[LeftField]

Quote:

Originally Posted by annettemarie Eh. I hate electronic toys. With the exception of tape players, we have none. I don't think they're evil or anything, but I certainly do not believe they can do anything that a real live human being with a little love and patience couldn't do better.

:

We don't like them, but we're not into video games as a family. We watch little TV and don't really do battery-operated toys. So I don't like the toys, but they just don't fit in with what we have at our house. I can't picture my child sitting down with one of them and actually using it, honestly.

And I totally agree that while, they might help some kids who are at a point of readiness, I don't think it's anything special that a person might not be able to do.

I bought the Leapfrog Letter Factory video for my preschooler, because he was sounding out some small CVC words and was interested in the idea of phonics. The videos came highly recommended. I think I bought two of them, two different levels. Anyway, we weren't that impressed by it. The CVC stuff they discussed was simply the same stuff that I was helping ds do with Bob books and things like that. If anything, I think he learned less from that format, because it seemed like entertainment to him; it wasn't like direct interaction with a person. I know that some other kids are more responsive to videos, but mine don't get a lot out of them. After one viewing, it was never requested to be watched again.

I don't believe that anyone's child could get a significant advantage from a toy like this if their brain was not already receptive to learning the concept. I don't think the toys are miracle-workers or improvements to simple human interaction. But if some people like them, that's wonderful.

They just don't fit in with our family and with the types of activities that we do. I think you have to listen to your gut on this and evaluate whether or not this is something that you would LOVE or something that is representative in nature of the things your children do (e.g. video games).

HTH!

 

[LeftField]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moominmamma I believe the research shows the following: Early spontaneous reading is indeed associated with prodigious intelligence and higher academic achievement. Early reading instruction (whether electronically or via real human beings), on the other hand, is not associated with higher academic achievement. Miranda

And then, with instruction, you have to define what reading is. My son can sound out CVC words, but he's definitely not reading yet. And if the children are taught early, does it come after time-consuming instruction, i.e. how long does it take for them to learn the tasks? And then if they are taught early, say at 4, how long do they stay at that level? I'm sure that many 4yos, maybe even most, can be taught to "read", but I doubt they will hold any long-term advantage over their peers, because their progress is very slow. But a gifted child just takes off and does it and requires little (if any) help.

I'm only saying this, because, in my area, academic preschool is huge and people seem to define "reading" by being able to recite Bob books. I doubt many of the children could read the words in a different context, however.

 

[LeftField]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiredX2 I think the younger you obtain almost any skill the more indicative it is of future ability.

I think this is true when, as noted, obtaining that skill is largely child-led. There are 4yos in preschools right now, spending lots of time tracing letter sheets and having some serious adult prepping/pushing to get them to write. I'd bet some of them can write their whole name. My son taught himself to write at 3 with no instruction and he's never traced anything. He can't write his surname from memory. So I don't think it means much that a child writes his surname earlier than another, after loads of tracing sheets, instruction, homework and general pushing. He obtained the skill early, but it took a lot to get it and adults basically made him do it. I don't think that will be much of an indicator for future success.

 

[LeftField]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiredX2 I just figure that the younger the child is, the more likely they "did it themselves." The vast majority of children, no matter WHAT you did would not be reading by the time they were 18 months, kwim? If you have a child doing that, good chance that something outside the norm is going on.

Gotcha!

And sorry (to the mod) for the derailment! I'll stop now.