Glenn Doman - pros and cons
janet clark
Has anyone used Glen Doman's techniques? I am very much interested in
hearing about others experiences, good or bad. Has anyone used any other
particular methods of early stimulation?
Sometimes I worry that teaching my baby Jack math and reading (using
Glenn Doman's methods) at such a young age might stifle his creativity. It
might guide his interests in the world too much. Do you think so? Other
mothers I have talked to who have done this with their babies say that this
is not true. I guess my compromise is to not do too much of it in one day.
At 6 months Jack is into everything, crawling everywhere and pulling
himself up on the chairs and couches and me and hitting his head an awful
lot. I guess I say this because it reassures me the majority or the day he
is doing exactly what he wants with very little interference from me.
For back ground information here is part of a post I sent to
alt.education.alternative
****************************************************************************
I have a son Jack who was 5 months old on April 18. I have been a
full time mother since that time (before that I was an E.E.). I have been
immersing him in learning since he was 3 months. At that time I became
aware of the literature concerning children that were stimulated early in
life, particularly Edith Stern (see "Joy of Learning" by Aaron Stern) and
Karl Witte.(see "The Education of Karl Witte" by Johann Witte translated by
Leo Wiener) I became open to the possibility that the mind of the young
child desires and is capable of learning at an incredible rate. And, as a
result the child's mental capacity could be permanently increased.
I try to stimulate Jack by teaching him the name and the workings
of objects within the house. I have been speaking to him as I would any
other intelligent companion that is trying to learn the English language.
I have been exposing him to fine classical music, mostly Bach and Mozart
since he was born.
I then became aware of Glen Doman's work at the Institute for the
Achievement of Human potential (IAHP). Since Jack was 4 months I have been
teaching him to read words and the dot method of mathematics using Glenn
Doman's techniques. At this time however, whenever I bring out the cards
he yawns.
What effect has all this had? Inevitably people who watch him
remark about his alertness and his happiness. He loves to catch peoples
attention and then smile at them. I think one reason he is so happy is
that I am feeding his insatiable hunger for knowledge. I would stop
everything I am doing if he seemed anxious or unhappy.
Physically he is several months in advance of his age group. He
has been up on all fours since he was a little over 4 months old. He has
been able to pick objects up between his thumb and fingers since he was
around three months of age (unsure exactly when). He Just started cross
pattern crawling up on all fours at 5 1/2 months. Every time I leave a
room with him in my arms he wants to turn off the light switch. He seems
to know the name of many objects around the house.
****************************************************************************
Please let me know what you think good or bad? I just want what is best
for my son.
Thanks
Janet Brockett
**********************************************************
email-> cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil
**********************************************************
naomi pardue
> Hello
> Has anyone used Glen Doman's techniques? I am very much interested in
> hearing about others experiences, good or bad. Has anyone used any other
> particular methods of early stimulation?
> Sometimes I worry that teaching my baby Jack math and reading (using
> Glenn Doman's methods) at such a young age might stifle his creativity. It
> might guide his interests in the world too much. Do you think so? Other
> At 6 months Jack is into everything, crawling everywhere and pulling
> himself up on the chairs and couches and me and hitting his head an awful
> lot. I guess I say this because it reassures me the majority or the day he
> is doing exactly what he wants with very little interference from me.
> I have a son Jack who was 5 months old on April 18. I have been a
> full time mother since that time (before that I was an E.E.). I have been
> immersing him in learning since he was 3 months. At that time I became
I guess my only question is, "what's the rush?" Talking to an infant is
great. Letting him hear classical music is wonderful. But what are you
acheiving by having a baby who walks at 8 months and can "read"
flashcards? If he's being raised in a home with plenty of
age-appropriate stimulation he will develop at the rate he is supposed to.
Naomi
Richard Carnes
: Has anyone used Glen Doman's techniques? I am very much
: interested in hearing about others experiences, good or bad. Has
: anyone used any other particular methods of early stimulation?
I'm considering writing a short FAQ file on educational or athletic
programs such as Doman's for babies and preschoolers, although I'd
prefer that it be written by a child psychologist if possible. All
thoughtful input is welcome. A few general comments follow.
: I have a son Jack who was 5 months old on April 18. I have been a
: full time mother since that time (before that I was an E.E.). I have
: been immersing him in learning since he was 3 months. At that time I
: became aware of the literature concerning children that were
: stimulated early in life, particularly Edith Stern (see "Joy of
: Learning" by Aaron Stern) and Karl Witte.(see "The Education of Karl
: Witte" by Johann Witte translated by Leo Wiener) I became open to the
: possibility that the mind of the young child desires and is capable of
: learning at an incredible rate.
Indeed: the only way you can stop a child from learning is to stop him
from breathing or else send him to school (a typical school, anyway,
and they don't often manage to kill the thirst for learning entirely).
When children learn, they're doin' what comes naturally. Trying to
teach children that "learning is fun" is like trying to teach them
that playing or breathing is fun.
: And, as a result the child's mental
: capacity could be permanently increased.
Unfortunately, the evidence from research contradicts this notion, so
far as I am aware.
: I try to stimulate Jack by teaching him the name and the
: workings of objects within the house. I have been speaking to him as
: I would any other intelligent companion that is trying to learn the
: English language. I have been exposing him to fine classical music,
: mostly Bach and Mozart since he was born.
I congratulate you on your dedication as well as your musical taste.
: I then became aware of Glen Doman's work at the Institute for
: the Achievement of Human potential (IAHP). Since Jack was 4 months I
: have been teaching him to read words and the dot method of mathematics
: using Glenn Doman's techniques. At this time however, whenever I
: bring out the cards he yawns.
Interesting, isn't it? What would you think if your husband yawned
whenever you brought up a certain subject? Babies are marvelously
communicative, if we can understand them. Child psychologist David
Elkind tells of another baby's reaction:
"I recall observing a mother showing flash cards to her six-month-old.
The baby was squirming and looking every which way but at the
cards. But the mother insisted, and eventually the baby threw up on
its bib (expressing my sentiments exactly). Yet the mother was too
caught up in the teaching and proclaimed, 'If you stick with it, they
will come through for you.' Perhaps, but at the risk of impairing a
healthy sense of trust and promoting a strong sense of distrust."
In general, parents should be wary of "experts" who say that all
babies should be treated alike, who give one rigid formula concerning
a behavioral issue to be followed with all babies. Some of that
blanket advice is valid, e.g., you should pay attention to your baby.
But in _Teach Your Baby Math_, Doman states dogmatically that "Tiny
children *should* learn math (because it is an advantage to do math
better and more easily)." *All* tiny children? How tiny? Doman
cites no published research to back up his statement, nor does he
explain how doing math is useful to a baby.
Doman's programs, and those of other advocates of early formal
instruction, are discussed in the following two books, both by child
psychologists:
Evelyn B. Thoman and Sue Browder, _Born Dancing_, especially
Chapter 1.
David Elkind, _Miseducation_.
Please read them if you want to be aware of the risks of programs like
Doman's.
Richard
Sarah
car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) wrote:
| I'm considering writing a short FAQ file on educational or athletic
| programs such as Doman's for babies and preschoolers, although I'd
| prefer that it be written by a child psychologist if possible.
Why? We all disagree with each other anyway. The David Elkinds will say one
thing and those who agree with Glenn Doman will say the opposite. And
others will say the research supports *their* position.
| Indeed: the only way you can stop a child from learning is to stop him
| from breathing or else send him to school (a typical school, anyway,
| and they don't often manage to kill the thirst for learning entirely).
| When children learn, they're doin' what comes naturally. Trying to
| teach children that "learning is fun" is like trying to teach them
| that playing or breathing is fun.
Agreed.
| : I then became aware of Glen Doman's work at the Institute for
| : the Achievement of Human potential (IAHP). Since Jack was 4 months I
| : have been teaching him to read words and the dot method of mathematics
| : using Glenn Doman's techniques. At this time however, whenever I
| : bring out the cards he yawns.
| In general, parents should be wary of "experts" who say that all
| babies should be treated alike, who give one rigid formula concerning
| a behavioral issue to be followed with all babies. Some of that
| blanket advice is valid, e.g., you should pay attention to your baby.
I agree. Listen to your child. If he is thrilled with the dots, great! But
if he seems bored, it is time to move on to something else.
| But in _Teach Your Baby Math_, Doman states dogmatically that "Tiny
| children *should* learn math (because it is an advantage to do math
| better and more easily)." *All* tiny children? How tiny?
I think, if you read more of his stuff, or talk to the man himself, as I
have, you'll find that he is absolutely *not* saying that parents should do
this with children who are any less than thrilled with the whole idea. The
problem is not that Doman advocates pushing education on unwilling children
(he does not), but that most parents who try this approach find that the
children are not as excited by it as they might hope - or not for that long
- and others find that they simply do have enough time in life for all the
preparation necessary. They find that all that time spent in making up the
cards, and finding pictures to stick on the cards, and planning further
card series, could be better spent simply conversing with the child.
Conversation is one of the most education things there is, and *that* takes
*no* preparation. Showing the cards - that have taken whole evenings to
prepare - takes but a few seconds. Is it worth it? Not for everyone.
| Doman cites no published research to back up his statement, nor does he
| explain how doing math is useful to a baby.
Well, FWIW (probably no more than any other "research" in this field) he
and his colleagues have published research, and he has a long list of big
names supporting his approach (if that makes the slightest difference to
anything). Moreover, his whole approach is based upon quite an interesting
theory which does (if you believe it) explain how doing the things he
suggests are useful to the baby.
| David Elkind, _Miseducation_.
| Please read them if you want to be aware of the risks of programs like
| Doman's.
I'd restate that as "Please read *all* books with a critical attitude, and
notice that there are plenty of "experts" who disagree with David Elkind,
just as there are plenty of "experts" who disagree with Doman." The only
"expert" you should really think very carefully before diregarding is the
*individual child himself*. He ought to know whether he is bored or happy
oughtn't he??
___________________________________________________________________________
Sarah Lawrence Email address: T...@lawrence.demon.co.uk
Editor Postal address: 23 Whitley Road,
*Taking Children Seriously* London N17 6RJ
(Paper) magazine England
ISSN 1351-5381 Telephone: +44 (0) 181 808 3200
If you are interested in children's autonomy, you may like to subscribe to
the "Taking Children Seriously" list. To do so, send the following command
in e-mail to list...@netcom.com: subscribe TCS-list [YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS]
___________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>janet clark (cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:
[Snip-She is using Doman's stuff and is wondering about it]
>> I have a son Jack who was 5 months old on April 18. I have been a
>> full time mother since that time (before that I was an E.E.). I have been
>> immersing him in learning since he was 3 months. At that time I became
>
>I guess my only question is, "what's the rush?" Talking to an infant is
>great.
Well, let me ask, what is the rush with talking? Why do people seem
to think certain things, like language, or several languages in
bilingual homes, are perfectly acceptpable, but any other subject, no
matter how intererted the child is, is somehow "pushing"?
>Letting him hear classical music is wonderful. But what are you
>acheiving by having a baby who walks at 8 months and can "read"
A child who can actually _read_, no quotes necessary, can, well,
_read_ and thus can enjoy book and what is in them. The child can
read with the parent, to the parent and by themseves. That is what
you achieve. Same as when a parent corrects a toddler in grammer.
Why not let them use foots as a plural for foot, why "push"? They'll
learn whenever they are ready...
>flashcards? If he's being raised in a home with plenty of
>age-appropriate stimulation he will develop at the rate he is supposed to.
There is no "supposed to" for development, though. Every child is
responding to stimuli in the environment, and readiong and math are
simply more stimuli. The issue is not birthdays, but ability. A
child does not magically devlop an interest in reading upon turning 5
and entering kindergarten; that is one thihng I have learned from
reading misc.kids! So "age-appropriate" misses the real issue which
is interest. A parent won't know if a child is interesting in reading
unless they expose the child to it and the smae with math. Then the
child will only learn as fast or as interested as the child actually
is. Furthermore this is _repeatedly_ stressed in **anything** I have
ever read on what is called "early education"--you **only** work with
the kid when they are interested. IT is no different from finger
paints. You don't play finger paint if the kid does not want to, but
you _offer_ and you teach when they are receptive.
>Naomi
--
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people; Humanism is the
notion that all people are human.Replace the Golden Rule with Empathy
Principle-feel what other people feel in response to your actions.
email cfai...@leland.stanford.edu for info on Amer. Humanist Assoc.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil (janet clark) writes:
>: Has anyone used Glen Doman's techniques? I am very much
>: interested in hearing about others experiences, good or bad. Has
>: anyone used any other particular methods of early stimulation?
[snip]
>: And, as a result the child's mental
>: capacity could be permanently increased.
>
>Unfortunately, the evidence from research contradicts this notion, so
>far as I am aware.
Can you please cite the references for this?
>: I try to stimulate Jack by teaching him the name and the
>: workings of objects within the house. I have been speaking to him as
>: I would any other intelligent companion that is trying to learn the
>: English language. I have been exposing him to fine classical music,
>: mostly Bach and Mozart since he was born.
>
>I congratulate you on your dedication as well as your musical taste.
>
>: I then became aware of Glen Doman's work at the Institute for
>: the Achievement of Human potential (IAHP). Since Jack was 4 months I
>: have been teaching him to read words and the dot method of mathematics
>: using Glenn Doman's techniques. At this time however, whenever I
>: bring out the cards he yawns.
The first thing to point out is that Doman repeatedly stresses that a
parent should 1)Stop before the child loses interest and 2)_never_
play the games when the child is not interested or does not perk up.
He often suggests going faster, stating that kids learn fast enough
that they are easily bored. The other option is to put the stuff away
for a few weeks.
Another parent using Doman's stuff found her son was not interested
in reading. So she put all that stuff away and just read book before
bed, etc. but since the child still enjoyed the math, she continues
that.
>Interesting, isn't it? What would you think if your husband yawned
>whenever you brought up a certain subject? Babies are marvelously
>communicative, if we can understand them. Child psychologist David
>Elkind tells of another baby's reaction:
>
> "I recall observing a mother showing flash cards to her six-month-old.
> The baby was squirming and looking every which way but at the
> cards. But the mother insisted, and eventually the baby threw up on
> its bib (expressing my sentiments exactly). Yet the mother was too
> caught up in the teaching and proclaimed, 'If you stick with it, they
> will come through for you.' Perhaps, but at the risk of impairing a
> healthy sense of trust and promoting a strong sense of distrust."
I need to interrup here and say that the mother was not following
*anything* I have ever seen with early learing. The people who
advocate early learning know basic child devlopment and realize quite
well that *forcing* a child to do _anything_, be it potty training, or
learning math (or picking up toys ;-) will be met with resistance and
needs to be handled far better than the horror story related above
that seems almost designed to imply that this will happen to everyone
who tries these methods.
>In general, parents should be wary of "experts" who say that all
>babies should be treated alike, who give one rigid formula concerning
>a behavioral issue to be followed with all babies. Some of that
>blanket advice is valid, e.g., you should pay attention to your baby.
Then treating all 5 year old exectly alike in the same kindergarten
class is far, far, worse that working with a child of any age in
learning things at that child's speed. Rigid formula's are things
like "You cannot graduate into the second grade without learning
these rigid skill we have defined as needed and important."
It is not rigid to work with a child's mind that is interested in
learning, becuase you are always working with what the child wants.
>But in _Teach Your Baby Math_, Doman states dogmatically that "Tiny
>children *should* learn math (because it is an advantage to do math
>better and more easily)." *All* tiny children? How tiny? Doman
>cites no published research to back up his statement, nor does he
>explain how doing math is useful to a baby.
IT is not usually needed to cite research on an opinion, and that is
what that statment is--his opinion. He feels young children should
learn math because it is far easier for them (I imagine it is like
learning lagnuagem and there are numerous studies shoing that before
the age of 5 is ideal, if not sooner) and because they can easily
grasp concepts of "twelve refers to twelve objects" without being
bothered. Tyhis is a far better way to learn math that counting up,
in any case.
>Doman's programs, and those of other advocates of early formal
>instruction, are discussed in the following two books, both by child
>psychologists:
>
> Evelyn B. Thoman and Sue Browder, _Born Dancing_, especially
> Chapter 1.
>
> David Elkind, _Miseducation_.
>
>Please read them if you want to be aware of the risks of programs like
>Doman's.
Yes and please read them critically, as I have read all the early
education books. Keep in mind that there is no demonstrable harm in
providing an enriched environment and inplaying what the child sees as
games that you know teach skills.
No one seems to mind the rigid rules of when a child must learn a
skill in schoool, in what is a test-centered high pressure situation.
This should not unfairly be compared to playing games that teach
skills where all the advicates repatedly stress never, ever testing,
never showing off the kid, always stopping if the child is unhappy
(but they do encourage trying to go faster first).
>Richard
naomi pardue
> naomi pardue <npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >janet clark (cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:
> [Snip-She is using Doman's stuff and is wondering about it]
> >> I have a son Jack who was 5 months old on April 18. I have been a
> >> full time mother since that time (before that I was an E.E.). I have been
> >> immersing him in learning since he was 3 months. At that time I became
> >
> >I guess my only question is, "what's the rush?" Talking to an infant is
> >great.
> Well, let me ask, what is the rush with talking? Why do people seem
> to think certain things, like language, or several languages in
> bilingual homes, are perfectly acceptpable, but any other subject, no
> matter how intererted the child is, is somehow "pushing"?
Infants enjoy hearing voices (and music.) I must wonder how many
infants enjoy staring at flashcards and counting dots on pieces of paper.
> >Letting him hear classical music is wonderful. But what are you
> >acheiving by having a baby who walks at 8 months and can "read"
> A child who can actually _read_, no quotes necessary, can, well,
> _read_ and thus can enjoy book and what is in them. The child can
> read with the parent, to the parent and by themseves.
Shaina (3 1/2) is just starting to recognize a few sight words. She has
been enoying books since infancy. She enjoys being read to. She enjoys
looking at pictures. She enjoys making up her own stories to go along
with the pictures. I'd say that the fact that a fairly significant
minority of childrens begin reading a bit (or expressing strong interest
in the concept) during late toddlerhood and preschool years (say 3-5
years) implies that that is the earliest age children can grasp the
concepts. (Yes, there are a few prodigies reading latin at age 18
months. That is not the norm.) Even children in rich, book-filled
homes do not learn to read in infancy or early toddlerhood. Infants are not
ready to learn to read.
That is what
> you achieve. Same as when a parent corrects a toddler in grammer.
> Why not let them use foots as a plural for foot, why "push"? They'll
> learn whenever they are ready...
And I don't correct when Shaina uses "incorrect" grammar. I use the
correct grammar and she catches on. (And I read to her, and when she is
ready to learn to read, she catches on too.)
> >flashcards? If he's being raised in a home with plenty of
> >age-appropriate stimulation he will develop at the rate he is supposed to.
> There is no "supposed to" for development, though. Every child is
> responding to stimuli in the environment, and readiong and math are
> simply more stimuli.
There is a usual range for development. No matter how much you work with
an infant, he is not going to say his first real words or walk much
before 10 months, or learn to sit up alone much before 5 months.
The ability simply isn't there.
The issue i
s not birthdays, but ability. A
> child does not magically devlop an interest in reading upon turning 5
> and entering kindergarten; that is one thihng I have learned from
> reading misc.kids! So "age-appropriate" misses the real issue which
> is interest.
Normal curve. Many kids truly aren't ready to read until 5. A few are
ready at 3 or 4. A few aren't ready until 6 or 7.
A parent won't know if a child is interesting in reading
> unless they expose the child to it and the smae with math. Then the
> child will only learn as fast or as interested as the child actually
> is.
Yes, and Shaina has been exposed to reading and math. I read to her.
She has counting books. We sing "One Two Buckle My Shoe". We talk about
how many toes she has and how many apples are in the bag.
At 3 1/2 she can recognize all her letters, make some of them, tell me
the sounds they make and sight read a few. She can count objects up to
10.
I just don't
understand how a young infant who is just beginning to make sounds
and just beginning to pick out the sound that means "mommy" and "Shaina"
from the babble around her is going to get anything positive out of
looking at flashcards of dog breeds and counting dots on white paper.
Cuddling with Mommy who is saying things like "Look at the Dog!" and
"Shaina has two feet ... One, two" strikes me as being more interesting
for both parties.
Furthermore this is _repeatedly_ stressed in **anything** I have
> ever read on what is called "early education"--you **only** work with
> the kid when they are interested. IT is no different from finger
> paints. You don't play finger paint if the kid does not want to, but
> you _offer_ and you teach when they are receptive.
And again, what infant is receptive to learning to read?
On another thread I mentioned a child care book I have by a doctor who
strongly believes that infants don't need to suck from bottle or breast.
He urges mothers to introduce the cup and spoon from the first week so
that the baby will wean at around 3-4 months. If the baby is still
nursing at 6 monhts, he says, the mother is obviously disregarding her
child's signals and "denying him his right to grow up." I have little
doubt that this doctor had many patients who were indeed weaned to the
cup at 4 months, or even earlier. (His method involved stuffing the
child with solids and then offering the nipple. If the baby took more
than a couple of ounces of "liquid milk", the mother was instructed to
increase the solids.) Were these children REALLY at an advantage?
Naomi
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>> naomi pardue <npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> >I guess my only question is, "what's the rush?" Talking to an infant is
>> >great.
>> Well, let me ask, what is the rush with talking? Why do people seem
>> to think certain things, like language, or several languages in
>> bilingual homes, are perfectly acceptpable, but any other subject, no
>> matter how intererted the child is, is somehow "pushing"?
>Infants enjoy hearing voices (and music.) I must wonder how many
>infants enjoy staring at flashcards and counting dots on pieces of paper.
I can tell you that many do. Was that the answer you wanted?
It depends on the infant, and every book on early education streess
that you do what the child responds to. Infants enjoy learning, and
if the parents presents learning music and whatever in a fun
atmosphere, then the infants will respond. The other point is that I
am not an advicate of "strict Doman"--but his ideas are sound. So
while flashcards do seem excessive, even to me, the idea of using
books with words with infants and pointing at words while you read,
*in aadition* to long, fun discussions on what the pictures look like
makes sense and has taught my Mom (before _anyone_ had thought about
writing books on this stuff), myself, my fiance and countless of
babies right now.
What Doman teached with dots is the concept of _quantity_ and what I
have read about math skills aquisition, this is the best way to go in
teaching math. I think, and this is just and solely my personal
opinion, that many people are afraid of math because they had trouble
learning it. For most all kids, learning math from a "new math" angle
of understanding _not_ that 7 comes after 6 but that 6 objects are six
objects, leads naturally and in a *fun* way to simple
addition/subtraction and all that. IT does not matter that a child
can understand the written form of 4, but that they know how many four
objects are.
But, I am often depressed by innumeracy in this country and perhaps
now that I feel a simple, functional method has been found, I am amazed
at how people seem to think math will be inherently unpleasant to a
child and not fascinating.
>> >Letting him hear classical music is wonderful. But what are you
>> >acheiving by having a baby who walks at 8 months and can "read"
>
>> A child who can actually _read_, no quotes necessary, can, well,
>> _read_ and thus can enjoy book and what is in them. The child can
>> read with the parent, to the parent and by themseves.
>
>Shaina (3 1/2) is just starting to recognize a few sight words. She has
>been enoying books since infancy. She enjoys being read to. She enjoys
>looking at pictures. She enjoys making up her own stories to go along
>with the pictures. I'd say that the fact that a fairly significant
>minority of childrens begin reading a bit (or expressing strong interest
>in the concept) during late toddlerhood and preschool years (say 3-5
>years) implies that that is the earliest age children can grasp the
>concepts. (Yes, there are a few prodigies reading latin at age 18
>months. That is not the norm.) Even children in rich, book-filled
>homes do not learn to read in infancy or early toddlerhood. Infants are not
>ready to learn to read.
Naomi, I leaned to read by the age of two. I know countless children
who have. Infants are quite capable of it.
The mere presence of books, I agree, does not translate into knowledge
of reading by any kids! Almost every child is capable of reading by
the age of 3, but some may not want to, and I certianly think that is
fine. What I think is important is that the parents offer an
environment, not just filled with books, but where the parent offers
the chance for the child to learn to read. This includes sight words
primarily at this age, and is quite easy to do. Furthermore, kids
_like_ it because it is _fun_.
Your daughter may not be interested in reading right now and may enjoy
making up stories. I am sure, though, that if you planned ahead to
work on it, she might pick reading up. I don't feel it is my right,
though, to tell you what you child is ready for. What early education
is about is giving toddlers the chance to learn things, and if they do
great and if not, try again later.
You won't know if your kid can learn something until you try to teach
it.
> That is what
>> you achieve. Same as when a parent corrects a toddler in grammer.
>> Why not let them use foots as a plural for foot, why "push"? They'll
>> learn whenever they are ready...
>
>And I don't correct when Shaina uses "incorrect" grammar. I use the
>correct grammar and she catches on. (And I read to her, and when she is
>ready to learn to read, she catches on too.)
That is correction. You probably mirror her when she says it right
and she notices when what you mirror is actually different. It's ok,
that is just correction and is the normal way, along with "Say please"
parents teach their kids things.
What I am saying about reading is that you can *teach* it. Reading to
a child is one way they might pick it up, but there are specific
things you as a parent can do that makes it very easy for the child to
learn. How do you decide she wants to learn? I imagine there are
issues of her responsiveness and interest. But you can feed this
interest with actual learning processes in addition to reading to her.
Again, I am not saying "you must" or "you ought" but this is one
approach and I know that most children are capable and it simply
takes a bit more work on the part of the parents to teach it in a fun
and interesting way.
And, my response to the poster was to do whatever the child likes,
offer as enriched environment and as much teaching as you want and to
have fun. Children are fully capable of learning to read by the age
of three, and though at some level I admit I think this is a interest
parents should try to fill, that is my opinion alone and I simply try
to present data and results so that parents can make up, their owm minds
what to do
> > >flashcards? If he's being raised in a home with plenty of
>> >age-appropriate stimulation he will develop at the rate he is supposed to.
>
>> There is no "supposed to" for development, though. Every child is
>> responding to stimuli in the environment, and readiong and math are
>> simply more stimuli.
>
>There is a usual range for development. No matter how much you work with
>an infant, he is not going to say his first real words or walk much
>before 10 months, or learn to sit up alone much before 5 months.
>The ability simply isn't there.
Those are strict physical standrds, and there was a study I can look
up that showed infants in enriched environments, **on average**,
reached developmental milestones earlier. So even they are changable.
The ability to learn to read has been demonstrated to be there in
infants, but certainly by the age of three. Writing names and letters
are fine motor skills and they come in _later_ than the ability to
read and even do basic math. Fine motor skills come in rather late
actually and to my knowledge no study has found a dramatic change by
environmental influences.
> The issue i
>s not birthdays, but ability. A
>> child does not magically devlop an interest in reading upon turning 5
>> and entering kindergarten; that is one thihng I have learned from
>> reading misc.kids! So "age-appropriate" misses the real issue which
>> is interest.
>
>Normal curve. Many kids truly aren't ready to read until 5. A few are
>ready at 3 or 4. A few aren't ready until 6 or 7.
But this is _not_ _true_! The normal curve *assumes* the parent makes
no effort whatsover to teach the child in fun and enjoyable ways. Age
has nothing to do with it, really. It is what the toddler is exposed
to and what the toddler finds interesting
Most every child is fully capable to learn to read certainly by the
age of four or five. Mind you, I'm not talking novels, but basic
sight words and the concept that information can be transmitted by
writing. More complex sentence structure and subtle things like irony
take a while.
>> A parent won't know if a child is interesting in reading
>> unless they expose the child to it and the smae with math. Then the
>> child will only learn as fast or as interested as the child actually
>> is.
>
>Yes, and Shaina has been exposed to reading and math. I read to her.
>She has counting books. We sing "One Two Buckle My Shoe". We talk about
>how many toes she has and how many apples are in the bag.
>At 3 1/2 she can recognize all her letters, make some of them, tell me
>the sounds they make and sight read a few. She can count objects up to
>10.
Look, I don't want to get into an argument about what your child can
or can't do. I am talking in general, and I do not want to be subject
to "don't you tell me how to raise my child" if I make suggestions.
With specific teaching, a parent can help a child who shows interest
learn how to read and how math works at a fundamental level. Counting
up to ten is, mathematically, not as crucial as, for example, knowing
that if she has three apples, she needs to get three pears to match.
Or if she has three dolls that she needs six shoes for them all. A
child of 4 can do this, *if* the parents explain and teach the
concepts in a fun and interesting way.
This is separate from providing dolls and shoes.
> I just don't
>understand how a young infant who is just beginning to make sounds
>and just beginning to pick out the sound that means "mommy" and "Shaina"
>from the babble around her is going to get anything positive out of
>looking at flashcards of dog breeds and counting dots on white paper.
First and foremost, because math is my sore point, the toddler should
*not* "count" the dots! The whole idea is that four is four is four,
not that four is one, two, three, four!
That, at least leads to many fun games.
Second, you underestimate babies by a lot. I was skeptical, beucase
that is my nature and I have found a large number of parents whose
children respond with interest to Doman's stuff. I agree that
flashcards of dog breeds is silly. I wrote previously that a far
better thing is just to use real words, and identify dogs by bredd
when you see them. Doman is just one voice in early learning.
But if you see children an inadequate and incapable, well, then they
will be. I prefer to see them as capable, interested and quite fun.
You can't know until you try, and what I have seen and heard from many
poeple is that if you _do_ try and actually _teach_, the child finds
this stuff fascinating, and instead of being limited to what you think
they can do, you are feeding what they like until they are old enough
to raid the library themselves or learn on their own.
>Cuddling with Mommy who is saying things like "Look at the Dog!" and
>"Shaina has two feet ... One, two" strikes me as being more interesting
>for both parties.
Fine. I have never said you should not cuddle and I certainly hope
you do not think I ever, ever advocated not cuddling.
What I am talking about is cuddling with Mommy and saying things like,
Look at the Spaniel (since it is a spaniel)!" and describing what
makes spaniels unique. That seems far more interesting to the kids
I've been with than "Look at the doggie" since it leads to talking
with the kid about what they think and what they see. Since I would
have properly identified other dogs, the kids can (if *they* want
to!!!) talk about what is different. IF they want to make up a story
about who the dog is and what she likes to do at home, I fully
participate in that.
Working with a toddler on games that actually teach math are fun, as
you describe with counting feet. Do you ever ask how many shoes she
has, or point out you need two shoes for two feet? Do you think
pointing this out is "pushing", or that she would not be intrested?
>>Furthermore this is _repeatedly_ stressed in **anything** I have
>> ever read on what is called "early education"--you **only** work with
>> the kid when they are interested. IT is no different from finger
>> paints. You don't play finger paint if the kid does not want to, but
>> you _offer_ and you teach when they are receptive.
>
>And again, what infant is receptive to learning to read?
Every single one I have ever seen.
If you show them something new, they look at it intensely. What
reasons do you see why what you sometimes show them happens to be
words or quantities of objects is bad?
>On another thread I mentioned a child care book I have by a doctor who
>strongly believes that infants don't need to suck from bottle or breast.
My first thought is why? I can answer why for intellectual games,
because the child is happy to learn and it is fun to see. It has been
shown to help the child learn more later as well, so there are real
benefits. The child actually *enjoys* learning. Doesn't your
daughter _like_ to play "How many shows do you have?", well, she most
likely would also enjoy you pointing out that there are four corners
on a table and then finding what else has four corners and what has
three, adn how a pool cue (or whatever) has only two.
>He urges mothers to introduce the cup and spoon from the first week so
>that the baby will wean at around 3-4 months. If the baby is still
>nursing at 6 monhts, he says, the mother is obviously disregarding her
>child's signals and "denying him his right to grow up." I have little
>doubt that this doctor had many patients who were indeed weaned to the
>cup at 4 months, or even earlier. (His method involved stuffing the
>child with solids and then offering the nipple. If the baby took more
>than a couple of ounces of "liquid milk", the mother was instructed to
>increase the solids.) Were these children REALLY at an advantage?
Obviously not, becuase there is nothing that the child enjoys in this
set up. As I have repeated stated and I can give you anecdotes from
parents who have emailed me, children *enjoy* learning. They don't
enjoy being forcibly weaned. Even if they are biting you, as I know
with a 1 year old and his Mom, they don't want that to stop nursing!
I fail to see the comparision between forcibly doing something that
makes the child unhappy, for no other reason than "growing up" and
doing something as a game that the child enjoys. Parents play patty
cake anbd have no qualms. Why do you hold a distinction between that
and playing games where you introduce quantities and show how they vary
by addition and subtraction. Especially something Montessori where
the child can play wth red chips and do the games themself?
janet clark
I have done a lot of research on very early learning. There are
actually very few scientific studies that have been done. What I did find
was:
William Fowler Ph.D. has done much work with early language enrichment. He
did a longitudinal study showing that children who are enriched in infancy
and todderlhood have high probability of being labeled as gifted in high
school. In fact 62% of the children enriched in language in infancy are in
gifted/advanced programs in high school. This compares to an expected 4.8
%. Many more of the children excel in the normal high school curriculum.
(see "The Long-Term Development of Giftedness and High Competencies in
Children Enriched in Language during
Infancy."
ERIC Issue: RIENOV93
Date: Feb 93
Description: 31p.; Paper presented at the Esther Katz Rosen Symposium
on the Psychological Development of Gifted Children Lawrence, KS, February
19-20, 1993".)
In a recent unpublished project in Finland, children with Down's Syndrome
have been taught sign language since 4 months of age for one or two years.
The children seem to have been able to reach normal levels of development.
Dr. K.A. Ericsson in recent work associated with his post-doc Andreas
Lehmann reviewed a number of biographies of exceptionally successful and
creative musicians. He said that " Virtually without exception we find
that these individuals were exposed to highly structured training and
practice monitored moment-by-moment by a teacher or a competent adult from
a very young age. Hence I believe that the claim that training of children
decreases creativity is largely a myth. Obviously later training
(especially during adolescence) must allow the individual to increasingly
internalize further training goals and encourage experimentation and other
efforts to find their unique contribution. From other reading I believe
the same is true for other domains of expertise as well." (for more
information see " Can we create gifted people?" / K.A. Ericsson, R. Th.
Krampe and S.
Title: The Origins and development of high ability.- 1993 : Ciba
Foundation"
I read about the kids who have been taught by Mr. Doman's methods in the
book "Kids Who Start Ahead Stay Ahead". I looked up several children
mentioned in the book and called their parents. Now I realize that this
was not an objective group. Yet the mothers I called were not expecting
anyone to call them. All the mothers I spoke to taught their kids using
Doman's methods with great results. They had all attended the "Better Baby
Course" The kids, now teenagers, have excellent academic records with most
graduating college by late teens. All of the mothers had taught their
children to read at age 2 and earlier.
My own son has been in an enriched language environment and taught math and
reading using Doman's methods since 4 months of age. I alternate weekly
showing math one week and reading another week. I do not want to take up
too much of his time with this stuff. The total amount of stimulation he
gets from this stuff per day is not more than 1 minute. 1 minute! There
is no cause for alarm here. If anybodys time is getting wasted it is mine.
Not my sons. People have no qualms about putting their child in front of
sesame street for 1 hour where they get exposed to numbers and letters and
words. Why is there such an outcry about my attempts to work with my son
for 1 minute a day. For the rest of the day I follow his lead in exploring
the world.
If a child is deaf one does not wait till he is 5 or 6 to teach him
to sign. Please inform me of the difference between learning language
through spoken word, signed word or written word.
My own anecdotal evidence with my son is that he is very developmentally
advance. He cross patterned crawled at 51/2 months. Now he just turned 6
months. He pulls himself to stand constantly. He can pick up tiny objects
like Cheerios between his thumb and fingers. He verbalizes extremely well
saying several syllables in one breath. He also has his own musical
tastes. He loves opera. I am not too crazy about opera but whenever I
play it he gives me this big smile (how can I refuse). When I take him to
the mothers group I belong to all the other mothers look at his motor
skills, attention span and coordination in disbelief (I definitely don't
want this kind of attention). Now I do not tell anyone what I am doing.
They would ostracize me If they knew. But I do not understand peoples
discomfort with early learning.
Richard Carnes
: Well, FWIW (probably no more than any other "research" in this field)
: he and his colleagues have published research,
Could you give a citation or two (in reputable, peer-reviewed
journals)? Doman doesn't cite any sort of published research in his
books, so far as I can tell. I have also read that he doesn't allow
outside professionals to evaluate his work at the BBI.
: and he has a long list
: of big names supporting his approach (if that makes the slightest
: difference to anything).
Who are some of the big names? I'd like to know if they have
published comments on Doman's and similar approaches, so that I can
look them up. Are they big names in a relevant field, like child
psychology, and unlike (say) physical therapy?
: | Please read them if you want to be aware of the risks of programs like
: | Doman's.
:
: I'd restate that as "Please read *all* books with a critical attitude,
Absolutely -- that was my point. Read Doman's books with a critical
attitude, as well as the books of those who disagree with him, and
then make up your own mind.
: and notice that there are plenty of "experts" who disagree with David
: Elkind,
Again, I'd very much like to know who they are, and some citations
that I can look up.
: just as there are plenty of "experts" who disagree with
: Doman." The only "expert" you should really think very carefully
: before disregarding is the *individual child himself*. He ought to know
: whether he is bored or happy oughtn't he??
Right. So if the child makes it clear that he *wants* to learn math
or reading, let's teach him, so long as that's what he wants. I don't
know of many babies who have asked to be taught to do math.
Richard
relgov
cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil (janet clark) wrote:
> My own son has been in an enriched language environment and taught math and
> reading using Doman's methods since 4 months of age. I alternate weekly
> showing math one week and reading another week. I do not want to take up
> too much of his time with this stuff. The total amount of stimulation he
> gets from this stuff per day is not more than 1 minute. 1 minute! There
> is no cause for alarm here.
>
> My own anecdotal evidence with my son is that he is very developmentally
> advance. He cross patterned crawled at 51/2 months. Now he just turned 6
> months. He pulls himself to stand constantly. He can pick up tiny objects
> like Cheerios between his thumb and fingers. He verbalizes extremely well
> saying several syllables in one breath. He also has his own musical
> tastes. He loves opera. I am not too crazy about opera but whenever I
> play it he gives me this big smile (how can I refuse). When I take him to
> the mothers group I belong to all the other mothers look at his motor
> skills, attention span and coordination in disbelief (I definitely don't
> want this kind of attention). Now I do not tell anyone what I am doing.
> They would ostracize me If they knew. But I do not understand peoples
> discomfort with early learning.
Excuse my ignorance (I haven't read this whole thread), but how do you
correlate the reading/math stuff with motor development. Do you mean to
say that 1 minute-a-day flash cards improve motor skills? According to
What To Expect In The First Year, by 6 months a rather high percentage of
babies can do those kinds of motor skills anyways (though my 6 mo. old boy
can't - but I've never attributed that to his intelligence or the amount of
stimulation he gets; I'm comfortable with the pace of his development.)
I'm open minded about early development if it really helped long-term. I
haven't seen any convincing studies/evidence to support this though.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
[snip]
>Excuse my ignorance (I haven't read this whole thread), but how do you
>correlate the reading/math stuff with motor development. Do you mean to
>say that 1 minute-a-day flash cards improve motor skills?
I can look up the study, I beleive it was done at Brown or harvard.
Babies in an "enriched crib environment" in the sense of sharply
contrasted bumpers and mobile and things like that, who were talked
to, held and played with a lot, were consistantly "ahead" of the group
that was treated well, but not exceptioonally.
This sudy was done primarily to shgow the extreme damage from large
sacle orphanages (in Russia and another place I think) where the
childre are in white, everything is in white and the kids are not
handled much. Now, you may agrue I am comparing the bottom of the
barrel to normal. This was just what prompted the researchers and
what they compared was the standard baby environment with various
*degrees* of enrichment. The difference _was_ statistically
signifigant, and in fact the babies in enriched environments reached
development milestones like tracking objects, reaching for them and
turning over at an earlier age (*on average*).
>According to
>What To Expect In The First Year, by 6 months a rather high percentage of
>babies can do those kinds of motor skills anyways (though my 6 mo. old boy
>can't - but I've never attributed that to his intelligence or the amount of
>stimulation he gets; I'm comfortable with the pace of his development.)
>I'm open minded about early development if it really helped long-term. I
>haven't seen any convincing studies/evidence to support this though.
Well, it just seems like something to think about. If it makes a
difference, and as Janet says, takes about 1 minute a day, how can
it hurt?
Christopher Biow
janet clark <cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> I have done a lot of research on very early learning. There are
>actually very few scientific studies that have been done. What I did find
>was:
Thanks for providing some primary information in this debate.
>...In fact 62% of the children enriched in language in infancy are in
>gifted/advanced programs in high school. This compares to an expected 4.8
>%.
What measures were taken to control for selection bias? To rule this
out, the language enrichment would have to be randomly assigned among
the study group. Otherwise, this effect may best be explained by the
general tendency of children with more motivated/intelligent/rich parents
to be more motivated/intelligent in school, without implying
any benefit of a particular enrichment method.
If a researcher is actually to claim improvement in intelligence
(however measured) from an intensive early training regimen, the
burden is truly upon the researcher to demonstrate this using
properly controlled studies.
>But I do not understand peoples
>discomfort with early learning.
Some of it is, I will admit, irrational. This is especially true
of some experts who will assert vast damage done by early learning
without the benefit of any evidence to that effect. However, the
burden of proof is still upon those, such as Doman, who make
extraordinary claims. White, in The_First_Three_Years_of_Life,
gives an excellent overview of bad research that has been performed
in support of various sorts of infant/parent training. He
believes passionately in the benefits produced by some kinds of
formal training, but is careful never to assert that he has more
than the very minimal evidence which he has been able to produce.
There has been a truly amazing amount of shoddy and oversold
research bandied about to support all sorts of childhood learning
programs, including Headstart. [What did he say? Did he say
Headstart is bad? Did he say there is no evidence for the
benefits of Headstart? No, he said there has been oversold
research bandied about in support of Headstart.]
janet clark
I need to clarify. I have read similar studies as Ms Fairman
>Babies in an "enriched crib environment" in the sense of sharply
>contrasted bumpers and mobile and things like that, who were talked
>to, held and played with a lot, were consistently "ahead" of the group
>that was treated well, but not exceptionally.
There seems to be some linkage between an enriched environment and
advanced motor skills. I can't quote any scientific studies offhand. It
is just what I have come across in reading about early learning. Doman
says that doing the reading program will help children be more motor. But
this is not to say that children who are not particularly motor are not
intelligent. I know! there are many very bright kids who do not have
advanced motor skills and probably vice versa. In my own child his motor
skills seem to derive from his intense need to explore the world. A world
I have made more accessible through early learning. Not only reading and
math but all sorts of exposures - To fabric designs, textures, lots of
people, playing xylophone etc...
I have only seen one "scientific" study done about development of
giftedness in children. That is Dr. Fowlers as I have mentioned
previously. He has found a definite link between language enrichment and
long-term development of gifteness. Why no one seems to pay attention to
this incredible study amazes me. The children enriched in language during
infancy that Dr. Fowler studied are not only more intelligent than many of
their peers but they are more socially adjusted as well as more motivated
to be involved in independent learning. Lets talk about this.
Unfortunately Doman's ideas with healthy children have not been studied
so that no one has much scientific to say about them. Right now it seems
to be all opinion. I was just hoping to get in contact with people that
have tried them.
I have to go my son is jumping out of my arms...
Janet
**********************************************************
email-> cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil
**********************************************************
Christopher Biow
Carolyn Jean Fairman <cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>This was just what prompted the researchers and
>what they compared was the standard baby environment with various
>*degrees* of enrichment. The difference _was_ statistically
>signifigant, and in fact the babies in enriched environments reached
>development milestones like tracking objects, reaching for them and
>turning over at an earlier age (*on average*).
The difficulty is in relating development prior to two years to
anything after six years. The only siginificant such correlations
that I have seen mentioned are well at the low end of the spectrum.
That is, if your child is markedly slow in early development, there
is *some* increased chance that he will be slow after age six.
>Well, it just seems like something to think about. If it makes a
>difference, and as Janet says, takes about 1 minute a day, how can
>it hurt?
I don't see how it can. However, you may expect to be mercilessly
flamed by those who disagree with you regardless, despite a lack
of evidence that you are causing any harm. This is, after all,
misc.kids.
:-]
Richard Carnes
:Richard Carnes <car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
:>cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil (janet clark) writes:
:
:>: capacity could be permanently increased [by Doman-style methods of
:>: early stimulation]
:>
:>Unfortunately, the evidence from research contradicts this notion, so
:>far as I am aware.
:
:Can you please cite the references for this?
Here is one that includes a review of the literature:
Robert MacCall et al., "Transitions in Infant Sensorimotor Development
and the Prediction of Childhood IQ," _American Psychologist_, August
1972, 728-748. "In the first three years of life, there is relatively
poor prediction in infant tests of intelligence to I.Q. scores
assessed in middle or late childhood."
Superior performance early can even mean poor performance later. See:
Lewis, Michael, and Harry McGurk, "Evaluation of Infant Intelligence,"
_Science_, 12/15/72, 1174-77.
What is the evidence, published in peer-reviewed journals, that
Doman-style early instruction has any lasting benefits?
:> "I recall observing a mother showing flash cards to her six-month-old.
:> The baby was squirming and looking every which way but at the
:> cards. But the mother insisted, and eventually the baby threw up on
:> its bib (expressing my sentiments exactly). Yet the mother was too
:> caught up in the teaching and proclaimed, 'If you stick with it, they
:> will come through for you.' Perhaps, but at the risk of impairing a
:> healthy sense of trust and promoting a strong sense of distrust."
:
:I need to interrup here and say that the mother was not following
:*anything* I have ever seen with early learing. The people who
:advocate early learning know basic child devlopment and realize quite
:well that *forcing* a child to do _anything_, be it potty training, or
:learning math (or picking up toys ;-) will be met with resistance and
:needs to be handled far better than the horror story related above
:that seems almost designed to imply that this will happen to everyone
:who tries these methods.
The story illustrates one way things can go wrong when well-
intentioned parents adopt Doman-style methods. The mother was
engaging in an activity that was task-oriented rather than child-
oriented; that is, the mother was imposing her adult learning
priorities on the baby, on the advice of an alleged expert, rather
than interacting with him in a natural, spontaneous way. It is these
warm, spontaneous parent-baby interactions (such as cuddling, talking,
and playing) that promote a sense of attachment and trust in a baby,
and a healthy sense of attachment and trust is critical to later
learning. Engaging in unnecessary task-oriented interactions in order
to teach a baby some tricks such as recognizing words from flash cards
risks impairing the sense of attachment and trust to some degree.
It is true that Doman says the parent should not force anything on the
baby and should stop before the baby becomes bored. But the parent
who earnestly follows Doman's program is still imposing her priorities
on the baby rather than letting the baby take the lead; the baby has
not asked to be taught to read or do math.
There is nothing wrong with giving a baby lessons *so long as it is
only a game* in which the point is just to have fun together, because
then you're focusing on the play and the baby herself, on her thoughts
and feelings, and the baby is learning to communicate with her
attentive parent. But Doman's books are not titled _How to Have More
Fun With Your Baby_; the titles are _Teach Your Baby Math_, _How to
Give Your Baby Encyclopedic Knowledge_, etc. That is, the point of
the activities he recommends is not simply to enjoy being with your
baby but primarily to turn him into a genius, and parents who follow
his advice are generally trying to raise a superbright kid or give him
an academic edge.
*That* is where the risk lies: not in casual lessons treated only as a
game or enjoyable pastime (which is beneficial to the baby), but in
intensive lessons treated as a means to the end of creating an
exceptionally bright child. In the latter case, you would be focusing
on how well the baby performs and thus putting subtle pressures on the
baby to perform, and the baby could come to see herself as worthy of
love only if she is smart or performs adequately. You would risk
focusing more on what the baby knows than what she feels, and it's
extremely important for a baby to have her feelings recognized,
accepted at face value, taken seriously, and responded to.
:>In general, parents should be wary of "experts" who say that all
:>babies should be treated alike, who give one rigid formula concerning
:>a behavioral issue to be followed with all babies. Some of that
:>blanket advice is valid, e.g., you should pay attention to your baby.
:
:Then treating all 5 year old exectly alike in the same kindergarten
:class is far, far, worse that working with a child of any age in
:learning things at that child's speed. Rigid formula's are things
:like "You cannot graduate into the second grade without learning
:these rigid skill we have defined as needed and important."
Although this is really a separate issue, I do think that imposing
such rigid learning requirements on children is one of the ways in
which schools convince children that learning is drudgery. It is much
better if the child's learning is self-motivated.
:It is not rigid to work with a child's mind that is interested in
:learning, becuase you are always working with what the child wants.
Yes, *if* the child has asked to be taught to read, do math, or
whatever.
:>But in _Teach Your Baby Math_, Doman states dogmatically that "Tiny
:>children *should* learn math (because it is an advantage to do math
:>better and more easily)." *All* tiny children? How tiny? Doman
:>cites no published research to back up his statement, nor does he
:>explain how doing math is useful to a baby.
:
:IT is not usually needed to cite research on an opinion, and that is
:what that statment is--his opinion.
But Doman calls it a "fact" (TYBM, p. 37).
:He feels young children should
:learn math because it is far easier for them
Doman's claim that babies learn math more easily than 7-year-olds
contradicts a body of research evidence going back to Piaget. Now,
I'm well aware that all innovative scientific ideas start out by
contradicting received opinion. But if we are to take Doman's
opinions as scientific truth, they must be demonstrated. And Doman,
to reiterate, cites NO published evidence in his books to support his
sweeping claims. (Does he even mention Jean Piaget, whose work is
very relevant to his own?)
:(I imagine it is like
:learning lagnuagem and there are numerous studies shoing that before
:the age of 5 is ideal, if not sooner)
But they are very different: that's why Doman hasn't written any books
called _Teach Your Baby to Talk_. Virtually all preschoolers learn to
speak their parents' language(s) without formal lessons, because
children are biologically programmed to learn to talk, just as they
are programmed to learn to walk. That is not the case with math. It
is true that we sometimes correct a child's pronunciation or grammar,
but parents rarely do so with babies; more likely the parent will
express great pleasure at the child's early verbalizations, no matter
how "incorrect" they may be. Later on such parental corrections are
generally not part of a program of formal lessons but are spontaneous
interactions, part of our efforts at socialization, like teaching
table manners.
:Keep in mind that there is no demonstrable harm in
:providing an enriched environment
Indeed, an enriched environment is recommended by just about everyone.
:and in playing what the child sees as
:games that you know teach skills.
As long as *you* also see it as a game and you really don't care that
much whether your baby learns to read or count, I see no problem.
What concerns me is the parent whose primary concern is not having fun
with her baby but whether her baby is learning the skills.
Let's remember, also, that having a high IQ, a high level of talent,
or great academic skills is not what produces success in life, in the
true sense of having a satisfying, happy life filled with good
relationships with other people. We all know of very talented or
wealthy people whose lives are a mess. What produces real success in
life is having a healthy personality, and the foundation of a healthy
personality is laid in early childhood. In Elkind's words: "Children
who go into the world with a strong sense of trust and autonomy, of
initiative and belonging, and of industry and competence will be
better prepared to deal with whatever the future has to offer than
will children with an abundance of academic skills but a damaged sense
of self."
Richard
Ang Peng Hwa
: In article <clark-230...@esp1034.nrl.navy.mil>,
: janet clark <cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
: Thanks for providing some primary information in this debate.
: >...In fact 62% of the children enriched in language in infancy are in
: >gifted/advanced programs in high school. This compares to an expected 4.8
: >%.
: What measures were taken to control for selection bias? To rule this
At the risk of being flamed....
I think the debate is off tangent because, as I understand it, Doman's
aim is not to produce smart kids per se. It's to produce kids who
like/love to learn. He does not advocate tests, for example.
I'm trying it out on my daughter. First time just 4 days ago. At the end
of it, I am supposed to give her lots of hugs and kisses. It sounds to me
like a lot of conditioning but hey, if it makes her like learning, why
not. Also, as someone noted, it's just a minute a session for three
sessions a day.
The way I see it, I am not out to make my daughter learn those things I
teach. She will learn some, of course. The more important thing is to
inculcate a love for learning.
Mark Dolson
: naomi pardue <npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
: There is no "supposed to" for development, though. Every child is
: responding to stimuli in the environment, and readiong and math are
: simply more stimuli.
Well, I disagree, depending on what you mean by "math". the difference
between letters and numbers, which are symbolic, and concrete, tangible
stimuli that the child can physically explore (including listening, as
in music, speaking, and being read to) seems pretty clear. Most
children are not cognitively ready to deal with abstract stimuli until
they are well past the stage when we would call them a "baby". As
in "the vast majority".
Laura
Mark Dolson
: >Excuse my ignorance (I haven't read this whole thread), but how do you
: >correlate the reading/math stuff with motor development. Do you mean to
: >say that 1 minute-a-day flash cards improve motor skills?
: I can look up the study, I beleive it was done at Brown or harvard.
: Babies in an "enriched crib environment" in the sense of sharply
: contrasted bumpers and mobile and things like that, who were talked
: to, held and played with a lot, were consistantly "ahead" of the group
: that was treated well, but not exceptioonally.
: This sudy was done primarily to shgow the extreme damage from large
: sacle orphanages (in Russia and another place I think) where the
: childre are in white, everything is in white and the kids are not
: handled much. Now, you may agrue I am comparing the bottom of the
: barrel to normal. This was just what prompted the researchers and
: what they compared was the standard baby environment with various
: *degrees* of enrichment. The difference _was_ statistically
: signifigant, and in fact the babies in enriched environments reached
: development milestones like tracking objects, reaching for them and
: turning over at an earlier age (*on average*).
THere is a BIG difference between the "enriched environment" you
are describing here, and that they used in these studies, and
teaching your baby math.
Laura
Carolyn Jean Fairman
[big snip]
>Also, you can provide an environment rich in things and experiences
>that stimulate the child's interest and curiosity. Provide her with
>toys appropriate to her developmental stage (I'm sure many
>misc.kidders can offer advice on this).
I wonder about this stages stuff. I read about Piaget and his stages.
He wrote extensively about theories based on the 5-7 shift, where kids
less than 5 _cannot_ (he claims) tell that four objcts close together
is more than three objects far apart. But if you do the exact same
thing with a four year old, only with candies and ask which the child
wants, the child will almost *always* pick the one with four! Was the
issue semantics? Was Piaget just realizing that 4 year olds don't get
"more" but understand it?
And, what do stages mean if you treat you child differently than
normal? If you do have an enriched environment in the crib and in
general, "stages" become far less useful. Sure, in terms of motor
skills, but even those change depending upon time spent being held,
visual stimulations and a load of things.
>If you want her to love
>reading, read to her and have books and magazines in the house (and
>turn off the one-eyed electronic babysitter, aka the plug-in drug).
>Take her for walks, to the zoo, etc.
What is wrong with reading "to her" in flash cards? What is wrong
with reading to her on your lap, poiting out every word as you say it?
While one seems more pushy to people, both do similar things--they
teach the child that words are what stories come from and that words
communicate specific things. Door always means door, etc.
Again, Doman and any of the early education peple never tell you *not*
to take kids to the zoo. You make it sound as if by doing one you
wholly forgo the other. That's not true.
--
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people; Humanism is the
notion that all people are human.Replace the Golden Rule with Empathy
Principle-feel what other people feel in response to your actions.
Visit http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Humanists/ to find out more.
naomi pardue
> Christopher Biow (bi...@cs.umd.edu) wrote:
> : In article <clark-230...@esp1034.nrl.navy.mil>,
> : janet clark <cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> : Thanks for providing some primary information in this debate.
> At the risk of being flamed....
> I think the debate is off tangent because, as I understand it, Doman's
> aim is not to produce smart kids per se. It's to produce kids who
> like/love to learn. He does not advocate tests, for example.
> I'm trying it out on my daughter. First time just 4 days ago. At the end
> of it, I am supposed to give her lots of hugs and kisses. It sounds to me
> like a lot of conditioning but hey, if it makes her like learning, why
> not. Also, as someone noted, it's just a minute a session for three
> sessions a day.
The other poster said it was a TOTAL of one minute per day.
> The way I see it, I am not out to make my daughter learn those things I
> teach. She will learn some, of course. The more important thing is to
> inculcate a love for learning.
But babies are BORN with a love of learning. When a baby figures out how
to put the square block into the square hole in the shape sorter, she is
learning. When she figures out that the toy car will go if she pushes,
she is learning. And yes, I play "educational" games with Shaina, and
have since she was tiny. But they are games first and educational
second, and I don't need to buy a book to tell me how to count Shaina's
toes. (An excellent way of introducing the concept of numbers!)
I also find that once you get into the "educational" mode, it gets very
easy to become results oriented. Shaina has (a gift from grandma) a
"computer table". It's an electronic game designed to teach letters and
it has a variety of games ranging from the very simple (child presses
button and computer says A", to the more difficult (child presses A-button
and computer asks child to "spell ambulance." One of the games asks the
child to (for example) "press the letter that comes between C and E."
This is very difficult for Shaina, but she often sets the game on that
level, and amuses herself randomly pushing buttons. (Or ignoring the
instructions altogether and using the desk surface to scribble on.)
Anyway, the other day she had the computer on that level. I tried to
show her what the game wanted, but she couldn't understand. After a
while the constant electronic babble got on my nerves and I said
"Shaina, if you aren't going to play the game right, turn it off!" Now
frankly, I don't care if she knows (at age 3 1/2) what letter comes
after D, but it did bother me, to some small degree, that she wasn't
even trying to play the game correctly.
Am I making sense? If *I* had bought her that game with the intent of
teaching her to read and spell, I would be expecting her to do it
"correctly." Even though I DON"T really care, the fact that the game is
there makes me want her to play it "correctly."
Naomi
Richard Carnes
:At the risk of being flamed.... I think the debate is off tangent
:because, as I understand it, Doman's aim is not to produce smart kids
:per se. It's to produce kids who like/love to learn.
If so, then that's one of Doman's numerous misconceptions about
children. Children do not need to be taught to enjoy learning; they
naturally enjoy learning, and they have to be taught by a school that
learning is boring and tedious. The thirst for learning is *innate*,
a product of natural selection: the human way of life, to a far
greater extent than that of other animals, is based on the human
brain's amazing capacity for learning. The young of most animals can
fend for themselves after a few weeks or months, but children must
spend years learning their human culture, such as their language, if
they are to survive. The fact that 6-month babies don't ask to be
taught arithmetic doesn't mean that they aren't interested in learning
-- all normal babies learn at a tremendous rate without being given
lessons -- but that they haven't yet developed an interest in that
particular subject. Babies are learning things like how to play
creatively with you and communicate with you, and all the basic things
that we adults take for granted, like object constancy and what a
person is; after all, the whole world is new to them. The
infant-toddler "curriculum" is huge, even if we don't add any lessons.
Doman gives his books titles like _How to Multiply Your Baby's
Intelligence_ and _How to Give Your Baby Encyclopedic Knowledge_, and
he says explicitly that using his techniques will raise your child's
IQ (e.g., pp. 139-140 of HMYBI). He talks a lot about the
desirability of high intelligence and genius. It certainly sounds to
me like his principal aim is to produce smarter kids.
:I'm trying it out on my daughter. First time just 4 days ago. At the
:end of it, I am supposed to give her lots of hugs and kisses. It
:sounds to me like a lot of conditioning but hey, if it makes her like
:learning, why not. Also, as someone noted, it's just a minute a
:session for three sessions a day.
Well, if the sessions are too short to do much harm, then I would
think they are too short to do much good.
You sound like a very caring parent. If you want your daughter to be
bright and to continue to love learning, you can do the following:
First, do what comes naturally: there is a lot of research evidence
(which I will not inflict on you now) that what makes a young child
bright is happy social interactions with its caring, attentive
parents. You don't need any supposed experts to tell you how to do
that.
Also, you can provide an environment rich in things and experiences
that stimulate the child's interest and curiosity. Provide her with
toys appropriate to her developmental stage (I'm sure many
misc.kidders can offer advice on this). If you want her to love
reading, read to her and have books and magazines in the house (and
turn off the one-eyed electronic babysitter, aka the plug-in drug).
Take her for walks, to the zoo, etc.
What you don't need to do is give your baby or preschooler lessons.
To understand the risks associated with Doman's and similar methods, I
hope you will read (at least in part) the two books I have mentioned
(_Miseducation_ and _Born Dancing_), since they explain the risks much
more thoroughly than I can here; they are both written by child
psychologists with many years of experience. I also like what
Penelope Leach writes in _Children First_:
"If children are to develop the self-esteem and self-respect that will
maximize their fulfillment of their potential, their resilience and
their ability to esteem and respect other people, they need to feel
loved, respected, even celebrated, for what they are rather than for
what they do. That means that they need to be as sure that extra
achievement could not earn them extra love as that failure could not
deprive them of the love they have."
Richard
janet clark
>Richard Carnes <car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
[big snip]
>But they are very different: that's why Doman hasn't written any books
>called _Teach Your Baby to Talk_. Virtually all preschoolers learn to
>speak their parents' language(s) without formal lessons, because
>children are biologically programmed to learn to talk, just as they
>are programmed to learn to walk. That is not the case with math. It
>is true that we sometimes correct a child's pronunciation or grammar,
>but parents rarely do so with babies; more likely the parent will
>express great pleasure at the child's early verbalizations, no matter
>how "incorrect" they may be. Later on such parental corrections are
>generally not part of a program of formal lessons but are spontaneous
>interactions, part of our efforts at socialization, like teaching
>table manners.
Children may not get formal lessons in language but they must have
extensive exposure to language to develop normally. Doman should probably
write the book _Teach Your Baby to Talk_. There are huge differences in
the language abilities of young children. Some children exhibit a much
larger vocabulary and much greater sentence complexity. The differences
are due in large part to environmental influences. It has been shown that
young children who are given an enriched language environment are much more
likely as teenagers to not only to be academically successful but also
socially adept and well adjusted (see "The Long-Term Development of
Giftedness and High Competencies in Children Enriched in Language during
Infancy."
ERIC Issue: RIENOV93
Date: Feb 93
Description: 31p.; Paper presented at the Esther Katz Rosen Symposium
on the Psychological Development of Gifted Children Lawrence, KS, February
19-20, 1993".)
But I agree with Richard that children should have a warm, loving and
playful enviroment to grow up in.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: relgov <dea...@comm.mot.com> wrote:
>: >Excuse my ignorance (I haven't read this whole thread), but how do you
>: >correlate the reading/math stuff with motor development. Do you mean to
>: >say that 1 minute-a-day flash cards improve motor skills?
>: I can look up the study, I beleive it was done at Brown or harvard.
>: Babies in an "enriched crib environment" in the sense of sharply
>: contrasted bumpers and mobile and things like that, who were talked
>: to, held and played with a lot, were consistantly "ahead" of the group
>: that was treated well, but not exceptioonally.
>THere is a BIG difference between the "enriched environment" you
>are describing here, and that they used in these studies, and
>teaching your baby math.
Can you explain what the difference is? To me, math and reading are
just extensions. If you kid is interested, that is, looks at the
cards with any interest, then, well, the infant is interested and you
are providing an enriched environment. This is true if the baby looks
at cards or at a red ball. You have interested them and they are
enjoying themselves.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
[snip]
>I also find that once you get into the "educational" mode, it gets very
>easy to become results oriented.
Do you really feel it is such a slippery slope you cannot have qnay
control over yourself? ;-) Parents, it seems to me, have this problem
no matter what, even if the baby can only roll over! "Come here, she
just rolled over, let me flip her back on her tummy!"
If your intent is to terach your child using the spirit of early
education, then I do not think this slope is very slippery or very
steep.
>Shaina has (a gift from grandma) a
>"computer table". It's an electronic game designed to teach letters and
>it has a variety of games ranging from the very simple (child presses
>button and computer says A", to the more difficult (child presses A-button
>and computer asks child to "spell ambulance." One of the games asks the
>child to (for example) "press the letter that comes between C and E."
>This is very difficult for Shaina, but she often sets the game on that
>level, and amuses herself randomly pushing buttons. (Or ignoring the
>instructions altogether and using the desk surface to scribble on.)
>Anyway, the other day she had the computer on that level. I tried to
>show her what the game wanted, but she couldn't understand. After a
>while the constant electronic babble got on my nerves and I said
>"Shaina, if you aren't going to play the game right, turn it off!" Now
>frankly, I don't care if she knows (at age 3 1/2) what letter comes
>after D, but it did bother me, to some small degree, that she wasn't
>even trying to play the game correctly.
It sounds like the game is one that tests repeatedly. No wonder she
prefers to use it as a sound generator!
That is very different from a concept of providing information, even
atr an early age, with littel or no testing. The whole point is that
you should never test and that the child will pick it up because it is
interesting. If the infant or child does not find it interesting, go
fetch the red ball and play that instead.
>Am I making sense? If *I* had bought her that game with the intent of
>teaching her to read and spell, I would be expecting her to do it
>"correctly." Even though I DON"T really care, the fact that the game is
>there makes me want her to play it "correctly."
Well, yes, i see your point. It is this idea of "doing it correctly"
over exposure. I understand that certainly children will eventually
have to learn to read and to write and to do basic arithmatic
correctly. But he idea of early education is not to "drill and test"
as that game you have does. The idea is to provide information.
that's why, in terms of the "bits of inforamtion" Doman never tells
you to sit the kid down and give them praise _if_ they get it right,
but to tell them the real name of dogs and some infomation about them.
Then, give praise for the baby or child being interested. What this
means is that the kid will maybe point out other German Shepards by
name (if old enought to talk...). If the infant mislabels a dog or
whatever, then, just as parents correct "That's foot, not feets" they
can in passing point out the dog is a whatever breed.
It is doing what parent do all the time, "That is the green truck, did
you want the _green_ truck?" in repsonse to calling the green truck
red, etc. But you happen to label things with infants and you happen
to give information in a higher intensity while actually be aware of
what you are doing.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>: simply more stimuli.
>Well, I disagree, depending on what you mean by "math". the difference
>between letters and numbers, which are symbolic, and concrete, tangible
>stimuli that the child can physically explore (including listening, as
>in music, speaking, and being read to) seems pretty clear. Most
>children are not cognitively ready to deal with abstract stimuli until
>they are well past the stage when we would call them a "baby". As
>in "the vast majority".
Then the kids I hear about are just out of the majority? What
children explore _is_ the abstract. It is the parent who, rather than
telling the infant something has four dots, seem to be seized by this
desire to introduce counting, instead of the simple connection of
quanitity. That is the math I am referring to. When you work in
quantities, addition and subtraction seem to fall naturally, and are
not abstract at all. If a baby knows 4 poker chips on the table are
"four" and that 3 poker chips are "three", then it is not long, or with
very much introduction that they realize that 3 things with 1 thing
are 4 things.
I use quotes around four and three to demonstrate the child does not
know the numeric symbol 4, but that the number of things is four
things.
janet clark
>Richard Carnes <car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
[big snip]
>But they are very different: that's why Doman hasn't written any books
>called _Teach Your Baby to Talk_. Virtually all preschoolers learn to
>speak their parents' language(s) without formal lessons, because
>children are biologically programmed to learn to talk, just as they
>are programmed to learn to walk. That is not the case with math. It
>is true that we sometimes correct a child's pronunciation or grammar,
>but parents rarely do so with babies; more likely the parent will
>express great pleasure at the child's early verbalizations, no matter
>how "incorrect" they may be. Later on such parental corrections are
>generally not part of a program of formal lessons but are spontaneous
>interactions, part of our efforts at socialization, like teaching
>table manners.
Children may not get formal lessons in language but they must have
extensive exposure to language to develop normally. Doman should probably
write the book _Teach Your Baby to Talk_. There are huge differences in
the language abilities of young children. Some children exhibit a much
larger vocabulary and much greater sentence complexity. The differences
are due in large part to environmental influences. It has been shown that
young children who are given an enriched language environment are much more
likely as teenagers to not only to be academically successful but also
socially adept and well adjusted (see "The Long-Term Development of
Giftedness and High Competencies in Children Enriched in Language during
Infancy."
ERIC Issue: RIENOV93
Date: Feb 93
Description: 31p.; Paper presented at the Esther Katz Rosen Symposium
on the Psychological Development of Gifted Children Lawrence, KS, February
19-20, 1993".)
But I agree with Richard that children should have a warm, loving and
playful environment to grow up in.
Janet
( I also posted this under the article _stages_ in misc.kids. )
**********************************************************
email-> cl...@wizard.nrl.navy.mil
**********************************************************
dol...@cruzio.com
In article <3qglv4$3...@elaine13.Stanford.EDU>, cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
> name (if old enought to talk...). If the infant mislabels a dog or
> whatever, then, just as parents correct "That's foot, not feets" they
> can in passing point out the dog is a whatever breed.
Since this is the second time you've used correcting grammar as an
example, I'll just propose the radical (? :-) notion that this is not
at all necessary. Children correct their own grammar and word useage
very quickly, just from hearing it correctly. I have seen this numerous
times with my daughter. Without my saying anything, she corrects herself.
It might facilitate things if I attempt to use the word correctly soon
after I hear the incorrect usage (I do tend to do this), but I can't say
I'm sure about that. (It's often quite natural to use the word back
then and there, "yes, your foot is...", without having to outright
correct "not this, but that".)
Just one less thing to have to be vigilant about, IMO. :-)
Laura
dol...@cruzio.com
In article <3qglb5$3...@elaine13.Stanford.EDU>, cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
> Laura Dolson <dol...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> >: >Excuse my ignorance (I haven't read this whole thread), but how do you
> >: >correlate the reading/math stuff with motor development. Do you mean to
> >: >say that 1 minute-a-day flash cards improve motor skills?
> >: I can look up the study, I beleive it was done at Brown or harvard.
> >: Babies in an "enriched crib environment" in the sense of sharply
> >: contrasted bumpers and mobile and things like that, who were talked
> >: to, held and played with a lot, were consistantly "ahead" of the group
> >: that was treated well, but not exceptioonally.
> [snip]
> >THere is a BIG difference between the "enriched environment" you
> >are describing here, and that they used in these studies, and
> >teaching your baby math.
>
> Can you explain what the difference is?
My point was that the study you cited had nothing to do with teaching
babies about abstract symbols. It was all about sensory input and
human interaction.
To me, math and reading are
> just extensions. If you kid is interested, that is, looks at the
> cards with any interest, then, well, the infant is interested and you
> are providing an enriched environment. This is true if the baby looks
> at cards or at a red ball. You have interested them and they are
> enjoying themselves.
I am saying that there is, intrinsically, a difference between giving
a baby contact with the real sensory world around him, and "teaching"
him/her about (relatively) abstract concepts based on symbols (numbers,
letters). And that even counting is pretty much a waste. Babies are
learning SO fast - why not give them stimulation that their brains
and nervous systems are ready for at that age, rather than trying to
jump the gun?
We do agree, though, that whatever the stimulation, if the baby is
interested and enjoying themselves, it's probably a Good Thing. I just
think that the agenda of the parent in the flashcard situation could
very easily contaminate the experience. Extra care would have to be
taken on the part of the parent that this didn't happen, and there
isn't any evidence that it does any good (more than other, less agenda-
loaded experiences would also do), so it seems like a waste to me,
for the most part, even in the best case.
Laura Dolson
Marion Baumgarten
> In article <3qglv4$3...@elaine13.Stanford.EDU>,
> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>
> > name (if old enought to talk...). If the infant mislabels a dog or
> > whatever, then, just as parents correct "That's foot, not feets" they
> > can in passing point out the dog is a whatever breed.
>
> Since this is the second time you've used correcting grammar as an
> example, I'll just propose the radical (? :-) notion that this is not at
> all necessary. Children correct their own grammar and word useage very
> quickly, just from hearing it correctly. I have seen this numerous times
> with my daughter. Without my saying anything, she corrects herself. It
> might facilitate things if I attempt to use the word correctly soon after
> I hear the incorrect usage (I do tend to do this), but I can't say I'm
> sure about that. (It's often quite natural to use the word back then and
> there, "yes, your foot is...", without having to outright correct "not
> this, but that".)
>
> Just one less thing to have to be vigilant about, IMO. :-)
>
> Laura
I don't think I have ever corrected my children's grammar. I do tend to
do what Laura does and my six year old will then say "oh- THAT's the way
you say it." Now you can say that since my six year old used to stutter
(notice the USED to folks, we're done with speech therarpy) that maybe I
don't teach speech well, but I was specifically told by her speech
therapist NOT to correct her grammar, it would only add to her anxiety
about talking.
--
Marion Baumgarten Mari...@wwa.com
Mother to Martha (6) and Peter (3)
Die Wunderkinder
Carolyn Jean Fairman
> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>> name (if old enought to talk...). If the infant mislabels a dog or
>> whatever, then, just as parents correct "That's foot, not feets" they
>> can in passing point out the dog is a whatever breed.
>
>Since this is the second time you've used correcting grammar as an
>example, I'll just propose the radical (? :-) notion that this is not
>at all necessary. Children correct their own grammar and word useage
>very quickly, just from hearing it correctly. I have seen this numerous
>times with my daughter. Without my saying anything, she corrects herself.
That's what I meant. You say is correctly rahter than pouncing on her
with "NO it should be this!" :-)
So I would just keep calling a german shepard a german shepard and not
a black labrador. A kid will eventually figure it out. Now if they
are all _doggies_, then I think you are not talking to your kid as an
intelligent little person. IMHO.
I think we may agree here. The objective is not to test and correct,
but to offer models and repeat things.
--
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people; Humanism is the
notion that all people are human.Replace the Golden Rule with Empathy
Principle-feel what other people feel in response to your actions.
Visit http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Humanists/!*Carolyn Fairman*
Karen Plaskon
invariably leads to some arguments (unless we're too tired!) I'm looking
for some net opinions on this subject.
Our 21 month old son Dylan has always been what I'd consider a good eater.
He's always been above average height and weight, has a pretty good variety
of foods he likes, tends to try new things, runs to his high chair at mealtime,
etc.
My philosophy: Give him a selection of food from what we're eating, or,
maybe something else if we're not having anything appealing. Let him sit
with us through our whole meal (i.e., no getting down and running around
while we're eating). If he doesn't eat much during this time, oh well.
I guess he wasn't hungry. (Of course, if he hasn't eaten for several meals,
or if he tried all of the food on his plate and really seemed to hate it,
I might concede and give him something else -- I'm not a tyrant!)
My husband's philosophy: Give him his food. If he doesn't want it (pushes
it away, say's "all done"), even if he hasn't tried it....try giving him
something off of our plates, ask him if he wants something we know he likes
(yogert, banana, applesauce), get up and try a few other foods on him, etc.
In my opinion, my husband's philosophy leads to a very stressful dinner,
especially if Dylan is particularly moody, we could spend the whole dinner
getting up and down and trying different foods! I also think it leads to
a bad habit of Dylan believing that if he holds out long enough, he can
have anything he wants to eat, so why eat peas?
I think my husband believes I'm being overly strict and is afraid that
Dylan will starve to death or something! So far, anytime we've let him
"skip" dinner, because he didn't want to eat what we gave him, he's been
perfectly happy the rest of the night, and didn't seem to wake up overly
hungry in the morning.
I'd like to hear some opinions, and other mealtime philosophies that have
worked for people.
Thanx!
Karen -- mom to Dylan (8/21/93)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen L. Plaskon (karen_...@dg.com)
Data General Corp., Enterprise Solutions Engineering
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Rollo
>a black labrador. A kid will eventually figure it out. Now if they
>are all _doggies_, then I think you are not talking to your kid as an
>intelligent little person. IMHO.
I appreciate the "IMHO", but still...
In my house, they're pretty much "doggies", and I
certainly believe that I talk to Isabel as if she's
an intelligent person. I'm not arguing that there's
anything *wrong* with encouraging recognition of
smaller categories (there's a lot right with it), but
don't assume that not tending to do so equates with
condescending to your child. I think it's just that
we tend to observe to/with our children the ways
in which we observe to ourselves. So, despite knowing
a lot about different breeds of dogs (lots of research,
dog show attendance, etc.) I still think "dog" when I
see one. And I couldn't recognize more than one or two
car models if it weren't for logos on the back (I think
"small red car", "big brown stationwagon", etc.). I
think "truck", not "backhoe", and "dinosaur" instead
of "stegosaurus". I'd gladly explore the finer details
with her if she showed any interest, and occasionally
do talk about specifics (we recently talked a lot about
different kinds of wildflowers, and we have
a lot of different words to describe feelings, and
we like to talk about colors).But basically, we don't
do a whole lot of this together. One of the reasons I'm
glad she has other adults around, and that she goes
to school, is because she benefits, I think, from exposure
to a variety of learning/perception styles. I guess I'm
reacting because it's a pretty big jump from not
stressing one particular *kind* of interaction to
talking down to your child. And I also feel that, while
it's important to make some conscious choices about
effective teaching, I'd hate for it to get in the way
of the really important things I teach her when
we're together - which have to do with being human in
a community of humans (sounds simplistic, I know, and I
don't mean that the rest doesn't matter - I personally get
a whole lot of pleasure from reading/academics/etc - but
so far, at three, that stuff is coming quite naturally
from providing a rich environment. I know, I know, you're
saying that providing names for categories *is* enriching
the environment. I'm agreeing, but with caveats.)
-Dena (sounding quite muddled, but hoping that a point was
made, somewhere :})
I'm just behaving
naomi pardue
> > cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
> That's what I meant. You say is correctly rahter than pouncing on her
> with "NO it should be this!" :-)
> So I would just keep calling a german shepard a german shepard and not
> a black labrador. A kid will eventually figure it out. Now if they
> are all _doggies_, then I think you are not talking to your kid as an
> intelligent little person. IMHO.
Ok. According to my book on the subject there are over 100 separate
breeds of dogs recognized by the AKC. (Plus several hundred others.) If
you're cluttering your infant's brain with hundreds of separate dog
names, you're taking up space that could be used for other, more useful
(to a 1 year old...) words. When the child learns to talk, and is
dealing with a vocabulary measured in dozens of words, not hundreds or
thousands, the child is learning to say "german shephard" and "cocker
spaniel" and "pomeranian" instead of "cup" and "juice" and "out." (And
other words more useful to the average toddler.) And when the child
sees a dog on the street the name of which she has not yet learned she
won't know what to call it because, if I am understanding you correctly,
"dog" is not part of her vocabulary, becuase you always refer to dogs by
their breed names!
Toddlers learn generalized terms first. (And indeed some toddlers call
ANY four legged critter "doggie" until they learn the appropriate
word! [and all men are "daddies" and all women are "mommies", etc.]).
Specialized ones come later. Children will learn the names of dog
breeds. When they are ready to do so and the information is of relevence.
(Shaina is currently fascinated
with the idea that differnt cars have different names -- We just bought
a new car.)
(Oh, and incidently, my husband is an intelligent person and I will very
often refer to a dog as "a dog" (rather than "a german shephard") in
coversation with him. It depends on the point I am making. if the breed
is relevent, I mention the breed. If not, I don't.
Naomi
Kate Manbert
..
>Toddlers learn generalized terms first. (And indeed some toddlers call
>ANY four legged critter "doggie" until they learn the appropriate
>word! [and all men are "daddies" and all women are "mommies", etc.]).
>Specialized ones come later. Children will learn the names of dog
>breeds. When they are ready to do so and the information is of relevence.
>(Oh, and incidently, my husband is an intelligent person and I will very
>often refer to a dog as "a dog" (rather than "a german shephard") in
>coversation with him. It depends on the point I am making. if the breed
>is relevent, I mention the breed. If not, I don't.
>
>Naomi
My kids called (and still do most of the time because my husband and I don't know much about breeds) these animals "dogs" not "doggi=
es". We tried to avoid baby-talk, with the result being that they used the real words for things all along. (except we all said "w=
a-wa" for water for a while until I used the term at work one day :-) It was my husband's idea because someone he knew spoke almost=
completely differently to their children which he thought made the adult seem stupid. The no baby talk rule worked well for us, an=
d we still use whatever words we would use with adults when talking to our kids. The kids ask when they don't know a word. It is q=
uite hard to describe the meaning of some words in a way they can understand (yesterday the word was abuse), but its possible and I'=
ve gotten better at it. I sometimes resort to the dictionary when its a word I can't describe.
Kate
Mom to Elise (8) and Rush (5 1/2)
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>> > cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>> So I would just keep calling a german shepard a german shepard and not
>> a black labrador. A kid will eventually figure it out. Now if they
>> are all _doggies_, then I think you are not talking to your kid as an
>> intelligent little person. IMHO.
>
>Ok. According to my book on the subject there are over 100 separate
>breeds of dogs recognized by the AKC. (Plus several hundred others.) If
>you're cluttering your infant's brain with hundreds of separate dog
>names, you're taking up space that could be used for other, more useful
>(to a 1 year old...) words. When the child learns to talk, and is
>dealing with a vocabulary measured in dozens of words, not hundreds or
>thousands, the child is learning to say "german shephard" and "cocker
>spaniel" and "pomeranian" instead of "cup" and "juice" and "out." (And
>other words more useful to the average toddler.) And when the child
>sees a dog on the street the name of which she has not yet learned she
>won't know what to call it because, if I am understanding you correctly,
>"dog" is not part of her vocabulary, becuase you always refer to dogs by
>their breed names!
Why do you say juice then? Why not just call it all "liquid" and be
done with it? Hmmm?
Look. I realize any concrete example I use can be taken to absurd
extremes. I am not in any way implying you *must* go out and learn
all dog breeds, all flower names, all *anything*.
Does you kid know the difference between orange juice, apple juice,
water, milk and all that? Perhaps this is because that is what you
called all those _liquids_.
I used dogs as a concrete example of where you can give your child
**exposure** to information, just as you do when you tell them there
is a liquid called apple juice and a liquid called orange juice.
Ok? Dogs were an **example**. I don't need to know, in such a offhand
manner, that your husband doesn't care about dog breeds. I used dogs
to demonstrate a _point_ which is that you can offer your kids
information that they wil pick up, or you can use general terms.
Your own use of the word "juice" is a specific term that
differentiates milk from water from juices. Why introduce such
tremendous complexity into your child's life?
Leave it to "food" and "liquid".
(sarcasm because I am upset that you would drag an example ad absurdum
and obscure my original point)
--
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people; Humanism is the
notion that all people are human.Replace the Golden Rule with Empathy
Principle-feel what other people feel in response to your actions.
Visit http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Humanists/ *CarolynFairman*
naomi pardue
> naomi pardue <npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> >> > cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
> >> So I would just keep calling a german shepard a german shepard and not
> >> a black labrador. A kid will eventually figure it out. Now if they
> >> are all _doggies_, then I think you are not talking to your kid as an
> >> intelligent little person. IMHO.
> >
> >Ok. According to my book on the subject there are over 100 separate
> >breeds of dogs recognized by the AKC. (Plus several hundred others.) If
> >you're cluttering your infant's brain with hundreds of separate dog
> Why do you say juice then? Why not just call it all "liquid" and be
> done with it? Hmmm?
> Look. I realize any concrete example I use can be taken to absurd
> extremes. I am not in any way implying you *must* go out and learn
> all dog breeds, all flower names, all *anything*.
I distinctly remember it being mentioned that flash cards of dog breeds
were a part of the early teaching package being discussed here. I'm assuming
from that
mention that flashcards of dog breeds are used to teach infants to tell
a german shepard from a cocker spaniel. If that is not the case, then
why are the flashcards being used?
> Does you kid know the difference between orange
juice, apple juice,
> water, milk and all that? Perhaps this is because that is what you
> called all those _liquids_.
Initially I talked to shaina about three forms of liquid. Babymilk
(breastmilk), milk and juice. (Shaina didn't
drink much water as a baby.) Juice meant apple juice, orange juice, pear
juice, whatever. As she got older, I did begin to talk about different
types of juices. With animals, we initally distinguished between dogs,
cats, elephants, etc. That was a reasononable, relevent degree of
complexity for an infant/toddler.
> I used dogs as a concrete example of where you can give your child
> **exposure** to information, just as you do when you tell them there
> is a liquid called apple juice and a liquid called orange juice.
> Ok? Dogs were an **example**. I don't need to know, in such a offhand
> manner, that your husband doesn't care about dog breeds. I used dogs
> to demonstrate a _point_ which is that you can offer your kids
> information that they wil pick up, or you can use general terms.
You stated that referrring to a dog flatly as "dog" (or, God forbid...
Doggie) implied the parent did not consider the child intelligent. My
response was that complexity is introduced, and used, as it becomes
relevent. The difference between juice and milk is interesting and
important to a child. Differnt types of animals are interesting because
they make different noises, live in different places, act different, etc. I
still
do not grasp why a 6 month old needs to be able to tell a german shepard
from a cocker spaniel, unless his parents raise dogs!
> Your own use of the word "juice" is a specific term that
> differentiates milk from water from juices. Why introduce such
> tremendous complexity into your child's life?
> Leave it to "food" and "liquid".
> (sarcasm because I am upset that you would drag an example ad absurdum
> and obscure my original point)
Because that is a form of complexity that is relevent to a young child.
Naomi
Richard Carnes
>Why do you say juice then? Why not just call it all "liquid" and be
>done with it? Hmmm?
It's interesting and useful to a small child to learn the names of
apple, orange, and grape juice because they often want one and not the
others. The same small child probably doesn't care if the dog across
the street is a chow, Norwegian elkhound or Jack Russell terrier; he
cares whether it will bite him or whether it will fetch sticks like
his own dog. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily anything
wrong with telling him the more specific names of things, but there's
nothing wrong either with just calling a dog a dog (or even a doggie)
as long as that's more or less what we call it and that's all the
child is interested in.
It's far more important for young children to develop excitement and
enthusiasm about a subject than for them to be taught facts about it.
When the motivation is there, they will learn the facts and skills. A
nephew of mine probably knows as much about dinosaurs as Stephen Jay
Gould, not because anyone tried to teach him but because he thinks
dinosaurs are cool. The histories of gifted and creative people show
that the crucial role played by their parents was not in active
instruction but in supporting and encouraging them and creating an
intellectual climate in the home.
From Elkind's _Miseducation_:
"Infants and young children are not just sitting twiddling their
thumbs, waiting for their parents to teach them to read and do math.
They are expending a vast amount of time and effort in exploring and
understanding their immediate world. Healthy education supports and
encourages this spontaneous learning. Early instruction miseducates,
not because it attempts to teach, but because it attempts to teach the
wrong things at the wrong time. When we ignore what the child has to
learn and instead impose what we want to teach, we put infants and
young children at risk for no purpose."
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>Why do you say juice then? Why not just call it all "liquid" and be
>>done with it? Hmmm?
>
>It's interesting and useful to a small child to learn the names of
>apple, orange, and grape juice because they often want one and not the
>others. The same small child probably doesn't care if the dog across
>the street is a chow, Norwegian elkhound or Jack Russell terrier; he
>cares whether it will bite him or whether it will fetch sticks like
>his own dog. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily anything
>wrong with telling him the more specific names of things, but there's
>nothing wrong either with just calling a dog a dog (or even a doggie)
>as long as that's more or less what we call it and that's all the
>child is interested in.
How will you ever know what the child is interested in if you never
expose them to much? How can you tell the child won't find dogs
fascinating unless you offer an environment where they hear dogs being
labelled?
>It's far more important for young children to develop excitement and
>enthusiasm about a subject than for them to be taught facts about it.
>When the motivation is there, they will learn the facts and skills. A
>nephew of mine probably knows as much about dinosaurs as Stephen Jay
>Gould, not because anyone tried to teach him but because he thinks
>dinosaurs are cool. The histories of gifted and creative people show
>that the crucial role played by their parents was not in active
>instruction but in supporting and encouraging them and creating an
>intellectual climate in the home.
Although the thread has Doman in the subject, I have always been
talking about enriched environments. I am not convinced flashcards are
the evil you might think, nor are they quote so stunningly wonderful
as Doman paints. *"Creating an intellectual environment in the home"
is *exactly* what I'm talking about.
The whole _point_ is that you cannot tell if a child is interested in
something you enver let them know about! This is just as true with
gender and 4 month old children labelled boys never being offered
dolls, or the same baby labelled a girl never being offered anything
*but* dolls.
The whole idea of what I was writing about is offering information, so
that the child has more available to think about. It is *exactly*
what you do when you read books to kids, point out things to kids, and
do *new* things with them. My example of dog was to demonstrate that,
in that **example** (i.e. it is not personal and specific to _your_
particular interest in dogs, this is an *example*), you can add in
information for your kid to chew on, in a wholly ands totally
non-testing environment.
I wqas *****NOT***** teling people that EVERYONE absolutely MUST
desribe dogs in detail to their kids, no matter what.
Ok?
I was *specifically* stating (somewhere expired, I'm sure) that
Doman's flashacrds _are_ excessive, but not to throw out a valid point
with his excessive flashcarding. The idea is to offer kids the world
of information so that the *kid* can decide what of these new things,
that they did not know before, they want to follow or learn more about.
So with my *particular* _example_ of, say, dogs, flashcards is, to me
(yes, folks it really is true I am not a Doman-head. Ok?), excessive,
but the idea of telling the kid that a dog is a yellow lab is
providing *information* and creating this intellectual environment
you, even, seem to think a good idea.
Then, if the kid asks you the type of dog you cannot identify and so
left as dog, you know that they are interested! The kid would not
have even know there were names for different dog types. You have not
"pushed" them, you have not "tested" them, you simply let them know
something interesting about the world.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>were a part of the early teaching package being discussed here. I'm assuming
>from that
>mention that flashcards of dog breeds are used to teach infants to tell
>a german shepard from a cocker spaniel. If that is not the case, then
>why are the flashcards being used?
I apologize if I was not clear. I do not advocate flashcards, but to
take Doman's ideas about enriching an environment, and use them in
natural means. Identifying *whatever*, instead of using a general
term, is something that seem natural to me. Not asking the kid to
repeat it, not testing the kid, but letting them know there ar names
for things, so that *if* they are interested, they can ask you when
you don't know and do have to use a general name. All you have done
was let the kid know that ther are names for things, as something for
the kid to chew on mentally. Sort of like letting them know books
exist and that Mom and Dad can read from them and that this is fun.
Again, I'm sorry if I had not made myself clear about _adding_ the
use of specifics into day-to-day talk, as opposed to flashcards.
I wrote:
>> Does your kid know the difference between orange
>>juice, apple juice,
>> water, milk and all that? Perhaps this is because that is what you
>> called all those _liquids_.
>
>Initially I talked to shaina about three forms of liquid. Babymilk
>(breastmilk), milk and juice. (Shaina didn't
>drink much water as a baby.) Juice meant apple juice, orange juice, pear
>juice, whatever. As she got older, I did begin to talk about different
>types of juices. With animals, we initally distinguished between dogs,
>cats, elephants, etc. That was a reasononable, relevent degree of
>complexity for an infant/toddler.
You think so, and I respect that. I disagree and find that children
are perfectly capable of hearing names of flowers rather than always
hearing "a pretty flower". And of understanding what you mean. It is
like labelling the cars red or green, even when the infant is just
teething them. Why not? I think you can never know how much the
child wants until they start telling you to stop, and more likely,
they will ask you that one time you just call something a flower,
"Whazzat?" because they were used to things being more than just
flowers. Then you have to go (together) and look it up. Or say
you'll find out and see if they forget... :-)
>> I used dogs as a concrete example of where you can give your child
>> **exposure** to information, just as you do when you tell them there
>> is a liquid called apple juice and a liquid called orange juice.
>> Ok? Dogs were an **example**. I don't need to know, in such a offhand
>> manner, that your husband doesn't care about dog breeds. I used dogs
>> to demonstrate a _point_ which is that you can offer your kids
>> information that they wil pick up, or you can use general terms.
>
>You stated that referrring to a dog flatly as "dog" (or, God forbid...
>Doggie) implied the parent did not consider the child intelligent.
No, I stated that it _is_ a more intelligent response. I think that a
valid statement. That you feel children need not be exposed in such a
way, is a disagreement. But I prefer not be painted as insulting
parents. I simply feel that I would not tell someone I know that
something is a dog if I know quite well it is a Cocker Spaniel. Of
course, I drive folks nuts telling them what all the flowers are. :-)
>My
>response was that complexity is introduced, and used, as it becomes
>relevent. The difference between juice and milk is interesting and
>important to a child. Differnt types of animals are interesting because
>they make different noises, live in different places, act different, etc. I
>still
>do not grasp why a 6 month old needs to be able to tell a german shepard
>from a cocker spaniel, unless his parents raise dogs!
It is not that the child will ever be tested, but that they will know.
You will never know if you like something until you try it, right?
A child is totally unable to learn anything you do not expose then to,
until they can hit the WWW or the library. I am simply saying that I
think you might as well introduce whatever you can, rather than defer
for some magical time when you have determined they want it. Sort of
like this "children should not be exposed to any learning about
reading until the magic age of 5 and kindergarten concept). Let _them_
make the decision that they want less information, but don't make the
decision for them.
>> Your own use of the word "juice" is a specific term that
>> differentiates milk from water from juices. Why introduce such
>> tremendous complexity into your child's life?
>
>> Leave it to "food" and "liquid".
>
>> (sarcasm because I am upset that you would drag an example ad absurdum
>> and obscure my original point)
>
>Because that is a form of complexity that is relevent to a young child.
Every child is different, for one. I hope we all agree on that, at
least. However, parents are continually posting here about how their
child amazed them in knowing this or being interested in that. It
seems parents assume kids don't want to be *exposed* (and I am not
talking flashcards) to things, yet their kids keep surprising them in
being interested in anything the parent brings up. I don't understand
how you can decide what is going to be relevent to a kid (honest
question).
Carolyn Jean Fairman
>>Does your kid know the difference between orange juice, apple juice,
>>water, milk and all that? Perhaps this is because that is what you
>>called all those _liquids_.
>
>Well, to a certain extent, I think it has to do with the necessity of
>differentiation and the function of various things in the life of a
>small child. A three year old may need to know the difference between
>juice and milk - one day they may want one, the next another. But a
>child rarely *needs* to know the difference between an Alsatian and an
>Irish Wolfhound. Kids learn functional nouns and verbs *first* - despite
>their exposure to a range of other language forms and concepts.
>
>The philosopher Wittgenstein put it "Children do not learn the concept
>"chair" and "book" - they learn to read books and sit on chairs". Function
>frequently preceeds form in childhood.
I do understand that, and I have specifically never advocated
*testing* or expecting the _toddler_ to label things. The idea is
exposure, and everyone else is writing that word, and doing it, and
all I suggest is that parents add exposure. So by exposing a toddler
to the fact that there are different things in a category does not
mean they will instantaneouly pick that up, but that such a concept
*is avalailable* and provided.
>There are other kinds of information introduced, though. As I understand
>it, children a bit older than Shaina are ripe for the kinds of language
>development that you describe. Children become fascinated with
>differentiation, wanting to know for example, where family members come
>from, or what kind of dog or whatever they are seeing. These are the kids
>who know all the names for all the kinds of cars or dinosaurs, or whatever.
>This is the age group where they can tell you that gramma came from
>New Zealand and Grampa came from Taiwan, and uncle Vinnie was born in
>Greece.
Siunce all children are individuals, though, I thought it best to just
have these concepts avaliable for whenever they are ready, and
perhaps they will pick up something they might not have.
>>I used dogs as a concrete example of where you can give your child
>>**exposure** to information, just as you do when you tell them there
>>is a liquid called apple juice and a liquid called orange juice.
>
>I think it also depends on the kinds of interaction that one refers to. As
>Dena put it well, the self-consciousness that such language-consciousness
>requires might be a barrier to comfortable parenting. But I think there
>are cases in which specifics are important to all of us. I, for example.
>have ideological and moral reasons to refer *explicitly and specifically*
>to the correct names for genitals and emotions. So when I have a kid,
>they'll know that they have a clitoris, a vagina, labia, etc... from
>a fairly young age. Some other parents might find that kind of language
>consciousness excessive and burdensome, and yet be extremely specific
>about some other kind of linguistic specificity - say words for God.
>or the proper titles for adults.
>
>I don't think Naomi is quite correct. Kids don't, psychologically, acquire
>one kind of language to the functional exclusion of another. The baby who
>knows the word "Alsatian" for the family dog doesn't loose out on the
>word "milk" or "diaper" because of it. Vocabulary simply is more flexible
>than that. If you teach it in the sense "Doggy!" "Yes, Doggy! Alsation
>Doggy"; rather than "Doggy" "No, Alsation", the child's own ability to
>adapt linguistically will determine whether or not the child can remember
>and use that term.
Ok. Sigh. In the future I will never use the word Doman again if
only people would listen to what I'm saying. Using "No, Alsation" is
denying the child that they identified a doggie. In every example I
used I specifically referred to what the _parent_ did so as not to be
labelled in this camp (not that you necessarily were, but it seems
that way) of testing, correcting and telling the child she is 'wrong'
for using doggie.
What I wrote was that the *parent* use Alsacian, and then, what you
said sounds perfect--"Yes, doggie, Alsacian doggie". You have
supported her recognition of doggie and _offered_ _more_
_information_. Thus my repeated use of the phrase *enriched*
environment.
And, it sound like you know the field more than I do, but, yes, it
owuld then be the child left to pick up using Alsacian whenever that
chid is ready. That way it is up to the child to use what you
provided, rather than not even having information you know (just as
another aside, again, dogs was an example, and I was not demanding
everyone go out and memorize all dog breeds, or all flower names or
all...).
>The other thing at issue is how much conscious "education" is taking
>place in your everyday interactions with kids. Some parents believe
>that constant clarification and conscious education should be part of
>most interaction, whereas other parents are more laid back, and believe
>that at least in the early part of language development, enough new
>information is being acquired every day so that they don't have to
>worry too much about it. I suspect most parents fall somewhere in
>between.
Fair enough. I will accept I was too strong in talking about treating
toddlers like intelligent little poeple, and apparently seeming to
imply some parents did not love or care for their children. I added
IMHO, but I will just strike the whole thing. I still think it better
for kids, and I have every right to my opinion and explaining the
reasons, and YMMV!
>As always, Ymmv.
>
>Sharon
Cerebus
>Cerebus <sha...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>[big snip]
>>I don't think Naomi is quite correct. Kids don't, psychologically, acquire
I mentioned this in one of my other posts, but the other things that
interests me about this is how our choices of educational material and
information betray our own linguistic and intellectual biases. When
you say "Alsacian (is that how you spell it?) doggie" you are indeed
providing them with a kind of information - but why do we choose that
particular kind of information? Why not "yes, big doggie" or "yes.
in heat doggie" or "yes, related to the wolf through evolution doggie"?
Does Alsacian offer them a kind of information more important or more
useful than another? And yet we inevitably make these choices. I
think maybe one of the sources of confusion for some of us is that
naming and categorization aren't always the kinds of information we
choose to prioritize.
Sharon Astyk
Cerebus
>naomi pardue <npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>> > cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>>> So I would just keep calling a german shepard a german shepard and not
>>> a black labrador. A kid will eventually figure it out. Now if they
>>> are all _doggies_, then I think you are not talking to your kid as an
>>> intelligent little person. IMHO.
>>
>>Ok. According to my book on the subject there are over 100 separate
>>breeds of dogs recognized by the AKC. (Plus several hundred others.) If
>>you're cluttering your infant's brain with hundreds of separate dog
>>names, you're taking up space that could be used for other, more useful
>>(to a 1 year old...) words. When the child learns to talk, and is
>>dealing with a vocabulary measured in dozens of words, not hundreds or
>>thousands, the child is learning to say "german shephard" and "cocker
>>spaniel" and "pomeranian" instead of "cup" and "juice" and "out." (And
>>other words more useful to the average toddler.) And when the child
>>sees a dog on the street the name of which she has not yet learned she
>>won't know what to call it because, if I am understanding you correctly,
>>"dog" is not part of her vocabulary, becuase you always refer to dogs by
>>their breed names!
>Why do you say juice then? Why not just call it all "liquid" and be
>done with it? Hmmm?
>Look. I realize any concrete example I use can be taken to absurd
>extremes. I am not in any way implying you *must* go out and learn
>all dog breeds, all flower names, all *anything*.
>Does you kid know the difference between orange juice, apple juice,
>water, milk and all that? Perhaps this is because that is what you
>called all those _liquids_.
Well, to a certain extent, I think it has to do with the necessity of
differentiation and the function of various things in the life of a
small child. A three year old may need to know the difference between
juice and milk - one day they may want one, the next another. But a
child rarely *needs* to know the difference between an Alsatian and an
Irish Wolfhound. Kids learn functional nouns and verbs *first* - despite
their exposure to a range of other language forms and concepts.
The philosopher Wittgenstein put it "Children do not learn the concept
"chair" and "book" - they learn to read books and sit on chairs". Function
frequently preceeds form in childhood.
There are other kinds of information introduced, though. As I understand
it, children a bit older than Shaina are ripe for the kinds of language
development that you describe. Children become fascinated with
differentiation, wanting to know for example, where family members come
from, or what kind of dog or whatever they are seeing. These are the kids
who know all the names for all the kinds of cars or dinosaurs, or whatever.
This is the age group where they can tell you that gramma came from
New Zealand and Grampa came from Taiwan, and uncle Vinnie was born in
Greece.
>I used dogs as a concrete example of where you can give your child
>**exposure** to information, just as you do when you tell them there
>is a liquid called apple juice and a liquid called orange juice.
I think it also depends on the kinds of interaction that one refers to. As
Dena put it well, the self-consciousness that such language-consciousness
requires might be a barrier to comfortable parenting. But I think there
are cases in which specifics are important to all of us. I, for example.
have ideological and moral reasons to refer *explicitly and specifically*
to the correct names for genitals and emotions. So when I have a kid,
they'll know that they have a clitoris, a vagina, labia, etc... from
a fairly young age. Some other parents might find that kind of language
consciousness excessive and burdensome, and yet be extremely specific
about some other kind of linguistic specificity - say words for God.
or the proper titles for adults.
I don't think Naomi is quite correct. Kids don't, psychologically, acquire
one kind of language to the functional exclusion of another. The baby who
knows the word "Alsatian" for the family dog doesn't loose out on the
word "milk" or "diaper" because of it. Vocabulary simply is more flexible
than that. If you teach it in the sense "Doggy!" "Yes, Doggy! Alsation
Doggy"; rather than "Doggy" "No, Alsation", the child's own ability to
adapt linguistically will determine whether or not the child can remember
and use that term.
The other thing at issue is how much conscious "education" is taking
place in your everyday interactions with kids. Some parents believe
that constant clarification and conscious education should be part of
most interaction, whereas other parents are more laid back, and believe
that at least in the early part of language development, enough new
information is being acquired every day so that they don't have to
worry too much about it. I suspect most parents fall somewhere in
between.
As always, Ymmv.
Sharon
Cerebus
>Richard Carnes <car...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>>Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>>Why do you say juice then? Why not just call it all "liquid" and be
>>>done with it? Hmmm?
>>
>>It's interesting and useful to a small child to learn the names of
>>apple, orange, and grape juice because they often want one and not the
>>others. The same small child probably doesn't care if the dog across
>>the street is a chow, Norwegian elkhound or Jack Russell terrier; he
>>cares whether it will bite him or whether it will fetch sticks like
>>his own dog. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily anything
>>wrong with telling him the more specific names of things, but there's
>>nothing wrong either with just calling a dog a dog (or even a doggie)
>>as long as that's more or less what we call it and that's all the
>>child is interested in.
>How will you ever know what the child is interested in if you never
>expose them to much? How can you tell the child won't find dogs
>fascinating unless you offer an environment where they hear dogs being
>labelled?
Well, this is an interesting point. Does interest/excitement about a
subject generate *from* having the ability to name a concept, or does
the ability to name follow from a child's interest? (As someone interested
in the philosophy of language, this is a fascinating, if much disputed
concept.) I personally tend to believe that the ability to describe
linguistically is very much related to the ability to conceive, understand
and develop interest. For example, playing with the dog analogy, it
seems logical that a child is aware that there are many kinds of dogs
*before* he can learn/remember the names of those dogs. At first he
may (and all of this is controversial) distinguish solely between dogs
he knows and those he does not. Later, big and little, varying colors,
different "types" of dogs are something he recognizes as existing. But
until he acquires the linguistic concept of "breeds" he probably will
not recognize that all dogs of a particular type and appearance, and with
individual characteristics are part of a genetic community.
Is it relevant for him? Well, yes and no. Certainly the urge to categorize
is a particular way into the understanding and excitement over "dogs" -
just as many kids learn the names and history and classification of cars
or dinosaurs, learning the names and classifications of dogs can be a kind
of access into understanding of "dogs" - but so too can other kinds of
knowledge about dogs, that has nothing to do with the extant categorization.
For example, a child can have a great deal of knowledge about dogs - what
they are like, how they respond to stimulus, what they eat, how they
behave, their medical needs *without* being able to categorize by breed.
Categorization and naming are one way "into" a concept, but not the only
one. Moreover, the kids of naming we choose are more indicative, I think
of our own biases and priorities (not necessarily a negative thing) than
anything else. When I say "Yes, a doggie" or "Yes, that's a Retriever",
I'm making a linguistic choice to prioritize one kind of information over
another.
What I mean is that the little girl who points at a large, short haired
dog, whose only exposure to a small, long haired dog may in fact be making
a real cognitive leap, one that classification will only disturb. When
she points and says "doggie" - the clarification "yes, that's a doggie"
may be the kind of informations she needs - she's trying find and determine
all the things that fit into the intellectual category "doggie". If you
say, "Yes, that's a retriever". you may actually not be providing her with
useful information. On the other hand, if her "doggie" is part of her
attempt to figure out *why* such disparate creatures look alike, or break
down the complex variety of dogs into comprehensible categories, your
clarification may indeed be educational. But it is also representative
of our own priorities - you may find the breed of the dog relevant or
educational, and sometimes it is. But when I choose "dog" I am not
inherently speaking down to a child, but rather implying that the breed
is not an issue - that my example is part of a larger category. I am
saying that the category of dog is my subject, you are saying that a more
discrete category, and the process of categorization are yours. Neither
is inherently educational, unless you as a practice deny your children
specific information into intellectual categories.
>>It's far more important for young children to develop excitement and
>>enthusiasm about a subject than for them to be taught facts about it.
>>When the motivation is there, they will learn the facts and skills. A
>>nephew of mine probably knows as much about dinosaurs as Stephen Jay
>>Gould, not because anyone tried to teach him but because he thinks
>>dinosaurs are cool. The histories of gifted and creative people show
>>that the crucial role played by their parents was not in active
>>instruction but in supporting and encouraging them and creating an
>>intellectual climate in the home.
>Although the thread has Doman in the subject, I have always been
>talking about enriched environments. I am not convinced flashcards are
>the evil you might think, nor are they quote so stunningly wonderful
>as Doman paints. *"Creating an intellectual environment in the home"
>is *exactly* what I'm talking about.
>The whole _point_ is that you cannot tell if a child is interested in
>something you enver let them know about! This is just as true with
>gender and 4 month old children labelled boys never being offered
>dolls, or the same baby labelled a girl never being offered anything
>*but* dolls.
That's true. And if there's anything that feminism and Marxism have
shown is the truly powerful nature of language. It is true that when
we leave things unsaid, unnamed, we leave them secret. But *simply*
altering linguistic categories isn't adequate. There is a place for
informative categorization, and careful naming, and they are important.
But simple naming isn't sufficient. And because a parent doesn't know
or doesn't use all the possible, most precise names for some things
doesn't make the environment anti-intellectual. We have *functional*
knowledge of some things, and *Specific* knowledge of others, and
priveleging one over the other doesn't seem particularly desirable.
Functional knowledge is a valid category of knowledge.
Sharon Astyk
Marion Baumgarten
>
> The philosopher Wittgenstein put it "Children do not learn the concept
> "chair" and "book" - they learn to read books and sit on chairs". Function
> frequently preceeds form in childhood.
>
> There are other kinds of information introduced, though. As I understand
> it, children a bit older than Shaina are ripe for the kinds of language
> development that you describe. Children become fascinated with
> differentiation, wanting to know for example, where family members come
> from, or what kind of dog or whatever they are seeing. These are the kids
> who know all the names for all the kinds of cars or dinosaurs, or whatever.
> This is the age group where they can tell you that gramma came from
> New Zealand and Grampa came from Taiwan, and uncle Vinnie was born in
> Greece.
>
Heh..heh- you mean my neice and nephew who at age 6 and 7 had all the
presidents of the Us memorized, their terms in office and their
birthdays? Natalie and Eisenhower shared the same birthday, an source of
endless delight to her at age 6.
Ang Peng Hwa
As far as I understand it, Doman's point is that kids learn rules by
themselves. So the idea of using specific dog names is for the kids to
learn that there are various types of dogs. The kid processes the rules
herself. There is the thread in this list about the kid calling
yesterday "last day." That's extremely logical because we call the night
before last night. So how come we don't call the day before last day.
Doman uses the example of the kid who calls the mailman the mailer.
Another totally logical conclusion: someone who sails--sailor. Someone
who runs--runner.
So Naomi's method of pointing out the juices is another way to allow the
kid to develop her own rules.
With all due respect, it seems to me there is some misunderstanding of Doman.
Learning the specific contents of the flashcard is *not* the aim of
Doman. Learning to develop rules, learning to love learning, are some of
his aims.
Janet Bertot
> Hi all! My husband and I regularly face a dilemma at dinnertime, which
> invariably leads to some arguments (unless we're too tired!) I'm looking
> for some net opinions on this subject.
> Our 21 month old son Dylan has always been what I'd consider a good eater.
Karen's philosophy:
give him from their plates or something else
stay sitting the whole meal but not required to eat
if continues for several meals, or tries food but doesn't like,
then give him something else
Husband's philosophy:
give him his food
if doesn't eat (and/or doesn't try),
offer parent's food or something he likes(yogurt, etc.)
]
This is certainly a your-mileage-*will*-vary subject. i must say that with
our second, Paul, just turned 2yr old last sunday, who like your son is a
good eater (likes all sorts of vegetables) and who is also off curve for height
and for weight, we were going merrily along like with our first, Luke, 5yrs.
That is, we sit down to supper together we eat the same meal (unless is it a
light supper based on a chevre-chaud salad, the 2yr doesn't like that much).
Of course, 3 months is a big difference and it may well depend on the child
to find when they pass the cap of "eating what you eat". i with my boys, it
was around 20-21 months that i stopped making a separate meal. Things would
go well, i even had to be careful not prepare his dish up ahead (for example,
so that it is a little cooler than ours) since he wanted to be served from the
bowls/platters on the table, that everyone else was being served from.
Back to the subject at hand, things were going well, until at 22 months he
was sick with a very high fever, so we thought take it easy, only give him things
he likes, cool. He only would eat his yogurt. Well after 5 days when he was
well, he would still only eat his yogurt at dinner. He got in the habit (in 5
short days) that perhaps he can hold out. We were not worried that he would
melt (he weighed in at 15.7 kilos at his checkup, that's 34.5lbs) but we found
this behavior unacceptable. He ate or he went to bed (and you think you're
being strict :o) Sure it was trying and stressful but it lasted 3days, and
i made sure to only make things that i knew he liked, and i would only give him
a quantity that i figured was reasonable (considering that after there is a
yogurt and a piece of fruit). At first we worked at making sure he understood
(put him to bed, offer to get him up but it is back to the table with that
pasta!), i am confident that he understands what we want. For completely new
foods, i try to have something else that he likes, this usually in the form of
an extra vegetable (he's not really carnivorous yet, although he's starting to
show interest!) but it is not *just* for him, everyone gets both and once everyone
is at the table, nothing new gets made to eat ---even it is all healthy and
good for him. i must say that on the 4th day by chance i had my brother-in-law,
his girlfriend, and her parents, in town for a weekend wedding, and i thought
look out :o| but, in fact, he was so happy to participate, he gladly ate.
It is a difficult passage. There are times when they are tired, where i think
they decide it is more of a chore than the usual adventure. Paul who at 12months
took great pride in eating by himself and not being help (if you tried to help,
he screamed!), has just recently decided there are times when i can help him
finish. He'll happily eat but it's just too much work (and coordination trying
to get the stuff on the little spoon or fork!).
You do have to pick what your family is comfortable with: we sit at the table
and everyone waits until everyone else is finished, we ask to get down, and
we eat what mommy and daddy have decided. Note for big family dinners, which
in France can be a bit long, we go with the flow, if they ask first, then perhaps
they can get down early, but only if all the kids are done etc. etc.
Hang in there, in a couple of months the his food vs our food question will be
a thing of the past. Then it is just do you make him eat, or do you prefer
just to offer the food and let him decide what of the foods offered he will
take. Everyone makes their own choice.
--janet
Susan LoVerso
> maybe something else if we're not having anything appealing. Let him sit
> with us through our whole meal (i.e., no getting down and running around
> while we're eating). If he doesn't eat much during this time, oh well.
> I guess he wasn't hungry. (Of course, if he hasn't eaten for several meals,
> or if he tried all of the food on his plate and really seemed to hate it,
> I might concede and give him something else -- I'm not a tyrant!)
This is almost exactly the method we use for my son (now 3). However, if
I am making a dinner where I know he really doesn't like anything, I'll
offer him something I know he likes, like a scrambled egg. This might
happen once every month or two.
Lately my son has not been eating dinner very well at all. He can pick
whatever he wants from what I've made and over the course of several days
he'll eat meat some nights, just veggies other nights, just noodles/rice
others.
Lately if he really doesn't want any dinner food, he'll ask for a snack
at bedtime. The circumstances around this indicate it might be slightly
manipulative. So, we offer to heat up some dinner food (whatever he'd
like from dinner) and make him a little bit. Then after he eats that, he
can have a "traditional" bedtime snack of cereal or toast or whatever.
He has learned he cannot substitute snack for dinner. At first he protested
but after 2 days, he either eats the dinner food, or eats a better dinner.
> My husband's philosophy: Give him his food. If he doesn't want it (pushes
> it away, say's "all done"), even if he hasn't tried it....try giving him
> something off of our plates, ask him if he wants something we know he likes
> (yogert, banana, applesauce), get up and try a few other foods on him, etc.
We only do this when it really seems like my son really doesn't like any
of the things we have. Otherwise I agree with your philosophy and reasons
for disliking this philosophy.
--
Susan J. LoVerso "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
Peter 3/31/92 a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
?? 6/13/95? nor safety." --- Benjamin Franklin
[I guess not yet...]
Cleota Gambino
Karen Plaskon <k...@karen.rtp.dg.com> wrote:
>Hi all! My husband and I regularly face a dilemma at dinnertime, which
>invariably leads to some arguments (unless we're too tired!) I'm looking
>for some net opinions on this subject.
- - philosophies snipped - - -
The way I handle dinner times - I make what my husband & I want to
eat. C. J. gets to submit opinions, but only occasionally. If I
know the kids will eat it, I give it to them too. If I know they
won't eat it (enchiladas, tacos - only because they are way too
spicy for Trentyn), I make something simple like hotdogs for him.
If they don't eat what I make, they usually don't eat. I normally
only make things that all of us will eat, with the exception of
the enchiladas and tacos. I am lucky in that both kids are really
good eaters and have never really refused to eat something.
The kids are really not allowed to get down from the table unless
they have eaten something. Usually we go through a little ritual
of "eat just one more bite". They also know that if they want
a popicle or something for dessert, they must eat their dinner.
I don't force my kids to eat. They will eat when they are hungry.
If they aren't hungry at dinnertime and they get hungry before
bedtime, they usually get something easy like a poptart or a
sandwich - which C. J. makes his own. I keep a lot of fruit around
(apples, grapes, honeydew melon, canteloupe, strawberries - usually
whatever is in season) and the kids like to nibble on that too.
It is an exception when I make something for my husband and I and
something different for the kids.
Fortunately, my husband and I have never fought about what/when/
where the kids eat.
Cleota Gambino
mama to C. J. and Trentyn
pg 53 in '95 album
Rick Davis
Our philosophy is that we'rewilling to do one subsitute but only if it's
ABSOLUTELY no trouble. So, if he doesn't like the spicy veggies on polenta,
we'll substitute sliced turkey and cheese OR cottage cheese. If it takes me
more than five minutes, he's not getitng it.
Myr
--
Rick Davis and Myriam Godfrey
r...@well.com http://www.hooked.net:80/users/rld
thomas walter x5955
>Hi all! My husband and I regularly face a dilemma at dinnertime, which
>invariably leads to some arguments (unless we're too tired!) I'm looking
>for some net opinions on this subject.
>
>
>My philosophy: Give him a selection of food from what we're eating, or,
>maybe something else if we're not having anything appealing. Let him sit
>with us through our whole meal (i.e., no getting down and running around
>while we're eating). If he doesn't eat much during this time, oh well.
>I guess he wasn't hungry. (Of course, if he hasn't eaten for several meals,
>or if he tried all of the food on his plate and really seemed to hate it,
>I might concede and give him something else -- I'm not a tyrant!)
>
>My husband's philosophy: Give him his food. If he doesn't want it (pushes
>it away, say's "all done"), even if he hasn't tried it....try giving him
>something off of our plates, ask him if he wants something we know he likes
>(yogert, banana, applesauce), get up and try a few other foods on him, etc.
>
uh oh... sounds like me. ;-) Since Janice is a SAH she knows what they
have been eating during the day, and has a better idea of what they might
eat at dinner.
If any thing - what & how much they eat for dinner will vary wildly! Some
nights our youngest (almost 3) will take one bite... other nights his plate
is cleared and he is still hungary. [It is funny, but he will NOT eat
the 'plate' the hamburger is served on... the buns are tossed aside as
he eats the meat patty. ].
Took a bit, but I finally adjusted to NOT offering them a dozen items...
just what we are having for dinner. If they eat everything and are still
hungary, then I do find offer them more to eat!
I have to admit that as I child I hated *canned* peas, but if they had been
frozen then steamed that was fine! I had forgotten about that... until noticing
our oldest had the same reaction (texture). Our youngest loves Lima Beans...
something I still do not have a taste for. We do request they try *one bite*
of everything on the plate.
Since I don't offer them *everything* anymore it is a little more relaxing
to sit through dinner. ;-)
Cheers,
Tom Walter
proud poppa to Emerson (5) and Liam (almost 3)
TAMDY
a hotdog
but don't get dessert. They only get dessert if they eat what we serve.
- Amy
Paula Laine
> My philosophy: Give him a selection of food from what we're eating, or,
> maybe something else if we're not having anything appealing.
> I'd like to hear some opinions, and other mealtime philosophies that have
> worked for people.
We get home from daycare at about 6:15. They have an early lunch (before
noon) and a small afternoon snack, so I don't like to wait to give Alex
his dinner. If we are having leftovers and its something I think he can eat
then we all have dinner at the same time. Otherwise I fix his dinner
right away and when Bob (dad) and I sit down for our dinner later, Alex
goes back into the high chair and has a graham cracker and maybe a few bites
of what we are having if we want it.
I try to give him at least three different things to choose from. Sometimes
he eats them all, sometimes not. When dinner starts going over the sides
of his high chair tray, I ask if he is done eating and if he doesn't
start eating the rest of it, I remove it and his dinner is over.
I am not about to run back and forth to the kitchen 15 times during dinner
to try to get him to eat something. Everything I have read says its the
parents job to provide nutritional choices and the kids job to choose
what they want to eat from that.
He started daycare at 16 months old and eating some of the new and
different foods that they serve has helped him at home also.
Paula Laine
mom to Alex 11/15/93
Susan Kraterfield
>
>Hi all! My husband and I regularly face a dilemma at dinnertime,
which
>invariably leads to some arguments (unless we're too tired!) I'm
looking
>for some net opinions on this subject.
>
I vote for the relazed approach.\
How about this.. tell him when kids go through growth spurts you can't
fill them up then suddenly they seem to eat "nothing". I think it
feels that way because of the contrast with the prior habit.
Little people regulate their eating pretty well till we corrupt them
with lots of sugars and fats. I.e., they eat to live not live to eat.
If he isn't hungry, probably he just doesn't need any more fuel.
--
Susan Kraterfield
Roanoke, VA
kraterf...@salem.ge.com --work
krat...@aol.com --home
Judy Zeitler
kids are very-very picky eaters. Their senses get over whelmed. Loud noises
bother them, food consistancies, tags on clothes, etc. So take what I am saying with
a grain of salt.
I would give him a selection of your food, whatever it is. If he doesn't like
it (or you know that he won't like it), give him a basic food that you
have selected for him. Peanut Butter sandwiches, grilled cheese, chicken
nuggets in the microwave, etc. Something that is easy for you to make.
You don't want to have food wars at this age. I have a problem with it because
you have selected the food, not him, so why shouldn't he have a choice of foods.
I would have him sit with you until he was done and then when he gets up, that is
it he is done eating. No snacks or dessert.
What do you think?
Judy
Tina Szegda
discussion (i.e. running around while adults eating, not wanting the
prepared food, etc.) What I started doing was 1. asking my daugher
what she wouldlike for dinner and listing two choices. 2. asking her
to help me fix dinner. If it was something she couldn't really help
with I would ask her to wipe off the table so we could set the table
and/or asking her to help me set the table. She feels like she is
participating in so many ways. Also, asking her if she is hungry helps.
If kids aren't ready to eat they probally won't no matter what favorites
you fix. I know it's hard after getting home from work all day to wait
an extra hour before eating... but sometimes that makes all the
difference at my house. :)
Sheri Allenwykes
> Hi all! My husband and I regularly face a dilemma at dinnertime, which
> invariably leads to some arguments (unless we're too tired!) I'm
> looking for some net opinions on this subject.
>
> eater.
>
> with us through our whole meal (i.e., no getting down and running around
> while we're eating). If he doesn't eat much during this time, oh well.
> I guess he wasn't hungry. (Of course, if he hasn't eaten for
> several meals, or if he tried all of the food on his plate and
> really seemed to hate it, I might concede and give him something
> else -- I'm not a tyrant!)
>
> My husband's philosophy: Give him his food. If he doesn't want
> it (pushes it away, say's "all done"), even if he hasn't tried it....
> try giving him something off of our plates, ask him if he wants
> something we know he likes (yogert, banana, applesauce), get up and try
> a few other foods on him, etc.
>
> have worked for people.
>
>
> Karen -- mom to Dylan (8/21/93)
>
My philosophy on dinner or any meal for that matter, has been, "that's what's
for dinner, either eat it or don't". He almost ALWAYS eats it. I do ask him
before a meal what he would like and give him about 2 or 3 choices, so it was
really a choice he made in the first place.
At 21 mo, I don't believe my son was able to make too many choices regarding
meals, so it was basically what I fixed him. I would give him a variety of
foods and soon learned what his favorites were. Then I would mix something
new in every now and then and he could eat it or not. There are times when a
particular food would be his favorite and then he would refuse to eat it
again for several days. Once I had foods he would eat established, then that
would be it. When we sat down to dinner, all decisions had been made. I
wanted time to sit down and eat my dinner too.
They like to turn anything into a game, even making Mom or Dad get up and
down several times to get new foods for them. ("Wow, I can make Mom and Dad
jump up and down whenever I want".) He may be too young to think that
rationally now, but keep it up and he'll soon figure it out!!
This is what works for me. There are still times when I will get up, very
rarely, to get him something else. But it's not very often and it's usually
for a good reason. Good luck and I hope you find a solution.
Lynda Seehusen
: ABSOLUTELY no trouble. So, if he doesn't like the spicy veggies on polenta,
That's basically what we do with Emma too. We have had MAJOR problems
in the past with her not eating anything at all (I'm serious) so my
philosophy became "if it's healthy, she can eat it". I try to have
things for meals that I know she likes (basically any type of meat) but
that's not always possible. So I ask her what she wants. If she says
"candy" she doesn't get it :) But if she wants a peanut butter sandwich
or an egg or yogurt I have no problem at all with that.
This has worked really well for us. I'm assuming that someday when
she's at a more rational age she *will* eat a more varied diet :)
Lynda, mom to Emma Rose, 2.9 and "Junior" due Oct. 3.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Cleaning the house while your kids are still growing is like shoveling the
sidewalk before it quits snowing." From "Taste of Home" magazine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ahel...@umiami.ir.miami.edu
> I try to have
> things for meals that I know she likes (basically any type of meat) but
> that's not always possible. So I ask her what she wants. If she says
> "candy" she doesn't get it :) But if she wants a peanut butter sandwich
> or an egg or yogurt I have no problem at all with that.
Just a been there/done that comment: this can get to be a *real* hassle. It
might not be any problem now, but I noted there's another sibling about to make
an appearance. I know that in our family it has gotten to the point that I had
to declare this wasn't "Mom's Diner" :). What happens is you cook dinner for
mom and dad. Child #1 doesn't want it, so you fix her a PBJ. Child #1 likes
milk with her sandwich so you pour that. Child #1 likes an apple with her PBJ
and heck, it's a fruit so you slice one. Okay, now child #2 decides he doesn't
want dinner either. But needless to say he won't want a PBJ, apple and glass
of milk either. So, you're back up again fixing a bowl of cheerios. And he
likes apple juice so you get that out and pour it. And oh yeah he prefers a
sliced banana so...
You get the idea. Not a pretty picture. I am not offering pearls of wisdom,
in fact I'm still struggling with this one. My kids pull the
don't-eat-dinner-then-want-snacks-at-bedtime routine which is also infuriating.
Just pointing out that sometimes big problems flow from little accomodations.
Ann Helmers
Lisa Yee
<li...@sodium.lincroftnj.ncr.com> wrote:
> >
I just have to tel you that my husband's mother would make all 3 of her
kids whatever they wanted to eat for dinner. Last year we stopped by,
unannounced at my MIL because we were in her neighborhood and thought she
might like a quick visit with the baby. She asked us if we wanted to stay
for dinner and I thought "great I won't have to cook tonight" When she put
the food on the table my husband didn't want what was there (left over pot
roast) and asked her to make him a hamburger and SHE DID IT!!!! To give
him credit, he knows if he tries that with me I'll tell him exactly where
the stove is. I was raised in a home where if it wasn't on the table you
either fix it yourself or get over it.
--
Lisa Yee
ly...@jhhw.com
Chirlian Lisa E
We keep Cheerios on the table as a condiment :-). So cheerios
are available at any time. Libby generally likes them dry anyway and
Abby dips them in whatever is spread on her tray. If Libby asks for
Cheerios/milk before I sit down, I will get it, but once I sit down,
that's it until we are done. I let her choose what she wants for
dinner, so she has a plate or bowl of something to start with. If she
changes her mind she can have Cheerios, or wait until I am done.
We started this just because of the scenario Ann describes
(and it was before Abby was eating solids, jumping up and down for
Libby was wearing me out).
Lisa
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Chirlian lchi...@cc.brynmawr.edu
Department of Chemistry, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lila Agishtein
>In article <3s438a$5...@insosf1.netins.net>, lyn...@dordt.edu (Lynda Seehusen) writes:
>
>> I try to have
>> things for meals that I know she likes (basically any type of meat) but
>> that's not always possible. So I ask her what she wants. If she says
>> "candy" she doesn't get it :) But if she wants a peanut butter sandwich
>> or an egg or yogurt I have no problem at all with that.
>
>Just a been there/done that comment: this can get to be a *real* hassle. It
>might not be any problem now, but I noted there's another sibling about to make
>an appearance. I know that in our family it has gotten to the point that I had
>to declare this wasn't "Mom's Diner" :). What happens is you cook dinner for
>mom and dad. Child #1 doesn't want it, so you fix her a PBJ. Child #1 likes
>milk with her sandwich so you pour that. Child #1 likes an apple with her PBJ
>and heck, it's a fruit so you slice one. Okay, now child #2 decides he doesn't
>want dinner either. But needless to say he won't want a PBJ, apple and glass
>of milk either. So, you're back up again fixing a bowl of cheerios. And he
>likes apple juice so you get that out and pour it. And oh yeah he prefers a
>sliced banana so...
>
>You get the idea. Not a pretty picture. I am not offering pearls of wisdom,
>in fact I'm still struggling with this one. My kids pull the
>don't-eat-dinner-then-want-snacks-at-bedtime routine which is also infuriating.
>Just pointing out that sometimes big problems flow from little accomodations.
>
Yep, and now just imagine 4 kids,who all want different things, (5th is a baby) and
we keep kosher, so it's no milk and meat on the table in the same time. I had to come
up with the rule that you eat what's on the table or take something that doesn't
require me to do any extra work - like a fruit or a sandwich that kids can make
themselves, or you go ahead and wait till breakfast - I clean the kitchen after supper
and no more mess creating activities in the kitchen.
It might be hard and cruel, but I can't quite see myself cooking 5 suppers, I have
enough problems fixing one. By the way sitting down with the whole family is also kind
of necessity - otherways I would serving and cleaning ad infinitum
Lila Agishtein
Ddeetee
my husband, "mr.-no-condiments"... My philosophy:
I usually serve whatever we're having for dinner, but try to include at
least one thing I know they'll LIKELY like, which is usually bread and
butter, mac and cheese, steak. Or, in addition to the regular dinner,
I'll give them each a cup of yogurt. If we're having something I know they
will not enjoy at all, and that their whining will detract from our dining
pleasure, I make them a separate dinner of one thing they are likely to
like, and they eat early. I refuse to be a short order cook, and now that
they are 3.5, I know they will not starve (and perhaps have a better
appetite for breakfast too!!!) I've found if you give them too many
choices, they will take them all and eat none.
good luck, the best thing I did about the food struggle was to decide not
to worry about it--- they will eat when they are hungry.
Donna, mom to Leanne and Michelle 1-24-92