- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Babies: 3 - 6 Months
your baby can read question
I bought your baby can read and started at 3 months. When did your lo start showing signs that they were "getting it". He loves to watch it and is now 5 months old. He has favorite parts that he laughs or smiles at just wondering what months your baby started pointing to the words when asked etc.
Thanks
Thanks
This discussion has been closed.
Re: your baby can read question
When your LO is developmentally ready to handle reading and reading comprehension is when you will see signs that he "gets it."
That's the thing (I wasn't actually being sarcastic), you may not see results with a "program" like that until your LO is actually developmentally ready to read (comprehension has a lot to do with learning to read). It will vary a ton for all children. You may see you children mimic you or give a desired response in a few months. It could be next month and it could be a year from now.
The program won't actually teach your child how to read - it will teach them to mimic and repeat.
There is a lot of misinformation about baby reading passed around by people who know nothing about it. My son started "Your Baby Can Read" as well as other tools as a toddler, and now, at age 4.5, can decode a college philosophy book. (I've got him on video.) He was able to read books like "Little Bear," which are appropriate for two-year-olds, when he was two years old. So he's one of a growing number of real-life, not speculative, examples of children who can read (not just decode, but understand, at a basic level) stuff at a very early age.
I've written a 140-page essay on this stuff, free for download, here: https://www.larrysanger.org/reading.html
I know this is a day late... but I can't help myself. My mother-in-law knows someone whose baby can "read" flashcards from that program. I have to bite my tongue when she goes on and on about it.
I have taught over 120 children the beginning steps to learning how to really read (K teacher). There are so many parts to becoming a successful reader (fluency, phonemic awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, etc) with fluency being the most important in my opinion. However, to become fluent, children need to be able to quickly decode unfamilar words. That takes a of understanding phonics and how the English language works with all those "rules".
This program only teaches whole language. It will help with building strong vocabulary and sight word recognition, but to really teach a child to read, there is a whole umbrella of phonemic awareness.
Ok--- stepping off my box.
bahahahhaha! None of what you wrote means anything! Your crediting a program, but the program has nothing to do with your child's advancements. Some children do have the ability to learn to read at an early age and some do not.
Did you make an account here just to plug the program? Lame.
eta: My niece was also reading at age 2 - simple stuff. At age 4, she was reading fluently at a grade 8 level and comprehending most of what she read. For kids who are simply not ready to learn to read, 'Your Baby Can Read' will have very little impact on them.
No disrespect to your substantial experience teaching Kindergartners to read (and thank you for that!), but teaching a baby or toddler is very, very different, and frankly, it sounds like you don't know anything about it. In other words, you (and all the other people) who know loads about teaching 5-year-olds how to read do not, therefore, know much about how 9-month-olds can be taught to read.
I taught mine starting at 22 months using a combination of phonics flashcards, YBCR, and huge amounts of reading. At age 4.5, a year before he might enter your class, he could decode text out of an old college philosophy text of mine. Moreover, believe it or not, he is not all that unusual; there is a growing number of kids like this.
I am in regular communication with mommies on the BrillKids.com forum. Unlike you, we have personal, daily, direct experience with how this stuff works. One of the remarks frequently made is that it is actually quite a bit easier, more "painless," to teach a baby how to read (with tools like YBCR) than it is children at the ordinary age.
I could go on, but I won't. For more in this vein see an essay I wrote precisely to clarify all this stuff: https://www.larrysanger.org/reading.html
Out of curiousity, do you have any experience teaching a young baby (not toddler) how to read?
I'm all for early literacy, but this can easily be accomplished without forking over $$ to programs like Your Baby Can Read. There have been similar programs on the market for quite a while (The Phonics Factory, for one). I'm not saying that they are awful programs, but what I'm saying is that they are not actually teaching kids to "read" - they are teaching babies and toddlers to mimic and to give a desired response (I'm not referring to older toddlers). That's all fine and dandy, but it really does not give a massive head start to these kids, simply because they will still need to go back and learn what they are reading means and what context it needs to be placed in. Some kids will easily be able to pick up comprehension, and some won't.
The marketing is incredibly misleading. Teaching your child the alphabet, sounds and simple sight words (Dolce sight word list is an excellent place to start) is easy for parents to do without expensive programs. If I were to fork over money to a program, I would spend the money on a program like Animated Literacy. It uses multi-sensory activities to teach reading/decoding and comprehension. Have you heard of it?
What I do like about the program Your Baby Can Read is that it spreads the word, so to speak, of early literacy. But, that's about it.
Haven't heard of Animated Literacy, but after looking at their website, I'm not surprised I haven't; those are learning materials designed for elementary school kids, not babies. They couldn't possibly be used for kids three and under, for example.
YBCR's main feature is its videos, and so Phonics Factory (if you mean this) is really nothing like YBCR. Mind you, YBCR has competitors, but Animated Literacy and Phonics Factory are not competitors. The commercial competitors would include BrillKids.com's Little Reader and Monki See Monki Do; the free competitors would include Glenn Doman's method (you make your own flashcards) and my own free flashcard method (phonics flashcards for 1,000 words can be downloaded here, but be careful, it's a ginormous 122 MB download).
I think a lot of the stuff I was doing with my first, when he was a baby, prepared him to learn to decode words starting around 22 months, and I've already started showing some stuff (books, iPad apps) to my second who is two months, but I haven't actually used YBCR on a baby, if that's what you mean. I have talked to zillions of mommies who have, though. BrillKids.com Forum & the Yahoo group TeachYourBabyToRead are full of helpful, experienced people. For many of these people, again, none of this is theoretical; they know it can be done, because they've done it and are now living with the results.
On what grounds do you think it does not give a "massive head start" for a child to start learning how to read at, say, age 18 months? Are you familiar with the studies of precocious readers, who learned to read before kindergarten? Kids who started learning to read when they were 3 or 4 end up retaining their advantage as late as the sixth grade. The studies are pretty unequivocal in this regard: the early starters retain their advantage later. Now, I admit that the same effect may not carry over for kids who were taught to decode even earlier, at age 1 or 2, but it certainly seems plausible that it would. Again, mine started when he was 1, and now at age 4 he can read faster and more accurately than most fourth graders, I'm sure. How could he avoid starting school at an advantage? (But then, we're not going to put him in school, he's going to be homeschooled...)
I agree that comprehension is important, but why assume that the early readers are not getting loads of vocabulary training in the form of reading many books? Many of us read a LOT to our early readers. I'm sure we're unusual, but we have zillions of books at home, and I just got done reading him a couple chapters of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, which he loves and obviously understands pretty well. (I explain any words that he doesn't understand.) He could read the book himself, if he were motivated, but since Papa will read it to him, he doesn't. :-)
Okay. I'm not talking about kids that are 2, 3, 4 years old learning to read. I think that's great and early literacy is excellent. I'm talking about babies. I don't think that at 3 months old, it's necessary to start with flashcards and other structured learning. Seriously, what's wrong with letting a baby learn through free play? They have tons of skills to master at that age. There is a huge difference between a 2 month old and 2 year old.
I've used the animated literacy program on 2 and half and 3 year olds. Not the program in it's entirety, mind you, but definitely parts of it. The songs and actions are great, for example. I've seen the Phonics Factory work well with 2 year olds, as well. See? We all have anecdotal evidence we can use. lol
I think we're talking about two different things: babies and toddlers. Like I said, I'm all for early literacy (and math), but I just don't think it's necessary to be worrying about seeing results on 5 month olds with programs like that. And, I think that's what these programs when aimed at babies promote: another worry to add to list of worries parents have about their children measuring up to other children. And, seriously, it is just mimicking at those ages. Nothing wrong with mimicking, but it's really not conducive to learning to read.
btw: I thought you said you didn't start the program with your child until 22 months old?
eta: nice chatting with you! I'm just skeptical with the YBCR marketing and tarketing it at babies (not toddlers - I'm sure it's fine for toddlers and preschoolers).
monkeyqueen, I appreciate that you're trying to reach common ground here, but I'm sticking by my guns here: no offense, but you're just wrong, and uninformed, when it comes to the potentials of baby reading. So, let me educate you.
You're correct that I didn't start YBCR and flashcards and other concerted teaching-to-read programs until my son was 22 months, but as a baby (indeed, as a six-month old if not earlier) we did loads of literacy activities with him that contributed directly to his rapid progress later on. We not only read copious amounts, I showed him lots of commercial flash cards (before learning about Glenn Doman) and played with blocks and all sorts of stuff. Most importantly, I read zillions of ABC books to him and by the time he was 18 months old, he could point to most of the letters of the alphabet when I said their names. A few months later, he knew both the names and sounds of the consonants. Our case, and of course it is just our case, shows that it can be beneficial (at least to reading performance at 4.5!) to do a wide-ranging "early literacy" program with a baby.
As to kids who start with YBCR as babies, as my 2-month-old soon will, nobody is going to claim that an infant is able to do more than memorize whole words. But by the time they are 18 months, some of them (not all, of course) have learned how to sound out new (unfamiliar) words. You can find examples of this on BrillKids.com and for what it's worth, Robert Titzer, with whom I'm in contact, claims to have personally witnessed many cases of one-year-olds reading whole books, and who have clearly gone far beyond the "whole words" that they were taught.
How? Well, Titzer's theory is that babies are excellent at inferring (by induction) phonetic patterns in written language, much the same way that they are excellent at using induction to segment words and learn the grammar and vocabulary of spoken language.
My view is that a healthy dose of phonics, made palatable to little ones a la my phonics flash cards, is probably needed by some kids who can't figure out the code. There are some who can't, it seems, and don't really learn to read well until they are 3 or 4 (or later, as far as I know).
I don't think parents should worry about their children measuring up to other chlidren. I don't think of it as a competition, myself; I'm sure mine lags behind his peers in some skills, and I'm not too worried about that.
Anyway, if it is possible to give children a huge advantage by starting them on such programs (whatever would be the best way is an open question), then surely, saying "This makes parents feel pressured" is a pretty weak reply, IMHO.
Nice chatting with you, too. I'm glad you're keeping a more open mind about this stuff than most.
Just out of curiousity, are you affiliated with "Your Baby Can Read" or are you just ultra passionate about it?
By the way, I will never say that there is no benefit to introducing babies to educational tools (similar to what you described). I just don't think full programs are necessary to spend money on. I still stand by my original comment in this thread, that babies will show signs that they "get it" when the are developmentally ready. And, as we all know, babies develop at varied rates. What was your response to the OP's original question? Is there a standard age that YBCR says parents will see results by? I admit that I don't know much about YBCR past infomercials and reviews, but that does not mean that I am completely ignorant to the potential that babies and toddlers can learn a phenomenal amount. You can call me uninformed all you want, I don't mind
I just think this program is not worth my time and money. Plain and simple. But, then again, I do have resources at my disposal and the know how to 'teach' my baby, toddler and child to at the very least lay the ground work for reading and math, so I really don't need a program to get results.
It may not be the way that you would or the way that YBCR would, but my children are learning and advancing, and that's really all that matters to me.
OP (if you are still checking): I hope your baby shows signs of "getting it" soon, but don't fret if it's not soon - he will show you, it's only a matter of time.
Everyone: enjoy teaching your children - it really is amazing to watch them learn!!
I'm neither affiliated with YBCR nor am I "passionate" about it. I am working full-time on educational tools & issues, however, for a non-profit. If you want to know who I am, see my website (https://www.larrysanger.org).
Is there a standard age at which parents show signs of getting it? I don't know, you could ask the YBCR company and they might have an answer. No studies of the program have yet been published. Of course, it depends on when you start. If you start at age 22 months and have lots of prior training, you can see signs within a week. If you start in early infancy (like three months), I gather that some babies at, say, 9 months have, for example, put their hands up when the words "hands up" come up (silently) on the screen. Some have reported results even sooner. And then I think there are others who don't report many results until after the first year. I haven't seen many reports anywhere of people complaining that, after using the videos for many months, they saw no results.
There obviously needs to be studies done. Fortunately, there are some in the works--five that I have heard of.