, etc
Eventually your child will remember how the words look in addition to understanding what the words mean. The first word is probably the most difficult word to learn, so repeat a few words many times in the initial months."
So, as I've said in previous posts, I have tried a few flashcard games with TJ. They were mostly random words that I thought he liked, I would show him 2 or more cards and ask him to bring me the card that said a particular word. This apparently may not be the best way to do this. I am going to take the 4 words he's suggested here and review them several times a day with TJ. He knows each of these words, the meaning, and can point to the body parts, clap, and wave. I say several times, but I should probably set the number of times, so I will say once in the morning and once at night. Let's give this routine a week or two, and see if as Dr. Titzer says TJ begins to recognize these 4 words on sight. If he does, I promise my blog readers I will make a video!
"It is helpful to repeat a subset of the words more frequently than the other words. In the DVDs we repeat the words “clap,” “wave,” “mouth,” and “nose” more than we repeat other words. Please repeat these four words more than other words when your child has just started our program. Use our books, sliding word cards, and our other word cards. Also, show the child these words in other contexts on paper, whiteboards, signs, etc
Eventually your child will remember how the words look in addition to understanding what the words mean. The first word is probably the most difficult word to learn, so repeat a few words many times in the initial months."
So, as I've said in previous posts, I have tried a few flashcard games with TJ. They were mostly random words that I thought he liked, I would show him 2 or more cards and ask him to bring me the card that said a particular word. This apparently may not be the best way to do this. I am going to take the 4 words he's suggested here and review them several times a day with TJ. He knows each of these words, the meaning, and can point to the body parts, clap, and wave. I say several times, but I should probably set the number of times, so I will say once in the morning and once at night. Let's give this routine a week or two, and see if as Dr. Titzer says TJ begins to recognize these 4 words on sight. If he does, I promise my blog readers I will make a video!
Friday, June 19, 2009
More Important than Baby Yoga or Infant Massage
During the DVD workshop, Dr. Titzer mentioned some thing about doing oral tongue and face exercises to help your baby learn how to use his mouth and learn to talk. We have been doing this for quite some time without knowing. We often buzz our lips, and make rude noises, and when TJ imitates us we always encouraged it.
He went into detail about how to do the exercises without demonstrating actually. It started with getting in front of the mirror and doing different motions with the tongue. Then, to carefully place your tongue and lips, showing the baby how the mouth is places when making certain sounds. Also, to encourage the baby to repeat random babbles when they come up with a new one, especially the harder ones like 'L' and 'th.' I wished I had more details about these exercises. How useful and enlightening! I was unaware that there was anything you could do to help your baby learn to talk aside from talking to them.
He went into detail about how to do the exercises without demonstrating actually. It started with getting in front of the mirror and doing different motions with the tongue. Then, to carefully place your tongue and lips, showing the baby how the mouth is places when making certain sounds. Also, to encourage the baby to repeat random babbles when they come up with a new one, especially the harder ones like 'L' and 'th.' I wished I had more details about these exercises. How useful and enlightening! I was unaware that there was anything you could do to help your baby learn to talk aside from talking to them.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Why not just read to him?
This is a pretty simple question. In his book "How to Teach a Baby to Read" Glenn Doman, the pioneer of the flashcard method for teaching children to read, states the very simple answer. Most children with normal eyesight do not have the ability to clearly see small print. The great majority of children's books have print that is just too small for a baby. Lots of people believe that reading to a child is a legitimate method of teaching the child to read. I don't believe many children age 4 or under have ever been taught to read by being read to. At some point, children have to be exposed to print large enough for them to see if they are to read at such a young age. Hence, the effectiveness of the DVDs where the print shown is large, clear, and unambiguous.
The Cons
It seems to me that the pros of teaching a baby to read are fairly obvious. At the very least, if a baby learns to read early he can occupy his time with the activities of his choosing later in childhood, age 5-6 when most other kids are spending their time learning to read. At best, the brain is molded and shaped in preparation for higher level of thinking earlier.
I have read a few books, essays, and on line articles on the subject of the negatives of teaching a baby to read. There seems to be at least two major trains of thought. One takes the view that the child has more important developmental tasks to accomplish first before reading can or should happen. Some are more blunt, and say that you are taking a child's childhood away by introducing academics at such an early age. The second train of thought is that learning to read early is detrimental to reading later.
I am not well-versed enough in childhood development to deconstruct these arguments, I am just a Mom. However, I can say that the first reasoning, that babies should only pursue non-academic play, is purely a matter of opinion. It is a parenting choice that a parent makes once they learn that babies can learn to read (not everyone knows this), and they choose not to pursue teaching their babies. I think this is a perfectly fine parenting choice. My parents did not know babies could learn to read, did not teach us as babies, and my siblings and I all are excellent readers with post-graduate education. I have found that teaching my baby to read, so far, has not taken up much time and since he is engaged in play for the rest of the entire day, I don't think he is missing out on much at all. Viewing the videos takes up about 40 minutes, and I feel that he has fun "singing" the songs, and pointing to his nose.
The second point, that reading early makes children poor readers later is just counter-intuitive. The claim is that whole word reading causes dyslexia, or exacerbates the issue with dyslexic children. Or, the claim is that whole word reading is not really reading at all, but rather it is memorization or training.
The first claim I cannot really comment on other than I have not seen any citations to any proof, or even any anecdotal claims. The second claim is combination silliness and denial at its finest. The proponents of this claim is that using phonics, BKA "sounding out words" for the rest of us, is reading and memorizing the shape and look of a word is not reading.
I don't want to rant because that is not the purpose of this blog, but I used to tutor some very young early readers several years ago. There was one infinitely cute little Cambodian girl whose parents did not speak English who would need a couple of hours of help with her homework nearly every day. She could sound words out. It was laborious, frustrating, and once she cried. She would struggle to get through a passage, sounding out every word, then have absolutely no idea what she just read. The comprehension just was not there. After this process, I would read the passage to her, then sometimes have her read it aloud or to herself again. Even if I read the comprehension questions to her, she would still often have very low comprehension and I would point to the answer in the passage for her to read once again. If she had at least some words memorized by sight, perhaps she would have reached fluency earlier, but at least at the time I was tutoring her she was so far from that I was pretty worried for her. I am not against the phonics approach, but saying that phonics is reading and sight memorization is not reading seems to me to be agenda oriented and not taking into account the realities and results of each type of approach.
I have read a few books, essays, and on line articles on the subject of the negatives of teaching a baby to read. There seems to be at least two major trains of thought. One takes the view that the child has more important developmental tasks to accomplish first before reading can or should happen. Some are more blunt, and say that you are taking a child's childhood away by introducing academics at such an early age. The second train of thought is that learning to read early is detrimental to reading later.
I am not well-versed enough in childhood development to deconstruct these arguments, I am just a Mom. However, I can say that the first reasoning, that babies should only pursue non-academic play, is purely a matter of opinion. It is a parenting choice that a parent makes once they learn that babies can learn to read (not everyone knows this), and they choose not to pursue teaching their babies. I think this is a perfectly fine parenting choice. My parents did not know babies could learn to read, did not teach us as babies, and my siblings and I all are excellent readers with post-graduate education. I have found that teaching my baby to read, so far, has not taken up much time and since he is engaged in play for the rest of the entire day, I don't think he is missing out on much at all. Viewing the videos takes up about 40 minutes, and I feel that he has fun "singing" the songs, and pointing to his nose.
The second point, that reading early makes children poor readers later is just counter-intuitive. The claim is that whole word reading causes dyslexia, or exacerbates the issue with dyslexic children. Or, the claim is that whole word reading is not really reading at all, but rather it is memorization or training.
The first claim I cannot really comment on other than I have not seen any citations to any proof, or even any anecdotal claims. The second claim is combination silliness and denial at its finest. The proponents of this claim is that using phonics, BKA "sounding out words" for the rest of us, is reading and memorizing the shape and look of a word is not reading.
I don't want to rant because that is not the purpose of this blog, but I used to tutor some very young early readers several years ago. There was one infinitely cute little Cambodian girl whose parents did not speak English who would need a couple of hours of help with her homework nearly every day. She could sound words out. It was laborious, frustrating, and once she cried. She would struggle to get through a passage, sounding out every word, then have absolutely no idea what she just read. The comprehension just was not there. After this process, I would read the passage to her, then sometimes have her read it aloud or to herself again. Even if I read the comprehension questions to her, she would still often have very low comprehension and I would point to the answer in the passage for her to read once again. If she had at least some words memorized by sight, perhaps she would have reached fluency earlier, but at least at the time I was tutoring her she was so far from that I was pretty worried for her. I am not against the phonics approach, but saying that phonics is reading and sight memorization is not reading seems to me to be agenda oriented and not taking into account the realities and results of each type of approach.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Teaching A Baby
What types of things can you teach a baby? And how will you know if they actually learned them?
Here are the things that babies can learn:
1) Reading
2) Music
3) Math
4) Multiple Languages
5) Sign Language
6) Encyclopedic Knowledge
7) Physical skills
8) Many other skills
I had to think for awhile, after learning about everything that a baby could learn, about what I wanted my baby to learn and why. First, I considered all of the skills that would be necessary for him to be a successful student and second, I considered all of the skills that would enhance his life as a young baby and toddler. I came to the conclusion that reading, math, and music were the primary skills I would focus on, taking into account what I know about my baby's personality currently and what my personal beliefs are concerning what education should be. However, many could come to a different conclusion ultimately. I see how a bilingual mother of twins might prioritize multiple languages and physical skills over math for instance. Or how a busy working mother with older kids may choose to only teach reading. It really is an individual decision that parents have to make.
And that brings me to the second question I presented. How will you know your baby learned the things that you are trying to teach them? Well, if you are teaching a very young infant, you probably will not know. If you are teaching an other child, they will either demonstrate what they know spontaneously, if you ask, or not at all. There is absolutely no guarantee that they will show you that they have learned anything at all before they are ready. So this, embarking on educating a baby, is a labor of love and gift from parent to child that is given freely, and nothing is required or asked of the baby in return for the parents' time and effort. I know that that may be hard to swallow at first, but it is very necessary to understand this, lest you become those flashcard parents on the movie Parenthood, whose entire life became wrapped up in creating a genius instead of letting the child be a child.
Here are the things that babies can learn:
1) Reading
2) Music
3) Math
4) Multiple Languages
5) Sign Language
6) Encyclopedic Knowledge
7) Physical skills
8) Many other skills
I had to think for awhile, after learning about everything that a baby could learn, about what I wanted my baby to learn and why. First, I considered all of the skills that would be necessary for him to be a successful student and second, I considered all of the skills that would enhance his life as a young baby and toddler. I came to the conclusion that reading, math, and music were the primary skills I would focus on, taking into account what I know about my baby's personality currently and what my personal beliefs are concerning what education should be. However, many could come to a different conclusion ultimately. I see how a bilingual mother of twins might prioritize multiple languages and physical skills over math for instance. Or how a busy working mother with older kids may choose to only teach reading. It really is an individual decision that parents have to make.
And that brings me to the second question I presented. How will you know your baby learned the things that you are trying to teach them? Well, if you are teaching a very young infant, you probably will not know. If you are teaching an other child, they will either demonstrate what they know spontaneously, if you ask, or not at all. There is absolutely no guarantee that they will show you that they have learned anything at all before they are ready. So this, embarking on educating a baby, is a labor of love and gift from parent to child that is given freely, and nothing is required or asked of the baby in return for the parents' time and effort. I know that that may be hard to swallow at first, but it is very necessary to understand this, lest you become those flashcard parents on the movie Parenthood, whose entire life became wrapped up in creating a genius instead of letting the child be a child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
