Your Baby Can Read....Research?

Mon Mar 1 13:57:03 UTC 2010

Liz and others:

I could not agree more with Joan and have been troubled by the claims Dr. Robert Titzer makes for some time. HIs blog self identifies Titzer as a "Recognized expert and infant researcher."   He goes on to say, " His research on reading during infant and toddler years captured the interest of educators, researchers, parents, government agencies, and the media worldwide. Dr. Titzer has been published in scientific journals, including the prestigious Psychological Review." ( http://www.infantlearning.com/DrTitzer/).  As a researcher in the field of language and literacy, I have yet to come across any research that he has done. In fact, the prestigious Psychology Review paper that Titzer mentions was by Linda Smith, Esther Thelen, Robert Titzer and Dewey McLin entitled, "Knowing in the context of acting: The Task dynamics of the A-not-B error" published in 1999 with no reference at all to reading. Titzer's PhD according to his own report is from the Department of Human Performance at the University of Indiana, which on their lab site is a school of "health, physical education and recreation."  It would be interesting to see what he studied for his dissertation. 

Early reading and language development are areas where we really do have a lot of data.  In fact the recent review of early reading research by the National Early Literacy Panel (September 2009) along with responses to that report ( see Dickinson, D., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Neuman, S., & Burchinal, P. (2009). The language of emergent literacy: A response to the National Institute for Literacy Report on Early Literacy. National Institute for Early Education Research website: http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=252)) can give you a real sense of where the literature is right now.   We have for many years known that children can memorize written symbols and associate them with meaning (very young children know the double arches are associated with McDonalds).  But becoming a real reader requires much more.  And for young children, building a strong base in language and a love for books is probably a better use of time than investing in unproven programs that are more commercially than data-driven. 

Kathy

On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Luckhurst, Joan wrote:

> Dear Liz & others, 
> Chris is exactly on target with her advice. In relation to the evidence base for these kinds of programs, I have yet to find any that is supportive. The only "evidence" appears to be from the anecdotal information provided by the author/publisher.  I have yet to see any independent, unbiased evidence. As Chris so aptly pointed out, early development, including linguistic development involves hands-on, functional and concrete experiences.  The foundation for later literacy, whether it occur early or a bit later is dependent upon these early learning experiences. Unfortunately, there are many opportunists out there who take advantage of parents' eagerness and concern over their children's welfare.
> Joan
> Joan A. Luckhurst, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
> Assistant Professor
> La Salle University
> Benilde 2216
> 1900 W. Olney Ave.
> Philadelphia, Pa  19141
> (215) 951-1609
> 
> The information contained in this electronic transmission and any attachments hereto is considered proprietary and confidential.  Distribution of this material to anyone other than the addressed is prohibited.  Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this transmission or any attachments hereto for any reason other than their
> intended purpose is prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender.
> ________________________________________
> From: info-childes at googlegroups.com [info-childes at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of wing0050 at umn.edu [wing0050 at umn.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:21 PM
> To: info-childes at googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Your Baby Can Read....Research?
> 
> Hi, Liz:
> 
> I am guessing that you are the wonderful type of parent who will provide a
> stimulating environment for your child in a myriad of ways, and so my sense
> is that whether you include early reading in this stimulating environment
> or not, your child will do well. I have been asked this and similar
> questions (re electronic programs, Baby Einstein, signing, early reading,
> etc.) by a significant number of parents, and my response is generally that
> given the gestalt of supportive and stimulating parenting that will occur
> under your tutelage, you child will do well with or without early reading.
> However, having said that, my own bias is that there is not much to be
> gained by this pursuit. Generally, research on preschool readers indicates
> that they tend to join a well-educated cohort at the same reading level by
> grade 3. My own bias, having reviewed the sensorimotor literature and
> worked with a good number of sensorimotor therapists over the course of my
> career as an SLP, is to prioritize for young children hands-on and
> multi-sensory experiences, accompanied by the appropriate oral language, as
> the best foundation for future learning. (I also read that one of the
> causative factors in our immune deficiency-prone society is our lack of
> exposure to good old dirt and other nasty substances at an early age.)
> While I emphasize pre-literacy and literacy skills to my low SES (and
> wonderful) cohort of prschool children and parents, my advice to
> well-educated and middle income and beyond cohorts is to sit back, talk to
> your child, and get dirty.
> Chris Wing,
> Doctoral Candidate
> Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences
> University of Minnesota
> United States of America
> 
> 
> On Feb 28 2010, Aliyah MORGENSTERN wrote:
> 
>> Dear Liz,
>> I don't know the program, so I can't judge but I'm a bit amazed. We
>> want babies to baby-sign at 9 months (which isn't acquiring sign
>> language in a signing environment) and now to read at 16 months...
>> Maybe it is important that children be kept in a non literate world
>> for a few years and use their ears (when they can) before entering
>> language through reading skills. Reading is extremely important, but
>> literacy does change our perspective on language and I'm personally
>> glad we all spend a few years developing our oral language, our
>> gestures, ou prosody, and all that comes with the vocal modality. I do
>> think that literacy changes our whole perspective onclangauge. We gain
>> a new world, we lose what cultures without a writing system did
>> maintain. But I'm not a specialist in that field. It seems to me that
>> reading too soon could get them focussed on different skills and they
>> might not use their natural capacities and the specific cognitive and
>> mostly interactional or social skills as much. But I might be wrong,
>> we all code-switch between two languages, some of us from birth, maybe
>> that is just the same. It might just bring more to them and be an
>> enrichment. I was glad my kids learned to play music at four where
>> some of my friends found that it was totally crazy...
>> If you decide to go ahead, let me know what you think of it.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Aliyah MORGENSTERN
>> 
>> Professeur de linguistique
>> Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3
>> Institut du Monde Anglophone
>> 5 rue de l'Ecole de Médecine
>> 75006 Paris
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 28 févr. 10 à 22:53, Liz P. a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hello Everybody,
>>> I have a 16 month old baby girl, and i just recently acquired the Your
>>> Baby Can Read Program, but when i started watching it, it seems too
>>> good to be true, and i was asking my Language Acquisition professor
>>> and she suggested that i inquire within to see if anyone knows the
>>> research behind this program and if there are any down falls or
>>> reasons why i shouldnt continue with the program with my daughter. I
>>> can see the Pros (shell learn to read and expand her vocabulary) but
>>> what would the Cons be. Thank you so much for your time. Any comments
>>> will be appreciated
>>> 
>>> Liz Pattison
>>> 
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Info-CHILDES" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to info-childes at googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> info-childes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/info-childes?hl=en
>>> .
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Info-CHILDES" group.
> To post to this group, send email to info-childes at googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to info-childes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/info-childes?hl=en.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Info-CHILDES" group.
> To post to this group, send email to info-childes at googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to info-childes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/info-childes?hl=en.
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Info-CHILDES" group.
To post to this group, send email to info-childes at googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to info-childes+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/info-childes?hl=en.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/info-childes/attachments/20100301/030e7de2/attachment.htm>