# Can TV HELP teach a toddler to talk?



## mamatoablessing (Oct 17, 2005)

Oh, I'm really upset right now. A little background...

DD is 18 1/2 months old and doesn't speak a whole lot yet. She says three or four words without prompting and says maybe another five if we ask her to repeat them. Our ped has also suggested we send her to Early Intervention for a speech evaluation. OK, so all of this being said, I'm not really worried about her speech development. She is very bright, creative and advanced in her motor skills.

We do not have the TV on at all during the day. DD does get exposure to it after 6pm because I like to have it in the background while cooking dinner and cleaning up, but we do not watch TV during the day.

DH was speaking to his mother today (my MIL) and she suggested putting DD in front of the TV station Noggin. She really feels like this would help DD's speech improve. And now, DH is thinking the same thing. He feels a little controlled TV might be beneficial for learning. Am I overreacting here or are they crazy? Is putting her in front of a few shows on Noggin really going to help her speak sooner?

MIL lives with DH's sister and her 2 kids and seriosuly, they have Noggin on from the second they kids wake up, until it goes off the air at 6pm or whatever. I can't stand the stupid shows and can't imagine using them as a true learning tool.

Again, am I being too judgemental? Am I making too much of this? If anyone has any research on toddlers, TV and learning correlations or the opposite (detrimental effects), I'd love to see/read them. I told DH I would pull some info off the internet about why TV isn't good for little kids, but if you have any research you've found, please post the links.

Thanks in advance for your opinions, advice or research.


----------



## beansavi (Jun 26, 2005)

I've been told the opposite: the more chatter going on around the house in the form of electronic media, the less baby learns and can even develop speech problems.

Humans are designed to learn speech from a real live person and real life! Have faith in thousands of years of evolution...


----------



## Moose (Mar 3, 2006)

Both of my daughters have watched quite a bit of educational TV, Baby Einstein Videos, etc.. I watch with them and interact with them during the shows, pointing out words and repeating them with them. I have to say they are doing very well. My 3 year old can read 50% of her books and has a vast vocabulary. My 22 month old must be putting out 10-20 new words a day. She has the advantage of copying her sister but I have been truly amazed by how quickly they are learning. I started the "Hooked on Phonics" series with my oldest and she LOVES it. At least once a day she tells me "I want to go to school."









The TV can be a very useful tool. It grabs their attention, then you use that the right way to help them learn. Don't use it as a baby sitter.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I think it's ridiculous to make the assertation that TV is somehow a necessary part of child development. After all, generations of children have learned to speak without it. Can it help? Maybe. It seems to me like it would be more likely to hinder development, though, because it would be outside the context of a real, live conversation. An key part of speech development is understanding the give and take of daily conversation. You don't get that with a TV character. I would think that what would be most helpful would be to talk, talk, talk to her. Pause at the spots where she might answer, and interpret any sign or sound she might make. For example:
YOU: Here are some yummy apples! Do you like apples?
BABY: Ungh!
YOU: You do like apples, don't you? They're yummy.

Best of luck to you!


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I don't believe in educational tv with regard to little children (older children and adults, maybe, with science and history shows, etc.). I believe there is less damaging tv and more damaging tv. I believe it is less damaging to let my ds watch a Baby Einstein video than to watch Ninja Turtles.

My older son didn't talk much at all until about 3yo, my younger son is right now 20 months and isn't talking. They both have watched sporadic tv. My older ds did learn a few things from DVDs or shows he watched, but I believe he would have learned those things anyway. The first real imitation he did came from books that we read - I think reading to them is a far superior way to increase their speech, even though we admittedly read books every single day of ds1's life and he still didn't talk until he was 3yo. But I think this is because talking late runs in my family, not because he didn't watch enough tv.

Short answer to your question: I would not turn on the tv just to teach him how to talk. If you want to let him watch a few benign shows, go ahead, but I wouldn't be doing it with the intent of the shows teaching him anything.

Is Noggin the same thing as PBS? PBS and selected DVDs are the only things we let the kids watch. I can't stand Nickelodean and Disney Network.


----------



## CaraboosMama (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamatoablessing*

Again, am I being too judgemental? Am I making too much of this? If anyone has any research on toddlers, TV and learning correlations or the opposite (detrimental effects), I'd love to see/read them. I told DH I would pull some info off the internet about why TV isn't good for little kids, but if you have any research you've found, please post the links.

Thanks in advance for your opinions, advice or research.

I don't think you are being too judgemental or making too much of this at all! Our DD will be 2 nest month - she didn't watch any tv until around 17 - 18 mths and then we started short videos from time to time. After noticing negative changes in her behavior in relationship to tv - I decided to read The Plug-In Drug by Marie WInn. It is a wonderful book & it discusses the mental, social and developmental affects of tv on young children. There is a great deal of research backing the theories in the book, but it is all presented in lay terms. We have gone back to NO TV at ALL for our daughter & plan to continue on this way for awhile. I can see all of us watching a movie as a family from time to time when our kids are older - but for now....we both felt the best choice was to eliminated it & reading the Plug-In Drug was a large influence on this decision.


----------



## dillonandmarasmom (May 30, 2005)

Coming from a teacher of young ones, I would not expose a child to tv too soon or too much. Language is aquired through interaction from what I've read, heard, experienced. I know several children with amazing language skills and speaking abilites yet had NO exposure to tv. I would even argue with someone that tv causes a child to develop less/more slowly.
Some kids will develop lang. no matter what a parent does. I did, my sister watched TONS of tv(mostly during her homework) and is fine, though not as eloquent a speaker as she could have been had she read/spoken more.

I would skip the Baby Einstein...they are very fragmented and for my ADD hubby, a blur! So, imagine a child with attention trouble that cannot communicate this to you...not a good plan. They have been criticized by many, you might google them.

Go with your gut, overall. My son turns the tv off on his own now cause the noise (which is what it is) gets to be too much.

Another thought, what are YOU doing/thinking when the tv is on? I mean, for you. Do you veg? Or, are you actually engaged? Food for thought!

HTH...


----------



## becca011906 (Mar 29, 2004)

My dd is almost 19 months old and say mama, dada, buba (brother austin), and that's it for her with out us saying it over and over and working with her to repeat after us... i would not worry at all each child develops differant does you dd understand words??? Like if you say go get this toy? do you want to nurse? ect? if so then i wouldn't be worried b/c they are understanding but just not wanting to talk yet, you say she is advanced in gross moter so her brain is working harder in that area right now vs the language side of the brain, it will even out... if you aren't worried i wouldn't worry, mama's feeling usally know best!!!








As for the TV i agree with others talking one on one is better then a TV show would be, but do you do song time with her that migh be helpful my 3 y/o LOVES barney so my 19m old does see that often (about 2-3 times a week) and does know and reconize with it's coming on and will huummm along with songs and loves dancing too...


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

DS is 29 months old and speaks better then most kids his age. He is 100% tv free and always has been. TV has no beneficial value to infants and toddlers. It is true that for some it can actually hinder speech. If you wanted some backup ( for your mother in law) check out the book PLug in drug

michele


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

Quote:

The TV can be a very useful tool. It grabs their attention, then you use that the right way to help them learn. Don't use it as a baby sitter.
Thats what makes tv so scary. I believe tv can do more harm then even years ago with all the advancements in fast pace imaging. they purposefully use that to grab the child so they dont want to turn away.

You are doing the best thing and dont let your MIL 2nd guess you. I actually find it funny when people ask what DS does if he doesnt watch tv









Especially at 18 months they are not able to grasp all the images and they are really staring so intently because there little brains are trying to grasp it all at once ( not what the brain should be doing at that age)

Michele


----------



## AidansMommy1012 (Jan 9, 2006)

I think that 18 months is a little bit early to start deciding if someone is developmentally delayed in that area. Your DC sounds pretty on track to me. Does she know what you mean about half the time when you're talking to her? I would think that at this age, the receptive language skills would still be way out ahead of their speaking skills. My DS says about as much as your DC does, and he's 17 months. Is DC a pretty physical kid? If so, maybe DC's just more into physical stuff right now and the language will come later. Or maybe your child just isn't a chatty person. Everyone in DH's family was so worried about him when he just didn't speak and didn't speak....until he started spouting full sentences at almost three. Kids take their own time and have their own way of learning to speak, and I wouldn't stress about it. It's unlikely you'll one day be the mother of a 30 year old who never learned to talk. I highly doubt the tv would do anything but teach your child to sit on the couch. Aside from the dubious claims that it can educate a toddler, in an age where childhood obesity is on the rise, why get them started so young on a habit of wanting to sit around in front of the tube when they could be outside playing?

With regards to "Noggin"...there are plenty of things our children bring into our lives that drive us up the wall (talking toys, books that must be read 10 times perfectly before bed, certain children's cds). If it's not something your child already knows about and loves, why in the world would you invite it into your life?! Tell DH and MIL that you're not into masochism and leave it at that!


----------



## Llyra (Jan 16, 2005)

I think the little research that has been done has pointed very clearly at the fact that language and interaction have to be real-time, face-to-face interaction in order to be beneficial to language development. I don't have a lot of time to hunt down the links right now, because DD is sick, but I'd be happy to find the articles that I read about this tomorrow and post them, if anyone wants them. Gotta run now, though.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I forget the exact age but I think we had dd evaluated at 18 months and the base line was six words. She was right on that line. they gave us an option of waiting to see if she would pick up speed or having a more in dept evaluation. we took the wait an see approach. She was still right at the bottom of normal at 2 but had advanced enough that they couldsee where some of our problems were and gave us ways to correct them and things to do to work with her. so now a year later she is still hard to understand but she doe say over 1000 words and takls non stop. her speech has beenincreasing by leaps and bounds daily.

All that to say don't sweat it to much. have her evaluated. See what they say. for heavens sake, TV is not going to help. especially goofey chaotic childrens programming. I don't think it owuld hurt her to have it on for half an hour if it would realy make your dh happy but I doubt it would help at all.


----------



## earthflower (Jan 9, 2006)

My ds learned alot of his words from watching the Teletubbies!

New study on TV's effects on kids
http://www.slate.com/id/2136372/nav/tap1/?GT1=7838


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthflower*
My ds learned alot of his words from watching the Teletubbies!

New study on TV's effects on kids
http://www.slate.com/id/2136372/nav/tap1/?GT1=7838

OK, sorry. I posted my first response before I realized there was more stuff below the ads on the page.

I don't buy it. One study doesn't negate the multitude of other studies that have been done. Besides, all this study "proves" is that kids who watch TV don't have lower test scores. It doesn't prove they're smarter. It doesn't prove that TV is beneficial. It doesn't prove that TV helps with language skills, or that so-called educational television gives kids an advantage, or that kids who watch TV do better in school. More importantly, it doesn't disprove any of the previous studies that show why TV is harmful. It doesn't address play, or the effect of quick-moving pictures, or the physical effects. All it says is kids who watch TV don't score lower on standardized tests.







:

Oh, and my children learned lots of words by me talking to them.


----------



## AidansMommy1012 (Jan 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthflower*
My ds learned alot of his words from watching the Teletubbies!

New study on TV's effects on kids
http://www.slate.com/id/2136372/nav/tap1/?GT1=7838









: We're nowhere close to being a high income family and my DS is still tv free. He doesn't have regularly scheduled activities to keep him busy, just me. He's right on track with where he ought to be developmentally. I kind of resent what this study insinuates.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Sorry if I'm jumping in the middle of your posts annettemarie, but I have to suggest:

Find a new pediatrician.

At 18 months our ped asked the question "Does he say three words that I or someone else would understand BESIDES mama or dada?" and our honest answer was no. He smiled at us and reassured us that it was clear our son was getting his ideas across to us and even if he was at the low end of the spectrum he wasn't going to recomend any therapy. Our ped spends an hour at each visit getting to know his kids and he does that so he can make an informed recomendation in cases like this.


----------



## Marlet (Sep 9, 2004)

I wasn't going to post in here cause the issue doesn't really relate to us but I read the article and it seems pretty ridiculous. In fact my first thoughts reading through it were, "Sounds like someone got bashed for using the t.v. as a babysitter and is feeling slightly defensive."
The whole poor=t.v. time and wealthy=other activites is a lame argument. We are poor! (see my food box rant for proof) and DD get's no t.v. It has nothing to do with our moeny situation. It has to do with the fact that there are studies that show kids who aer regularly exposed (I want to say three or more hours a day) are more likely to have ADD/ADHD. Not only that but the flashing and the sounds and all the crap that goes with it are sooo much to take in. As an adult tv sometimes overwhelmes me. I've been desensitized to it and it still can overwhelm me!!! How is that going to effect my DD?


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

My DD just turned 15 months today, and she happens to be a super early talker. Where did she learn the many words and phrases she uses??? Thus far, the words she says are the ones I taught her. And the phrases are not things I taught her, per se. They are the things I say that seem to strike her fancy, so she chooses to mimic them. (Don't do that...I see you....Hi, how are you....Thank you.) *I do show her educational videos. But the words she actually repeats each day come from me.* Thus far, she doesn't even repeat after her talking toys, as far as I can tell. (With the exception of the ABC song.) So that doesn't say much for television's ability to teach even a talkative kid.

*Which Videos???*
If you decide to go with television-- I'd say be verrrry selective. I'd recommend only those videos that speak a word and show an object at the same time, one by one. In other words, the ones that basically amount to not much more than video flash cards with music added. Because the little that my DD has demonstrated she knows from videos are from her Sign Language DVD and her Brainy Baby Spanish DVD. And that's the format they use. (Brainy Baby also makes and English version.) Most Baby Einstein videos don't use that format, with the exception of "First Words Around the House" (Which uses signs and spoken words,) and perhaps a few others. But even in that case, I'm not always sure DD can figure out which object in the jumble of objects is the "table." And I agree with the other poster about the ADD effect of the Baby Einstein vids. That stuff comes at you so fast, I don't really approve of those in general. So when it comes to videos, go slower paced and more specific than Baby Einstein.

But over all-- I'd stress teaching him yourself. And emphasize words that get him excited, or mean a lot to him-- like Dog and Milk and Cheerios. If he won't latch on to those types of words, get him a developmental assesment. It's probably free, and it really never hurts to have the therapist work with your child, in my opinion. I had one for my DD's motor skills from 6-12 months. It turned out she wasn't disabled, just slow on the uptake. But I'm glad I had the therapist, anyway.

Hope that helps.

Faith
P.S. - *I noted one poster said her child knew a few words but she doesn't repeat things over and over.* In my case, I actively do try to teach my DD the words, as well as the signs, for specific objects, as I was taught to do in my Baby Sign Language DVD. _And I very much do repeat specific words and signs over and over._ And even when my DD will not or can not say a word, (ie: elephant, light, manzana, rojo..) it's often clear that she knows what the word means, and can pick the object out. So repetition is educational-- however, it doesn't always lead to speech.


----------



## royaloakmi (Mar 2, 2005)

I think it would be much more beneficial to read to her and continue talking with her about daily activities.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

My cousin's wife did a little experiment with her tv addicted 2 year old. She turned the audio to Spanish. He didn't even notice! (And he doesn't speak Spanish.) The point is he watches tv without paying attention to all that talk. He just likes the pictures. So, no, I don't think tv will get a kid to talk. Language is interatction, TV is passive. You just listen and watch you don't have to respond (even when Dora yells "Say map!" you don't have to and the show continues). Ds does watch TV and he does learn things about animals, in particular. I don't for a minute believe it would help language development. Remember in the 80/90's there was some study about babies being exposed to foreign language early could learn it and parents went out and bought tapes and nobody learned the other language? They soon learned that babies could learn another language by interacting with humans, but a tape or video was just noise.

The things that most of these shows try to teach like colors or simple words like "water" most kids know WAY before they start watching the shows. I prefer shows like Franklin or Little Bear which just have nice family stories instead of the "drill and kill" "you must learn you colors" teaching that I see in Dora.

Also, a few weeks ago I heard a story on NPR about the Baby Einstein Company and how there is no proof at all that the videos are educational, they just base that claim on parents reports that their children learned something. A doctor on there said that kids are just using some reflex that helps them focus on moving objects when they seem to be "transfixed." You can probably find the story on www.npr.org


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oceanbaby*
Is Noggin the same thing as PBS? PBS and selected DVDs are the only things we let the kids watch. I can't stand Nickelodean and Disney Network.


I personally think that Noggin is *better* than PBS. PBS has the highly merchandised Sesame Street, which has characters like Elmo that I do NOT want Eamon copying. And it has Teletubbies; does anyone understand the Teletubbies? And the other show from those people, whatever it's called with the strange lumpy things (that look like penises)? Yoiks!

Now I was raised on public television. But that was pre-Elmo. Being raised with the old Sesame Street, I will mention that I spontaneously started reading at 2 and was far beyond the reading and read-out-loud skills of all the other kids in my class by first grade. However I should mention I went to Montessori for a couple years instead of kindergarten, and I think that makes a difference.

Noggin isn't flashy, it's sweet. The words are almost all understandable, and they teach counting even in the between-the-show things.

The show I adore is Blue's Clues, though actually the newest shows are kind of sucking. They are focusing more on the difficult-to-understand Blue and friends, and I don't find that helpful. We've been taping the older shows when they still focused on Steve or Joe as hosts so the easy-to-understand is center-stage.

In addition Blue's Clues teaches deductive reasoning by finding and following clues.









I truly never thought I'd be all about the Blue's Clues, or any TV really, but it's been really great. DS comes out with words that I'd never think to say during the day, like balloon (that's the only one that comes to mind), and he's also learning more sign language from it than I've taken time to look at.

I think that careful viewing can be really great (especially if it's the old episodes of Blue's Clues LOL), and can be a *tool* in helping.

However, if understandable speech is the goal, I really wouldn't watch Elmo and Teletubbies and such; focus on shows where *adults* are speaking, so Dc has another chance (along with hearing you guys talk to each other) to hear proper, non-baby-talk, speech.

However, I don't think the ped has any business to be talking about this stuff yet.....


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Oh man I *hate* Dora. They YELL YELL YELL all episode long.


----------



## L&IsMama (Jan 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthflower*
My ds learned alot of his words from watching the Teletubbies!

New study on TV's effects on kids
http://www.slate.com/id/2136372/nav/tap1/?GT1=7838


I'm just curious what words exactly he "learned" from them? They really seem to sort of babble rather unintelligibly for the most part.


----------



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

Children learn to speak through interaction. very specific shows like Signing Times could help with vocabulary but not general speech, conversation, etc.

I am getting my MA in special ed with an emphasis on language development so I'm studying this age specifically. Almost all the research shows that children are developing permanent neural connections at that age, and that TV forges very different connections than actual interactions.

So I would say that, no, watching more TV, even educational shows, will not help.

I was just reading a study of a hearing child who had to stay home with his deaf parents for his first few years due to medical issues. He was 3, fluent for that age in ASL, but had NEVER learned to talk, despite watching hours of TV a day.


----------



## earthflower (Jan 9, 2006)

Everything in moderation has always been my thing. So they have a piece of cake...they'll have veggies later. So they has too much juice in one day...they'll drink more water tomorrow. So they watched a long video today....they'll only watch a few minutes in the morning. You have to let them be kids, I think.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

The Academy of American Pediatrics recommends no television at all for children under the age of 2. I would stick to this recommendation and tell your MIL that you would prefer to follow the AAP guidelines.

I find all the fuss in North America about when children should begin to talk simply mind-boggling. Here in France, noone would think to worry about a child not saying any words at the age of *18 months*







.

I asked our pediatrician how many words our DD should be saying at that age and his reply was "She doesn't have to say anything if she doesn't want to!". There are many children who don't start to say anything until much much later (even 3 years of age) and then just start talking in full sentences. I have a friend whose DD is 20 months old and while the DD babbles on the time, she still has not uttered even one recognisable word (not even mama or papa!). If you watch her behaviour, she is clearly a completely normal child. In the States, she would already be "under examination" but here, her pediatrician is not worried at all and certainly hasn't recommended any speech pathologist at this time! Have another friend whose 21 month old has just started to utter some words.

I really think that this whole word-counting business at 18 months is quite ridiculous and that it is even more ridiculous to suggest that you put her in front of the television to help her. My suggestion is that you spend 45 minutes with her per day looking at some books together and otherwise, just talk to her as you otherwise would, in adult English, not baby-talk, and that's it.

The only thing that I would get checked at this point (and this all parents should do in any event) is her hearing.


----------



## AidansMommy1012 (Jan 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mollyeilis*
Now I was raised on public television. But that was pre-Elmo. Being raised with the old Sesame Street, I will mention that I spontaneously started reading at 2 and was far beyond the reading and read-out-loud skills of all the other kids in my class by first grade. However I should mention I went to Montessori for a couple years instead of kindergarten, and I think that makes a difference.

I think you and I had the same childhood!


----------



## AidansMommy1012 (Jan 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp*
The Academy of American Pediatrics recommends no television at all for children under the age of 2. I would stick to this recommendation and tell your MIL that you would prefer to follow the AAP guidelines.

I find all the fuss in North America about when children should begin to talk simply mind-boggling. Here in France, noone would think to worry about a child not saying any words at the age of *18 months*







.

I asked our pediatrician how many words our DD should be saying at that age and his reply was "She doesn't have to say anything if she doesn't want to!". There are many children who don't start to say anything until much much later (even 3 years of age) and then just start talking in full sentences. I have a friend whose DD is 20 months old and while the DD babbles on the time, she still has not uttered even one recognisable word (not even mama or papa!). If you watch her behaviour, she is clearly a completely normal child. In the States, she would already be "under examination" but here, her pediatrician is not worried at all and certainly hasn't recommended any speech pathologist at this time! Have another friend whose 21 month old has just started to utter some words.

I really think that this whole word-counting business at 18 months is quite ridiculous and that it is even more ridiculous to suggest that you put her in front of the television to help her. My suggestion is that you spend 45 minutes with her per day looking at some books together and otherwise, just talk to her as you otherwise would, in adult English, not baby-talk, and that's it.

The only thing that I would get checked at this point (and this all parents should do in any event) is her hearing.

I hope you post back again, because I'm really curious to know your opinion!

Do you think that the competitive atmosphere in the States contributes to us trying to push our children to go faster and faster developmentally? I don't know what it's like in France, but my mother, who is fairly well traveled, has told me that life is more leisurely and laid back in most parts of Europe than it is here in the States. It seems that in the US we have a climate of wanting to go faster and be better than everyone else at any cost, due to the prominence of the corporate workplace and competition being almost an American value. I've seen news shows where they talk about parents getting tutors and putting their children in preschool earlier and earlier because they feel competitive with other parents as well as wanting their children to have a head start on their education so they are better prepared to succeed in the corporate workplace. They talked about how a lot of the time, this can create too much stress for the child and they can start exhibiting some disturbing behaviors due to being under more stress than they can handle. What is it like in France, and do you think that this is an accurate portrayal of what's going on here in the States?


----------



## flowers (Apr 8, 2004)

my ds is exactly 18 months and can say mama, dada, ball...he can say about 10 other words that only I understand...but I have never questioned whether he is behind b/c he is so all around healthy and enthusiastic. I would trust your own gut at what seems normal.

I second the finding the new pediatrician.

Everyone jumped down the studies throat but I can actually see a point there. Number one we do not have a tv...so I am not trying to defend tv watching in any way. I have quite a few friends with kids who are tv free and I would say it isn't quite a wealthy/poor situation but maybe more of an educated situation. For example, my sil and her dh are poor b/c she stays home full time and he loves his job (thus sacrifices high pay). They are poor but they both have their college degrees...he has his masters. When you look at single parent homes I can see why they might rely on tv for some babysitting b/c parenting is so hard that you need two people...or at least a really upbeat attitude about life that includes a belief that their is goodness in the world. I have worked closely with an immigrant population that is very poor and they are so stressed out about procuring food and paying the electric they cannot be worried about whether their kids watched too much tv kwim? It is not a priority. Their priority is to keep their children alive and hopefully get them through some school.

Plus, for poorer prople tv is part of a very important status milestone. I lived in rural India and their would be a tv sitting in a mud hut with NO ELECTRICITY! They were showing the world that they could afford a tv. There is a different mindset with different priorities among different classes that touch upon, wealth, education, and even race.


----------



## cloudswinger (Jan 24, 2005)

I've been letting my now 21 month old watch Baby Einstein(since about 9 months!) and speaking to her only in Vietnamese. So the majority of words she says is in Vietnamese. I think she does recognize the English words when she hears them, how could she not, her dad only speaks English, but since she spends the majority of her time with me, a lot of the words spoken by her are Vietnamese, to dad's chagrin. I did tell him it was his responsibility for the English side of things. He seemed to feel it was too difficult to talk to something unresponsive. Which is why I was letting her watch the Baby Einstein to give her some exposure to English.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AidansMommy1012*
I think you and I had the same childhood!









And our kids were born within months of each other, and I'd always wanted to use the name "Aidan" but ultimately just couldn't do it, needing a name no one else was using at the time...hey, I grew up a lone Molly and I guess needed to do unto DS what had been done unto me LOL. I sometimes regret it, b/c I do so love the name Aidan.....sigh. I could have used the Welsh spelling, after all.......But actually, my son is far more of an _Angus_ than an Eamon or an Aidan, so if there comes a time to change his name, we already know what we'd change it to LOL.


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

(copyright fair trade use)

Quote:


Experts Rip 'Sesame' TV Aimed at Tiniest Tots

Producers Defend DVDs As Right for Under 2's

By Don Oldenburg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 21, 2006; C01

How young is too young to park a baby in front of the TV set? The American Academy of Pediatrics's rule has been steadfast: No television under age 2.

Now the venerable educational organization that pioneered "Sesame Street" is lowering that age limit with a new DVD series, "Sesame Beginnings," which targets babies and toddlers from 6 months to 2 years. Due in stores April 4, the videos feature baby versions of "Sesame Street's" most beloved characters -- Elmo, Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Prairie Dawn -- dancing and singing with their Muppet parents and other relatives.

"This could be the beginning of some beautiful friendships!" baby Elmo's dad says enthusiastically in one scene. But the product's launch has frayed some friendships and professional alliances among experts who monitor the impact of media on young minds.

"Essentially it is a betrayal of babies and families," says Harvard Medical School psychologist Susan Linn, founder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "There is no evidence that media is beneficial for babies, and they are starting to find evidence that it may be harmful. Until we know for sure, we shouldn't risk putting them in front of the television."

Sesame Workshop, which for 37 years has pioneered children's educational television, teamed up with Zero to Three, a respected Washington-based, nonprofit child-development and advocacy organization, to produce the DVDs. It's the first time the workshop has trained its marketing savvy on children under age 2 and their parents.

Executives at Sesame, as well as Zero to Three, consider the DVDs not only age-appropriate but groundbreaking. "We took a long time and did a lot of research and preparation. We wanted to make sure we did this right," Rosemarie Truglio, vice president of education and research for Sesame Workshop, said yesterday.

Zero to Three's critics say the group has succumbed to an if-you-can't-beat-them-join-them philosophy. "They apparently feel that parents are going to let their kids watch television, so we might as well get into the game, too," says Harvard psychiatry professor Alvin F. Poussaint, a steering committee member for CCFC. He calls Zero to Three "downright irresponsible. . . . That they should have an alliance with Sesame on this really damages their credibility."

But perhaps even more stinging is the rebuke by T. Berry Brazelton, the famous baby doctor who helped found Zero to Three nearly 30 years ago. "I absolutely support the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that children under two be kept away from screen media. It's too expensive for them physically as well as psychologically," he wrote late last week in CCFC's protest letter to Zero to Three.

The letter calls on Zero to Three "to end its partnership with Sesame Workshop" and "work instead to educate parents about the potential harms of screen media for young children."

The author of 38 books on parenting and child development, Brazelton would not comment further when contacted by The Post.

Babies and toddlers are a booming segment of the electronic media market. The Kaiser Family Foundation last December issued a report on "an explosion" in such products for the suckling-and-teething set -- from computer programs such as "JumpStart Baby" to videos produced by a company known as Baby Einstein.

Sales of most of the baby-media products, the report said, were driven by unsupported claims that they were educational. "It is just a fact of life these days -- babies interacting with all sorts of media," says Baby Einstein spokeswoman Rashmi Turner, explaining that the company, acquired by Disney in 2001, works with child-development experts to create its videos. "Why not give parents useful ways to take advantage of what's there instead of telling them to avoid it?"

Baby Einstein logged retail sales of $200 million in 2005.

Kaiser reported that 68 percent of children under 2 view two hours of television daily and only 6 percent of parents know of the pediatrician group's no-TV recommendation, which it adopted in 1999.

"Kids that age are only awake 12 hours a day, so we have a generation of children who are watching television 10-20 percent of their waking lives -- and that's a dramatic increase," says pediatrician Dimitri Christakis, director of the Child Health Institute at the University of Washington in Seattle, whose research has found that early exposure to television could prove detrimental to attention span and cognitive development.

Other research suggests that television viewing by babies could harm language development and sleep patterns. And there's the "instead-of" caveat -- babies and toddlers glued to the tube aren't doing other healthy activities such as creative play and interacting with parents.

Truglio of Sesame Workshop points out that the DVD scenes were designed "to model parent-child interaction and to have that interaction around everyday routine moments."

Zero to Three's decision to work with Sesame was carefully considered, says the group's executive director, Matthew Melmed. The deal includes no financial gain for Zero to Three other than payment for time its staff spent on the project, he said. And it was agreed that the DVDs wouldn't be called educational.

"If we are going to promote healthy development, we have to find ways to connect with parents in ways that meet them in their daily realities," he says, adding that today's parents have grown up with electronic media and don't see television as necessarily bad.

"We can't be in a position saying no to parents because they'll ignore you. We want to say to parents, 'If you chose to have your very young children exposed to this type of media, let's at least have something that is appropriate,' " Melmed says.

"A lot of what we do goes back to what Ben Spock said 50 years ago: 'Trust yourself -- you know your baby better than anybody else.' "

But CCFC's Linn isn't buying it. "Their argument that parents are already doing it doesn't wash. One thing we know is that parents are going to be struggling with kids about media for the rest of their childhoods. Why in the world would anyone suggest parents put their kids in front of the TV before kids even ask for it?"


----------



## bobica (May 31, 2004)

neither option is true. speech development is a gradual process affected by many, many processes, largely internal. 18 months is very very early to be concerned about speech & language delays, unless there are obvious things going on, like not understanding, not responding to her name, etc.

that said, tv can "teach" different vocabulary that may not occur in your everyday. my dd has watched tv pretty much daily since she was very little. she's learned musical concepts from the little einsteins (mommy & daddy weren't using words like "fortissimo" every day







), tons of signs from Signing Time!, etc. of course, we don't use the tv as a substitute for human interaction, & it's not on 24-7. we do lots of reading, arts & crafts, doll play, dressup, music, etc... it all contributed to her vocabulary development.

if you've made a decision for your family to be tv-free or at least largely so, then you have your reasons for that. your MIL seems to be in a hurry for your child to be talking. please remind her about her need for haste when your child is talking non-stop & driving her batty







!


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

When my son was about 6 months old, I would put Baby Einstein videos on for him. He started to say "momma" when he was 5 months old. When he got a little older, I bought vidoes from the Long Beach Aquarium that were just music and animals swimming in the ocean. At 3 years old, he can distinguish the different types of whales, sharks and dolphins. He can recognise/name about 30 different types of fish and other sea creatures. This process began at about 14 months.
We started sign classes, and at 12 months, he could sign about 15 different signs on his own. He watched and still watches Signing Time videos.
I allow Kai to watch Sesame Street and Mr. Roger's Neighborhood as well.
My son talks non-stop...and has a vast vocabulary.

I'm not crediting TV for his developement, but I do believe it has been a helpful tool. He is who he is supposed to be....regardless of the television he watches.

Your child might possibly have speech delay. It's not uncommon! My friend's daughter just graduated from her speech therapy class, and she's turning 3 next week. She loved her classes and her speech improved immensely real quick. Instead of getting upset about your MIL suggestion, or following her suggestion...look into speech therapy. She would really benefit from it.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I'm trying to phrase this gently, and not detract from the OP's question, but why do people feel the things television "teaches" are so important? Why does a toddler need to know about fortissimo, or the various types of reasoning skills, or "reasoning skills"? Aren't reasoning skills for a toddler things like playing peekaboo and hide the toy? If music is really important to you, why not listen to some together or take a class? Even just listening to the radio, you can point out the different instruments and use the "language" of music. Sure, it takes a little more time and interaction, but you'll have great memories. I feel like our society spends so much time pushing kids with things they don't need that they don't get the time on the things they do need--face-to-face playful language-rich interaction. I think the OP is right on track with no TV. I think it is a gift and a blessing for little children to be TV-free for as long as possible.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

May I have an "aside" here?

I taught my not quite 3 yo the concept of privacy wrt the bathroom. So when my parents were out, my DD naturally followed my father into the bathroom (she loves old men for some reason) and apparently he barked something at her like "Out." My mother thought is was hysterical that she responded with "Would you like some privacy?" Apparently all Dad could say was "YES."

She definitely values it when I give her the sorts of words to use for everyday ocurrences, like Montessori does.


----------



## Guest* (Aug 5, 2004)

I didn't read the other responses, but I can answer this.

This was discussed in my language theory and acquisition class in college.
Children do not learn to speak from TV. They NEED the interaction to learn language. It's the *interaction* that makes language acquistition possible. TV doesn't provide that interaction, no matter how "interactive" the programming.

Sadly, there was a girl (forget her name), but she was basically locked in her room from birth with minimal interaction from her parents. They never spoke to her and kept her closed off from the outside world. She may have had a TV, but I can't say for sure.

I think she was about 11 when authorities discovered her. She was never able to acquire language.

It's been 3 years, but this case study was discussed in a book by either Noam Chomsky or Steven Pinker. Wish I could remember more specifics because it was a really interesting discussion. Heck, the whole class was interesting.


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

Annette Marie









I guess some feel the need to have their children resite things like a book. To bad many children these days sound smart at very young ages though many do not have much comprehension or imagination. Im sure I could spat out big words and even tell DS the meaning just for him to repeat it. That would show nothing other then he can imitate. There is a big difference between imitating and actually grasping and comprehending. I can sit here and write a ton of things my son can do that he learned without tv however no need for me to try. I will say though that I dont see how a little toddler can have time for tv when they are allowed the opportunity to enjoy a true magical commercial free childhood.

michele


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I'm trying to phrase this gently, and not detract from the OP's question, but why do people feel the things television "teaches" are so important? Why does a toddler need to know about fortissimo, or the various types of reasoning skills, or "reasoning skills"? Aren't reasoning skills for a toddler things like playing peekaboo and hide the toy? If music is really important to you, why not listen to some together or take a class? Even just listening to the radio, you can point out the different instruments and use the "language" of music. Sure, it takes a little more time and interaction, but you'll have great memories. I feel like our society spends so much time pushing kids with things they don't need that they don't get the time on the things they do need--face-to-face playful language-rich interaction. I think the OP is right on track with no TV. I think it is a gift and a blessing for little children to be TV-free for as long as possible.


Well, I don't know much about Waldorf (you have a link to Waldorf stuff in your signature). But I do know a bit about Montessori. And at a Montessori school you are introduced to things over and over. So when I was 4 I played with the counting beads. When I was 5 I'd do a bit more than just play. If I'd continued there, I would have finally gotten a clue and realized I was learning to add, subtract, multiply, and even divide. You weren't just handed the counting beads when it was age appropriate in someone's mind to learn those things. You were playing with them all along.

So right now DS has tons of fun spotting the "clue" (pawprint). He'll call out "clue clue", while doing the sign (don't know if it's a real sign) they do for clue/pawprint. He gets so excited! And omg that happens THREE times in 25 minutes! Such joy. There's also mail-time, which involves a song, and he has fun saying "MAIL!!!!!" at the end of the song. He's now figured out that the mail on Blue's Clues is pretty much the same as when we walk over to get the mail (except ours doesn't involve a mailbox with a face popping in the window LOL). I wouldn't have thought to leave little clues for something, and I wouldn't have thought to make getting the mail *fun*.

With some things, why reinvent the wheel? DS can hear conversations I don't have, can learn of things I wouldn't think to bring up, can learn words we don't normally use. When he's older he'll have a connection, he'll remember these times (maybe consciously, maybe not) and the learning will be stronger.

That's why I'm careful with what he watches, of course. Like I mentioned before, the newer Blue's Clues are getting stupid, and we won't watch those anymore.







Lucky for us reruns are on often.

It's reminding me of the "what books do you hate" thread...we don't all write our own books, but many of us are *careful* with the books we read/give our kids. I don't feel the need to write every book I give DS, and I don't feel the need to create, by my self, every learning moment my son has. But of course I try to be careful.

I *feel* (as in, I'm overthinking and overfeeling and it's not that you SAID it but that I felt it) lots of assumptions in your post. You mention face-to-face interaction like you think we don't do that. Like we plunk a kid down and go do our nails (leaping wildly here LOL). For us, I'm standing right next to the TV quite often, as that's where the computer is. I stand to use the computer. DS has his table with all sorts of great things on it...trains, paper and colored pencils, the bead toy thing, blocks...he stands or sits or dances or wanders around...it's all interaction, I'm just *not* the The Teacher all day long.

I think we already have great memories of him realizing that the animated duck on the screen is the same as is on the blocks as is in the coloring book as is outside on a walk...lots of connections being made.









I'm not saying everyone should watch it. But I do think it can be beneficial if you're careful.

(edited to add "not" to "I'm just NOT the teacher all day long)

Also adding...so now we're believing studies entirely? I wasn't aware that MDC women did that (or men). I thought we read them, digested them, then looked around us a bit. And to compare adding a bit of TV to an already rich home life, to a child for whom the TV was almost the ONLY thing in her life? Yikes! Scare tactics and extreme comparisons aren't all that fun.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mollyeilis*
I *feel* (as in, I'm overthinking and overfeeling and it's not that you SAID it but that I felt it) lots of assumptions in your post. You mention face-to-face interaction like you think we don't do that. Like we plunk a kid down and go do our nails (leaping wildly here LOL). For us, I'm standing right next to the TV quite often, as that's where the computer is. I stand to use the computer. DS has his table with all sorts of great things on it...trains, paper and colored pencils, the bead toy thing, blocks...he stands or sits or dances or wanders around...it's all interaction, I'm just *not* the The Teacher all day long.

I'm sorry you feel your choices were attacked. That certainly was not my intention. But I stand by what I said. There is nothing in the universe the TV "teaches" that can't be taught better by interaction with a real live human being, and every moment a child spends "interacting" with the television is a moment they are not interacting with the real world all around them. Toddlers are active learners. I'm not saying an adult has to be chattering on a constant monologue. I actually think that would be rather annoying. But toddlers are hard-wired to play, not to sit in front of a TV.

I do know a bit about Montessori. I know that Maria Montessori valued real life practical experiences, learning by DOING, over symbolic play and passive learning. I suspect she would have been appalled by the idea of using a TV to "teach".

Quote:

Also adding...so now we're believing studies entirely? I wasn't aware that MDC women did that (or men). I thought we read them, digested them, then looked around us a bit. And to compare adding a bit of TV to an already rich home life, to a child for whom the TV was almost the ONLY thing in her life? Yikes! Scare tactics and extreme comparisons aren't all that fun.








I'm not a huge believer in studies myself. As Twain said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Neither do I see where anyone here was accused of sitting their kid in front of the TV all day. I certainly don't see scare tactics. Using a TV is certainly one of many choices for how your child can spend their time. My children watch about a half an hour a day, although this is a very recent addition to our daily routine. But I don't believe it's "teaching" them a thing.

And, lest we lose sight of the point of this thread, it isn't about Waldorf vs Montessori, or how much TV is OK, or the merits of "educational" television. It was a very specific question--can TV teach a child to talk. And we've had several speech and language experts here who have said no, it doesn't.


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

I do not believe in all studies either however I dont see how it can be debated how the actual human brain is made up and what the brain looks like when an infant/toddler are in front of the tv.







DS loves getting the mail and greeting the postman he waits for it everyday. Heck he didnt need a tv show to get him excited about part of his daily rhythm... just like waiting for the garbage man.

I never understood why those that choose to have their child watch tv seem to always have to justify.

How does a infant/toddler say Hey I want to watch tv . I think its the parents that introduce them.

So like I said early to the OP your child does not sound delay from what you stated and continue being a wonderful mom and not allowing tv to take away the precious time she has to fully grab and understand the world around him/her

michele


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

"it isn't about Waldorf vs Montessori, or how much TV is OK, or the merits of "educational" television. It was a very specific question--can TV teach a child to talk."

I know. I was simply trying to relate in some way.

"And we've had several speech and language experts here who have said no, it doesn't."

And I am saying that experts and studies aside, I've experienced that it can HELP.

The question in the subject line was a *bit* different than the one inside the post:

*"she suggested putting DD in front of the TV station Noggin. She really feels like this would help DD's speech improve. And now, DH is thinking the same thing. He feels a little controlled TV might be beneficial for learning. Am I overreacting here or are they crazy? Is putting her in front of a few shows on Noggin really going to help her speak sooner?"*

I have experience with Noggin. I have experience in controlled TV. I have experience in watching my kiddo's language EXPLODE after letting him watch a Noggin program (not just one show ever, but different episodes of one program, Blue's Clues, over a period of time).

The question in the post was can it *help*; the thought of the MIL is that it would *help ... improve* the child's speech.

And I say, if watching Noggin's shows carefully, yes yes and more yes. Boobah or Teletubbies? No, can't see how it would possibly help. Sesame Street? If they got rid of the incomprehensible Elmo. Barney? Actually I don't know, I've never watched it. The Noggin stuff? Oh I already answered that from my experience.









I think the OP (and everyone giving an opinion who has never watched) should check out a couple days of Noggin programming, and figure out if she feels it might be useful. I do NOT think her MIL or DH are crazy, because I have experience the usefulness of the programming.

"Neither do I see where anyone here was accused of sitting their kid in front of the TV all day."

I didn't say "all day". But you did just say "toddlers are hard-wired to play, not to sit in front of a TV", when I had just described how very active my own son is while watching a show. So...there are continued assumptions of sitting in there...

"I'm sorry you feel your choices were attacked."

Ah, I didn't say I felt anything was being attacked. I used pretty specific words to say that it was MY feelings coming up...but I didn't use the word attack at all. I didn't even feel it.

"every moment a child spends "interacting" with the television is a moment they are not interacting with the real world all around them."

Hmm. I put more stock in my son's brain than that...I think he can do several things at once. If he's playing with trains and seems totally absorbed while DH and I are talking, and later he pops out with some random word we've used in that conversation, he *certainly* can pick up things that he's not completely interacting with. Ew that sentence is ugly, grammar-wise, but I don't feel like working on it LOL.

Of course, future kids of mine might not have the same personality as Eamon, and Blue's Clues might not work for them. And if they follow in my younger brother's footsteps, they won't *have to* talk for 3 years, b/c Eamon will be speaking for them (as I did for my brother).









"I suspect she would have been appalled by the idea of using a TV to "teach"."

Obviously we'll never have the answer to that. But her schools (and by her schools I mean the ones continuing in her tradition, not the offshoot schools that include daycares and such) don't have a pile of shoes in the corner to practice tying laces, they have lace frames. Substitutes for exact reality. Tools to teach something. So...who knows?

"I certainly don't see scare tactics."

I edited that in while putting in something else, after seeing the post about the girl who supposedly was put in a room with only a TV and almost never had interaction with others etc...scary thought, to never acquire language b/c a TV was in the room; ohhhh, the full story is that she had almost no interaction with humans, and she ONLY had the TV and was inside one room rather than even an entire house....scary if you don't fully think about it.

"My children watch about a half an hour a day, although this is a very recent addition to our daily routine. But I don't believe it's "teaching" them a thing."

I'm sorry you don't recognize that it could be a teaching time. I don't know why anyone would thoughtfully use the TV if they thought it was useless, since kids learn all the time. Just as I learn about the world by reading lots of books (most of it fiction), I use TV for myself in that way too. And I see LOTS of learning going on with my son, from the show he watches.








I'm standing here with DS on my leg, he's nursing while I type (only possible b/c half of my laptop's keyboard is broken so I've got my right hand typing on the laptop, and my left hand typing on my ergo keyboard on top of the TV, so I'm not squishing my son between my arms), and he's waving hi.







Oh, he just blew a kiss. So, to everyone reading, consider yourself to have been smooched by DS.


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

Quote:

Another minimal learning situation occurs when pragmatic-social cues are minimal or absent. For example, when children watch television. Television is a non-interactive medium where the speaker is unaware of the listener's behavior or attention. In addition, many of the programs targeting infants and toddlers (e.g., Teletubbies, Blues Clues, or Barney) have animated characters or puppets who do much of the talking or acting. Since these characters' facial cues and gestures tend to be absent or different from humans, this may place the child at a disadvantage for identifying pragmatic-social cues. In addition, these programs use a multitude of features; vivid colors, music, complex background sets, and rapid transitions from one scene to another to attract and maintain the attention of infants and toddlers (Alwitt, Anderson, Lorch & Levin, 1980). Possibly, the features intended to maintain children's attention actually serves to distract them when verbal information is presented. Competing information limits the range of language skills that can be obtained from such programs.
michele


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ArlyShellandKai*
DS loves getting the mail and greeting the postman he waits for it everyday. Heck he didnt need a tv show to get him excited about part of his daily rhythm... just like waiting for the garbage man.

I never understood why those that choose to have their child watch tv seem to always have to justify.


When you live on the third floor of an apartment building and it's a 10 minute walk (including stairs and saying hi to cats and dogs and birds), it's not the same experience as being able to see your mailbox.

My friend's DD got excited about it b/c she saw their guy drive up and stop. But DS has never seen the postal employee (neither have I which is lucky for him b/c he likes putting real mail inside of circulars and not letting us know we have packages).

In fact, I lived rurally and our mailbox was up a hill on the edge of a busy road, so it's NEVER been fun for me to get the mail! Hmm, interesting.







Anyway, apartment living compared to postbox-in-plain-sight aren't the same experiences, and it just never occurred to me that it could be fun.









What you see as justification I see as explaining further. There seem to be people who have never watched the station/programming the MIL suggested, and therefore might not be speaking from experience or direct knowledge. Since the OP's MIL was fairly specific, I think direct info is nice.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mollyeilis*
"My children watch about a half an hour a day, although this is a very recent addition to our daily routine. But I don't believe it's "teaching" them a thing."

I'm sorry you don't recognize that it could be a teaching time. I don't know why anyone would thoughtfully use the TV if they thought it was useless, since kids learn all the time. Just as I learn about the world by reading lots of books (most of it fiction), I use TV for myself in that way too. And I see LOTS of learning going on with my son, from the show he watches.

I'm not going to address the other stuff. To be honest, it seemed as if you were more concerned with parsing and nitpicking then in trying to hear what I was saying. I do want to rephrase what I said here, though. I don't believe there is anything they are passively learning on television that couldn't me taught even better by a real life real time interaction with the real world.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

*ArlyShellandKai*, when was that article written?

If it was more than a few years ago, I'm fairly sure they never watched the only show I'm talking about.









The main speaker, until recently, in Blue's Clues is an adult male. There ARE other characters, things around the house made animated (Mrs. Pepper, Mr. Salt, Shovel, Pail, and so on), but those are all easily understood (even salt and pepper, who mysteriously have French accents).

Until recently, the only character that doesn't actually speak English, but rather makes the *sounds* of speech without using words (much as my son copied our speech patterns before getting the words, well before BC became a part of our days), is Blue-the-animated-dog, but all she does is run around leaving pawprints on clues.









Now, if the article is recent, I agree that most of the talking is done by non-humans, which is rotten. So sad, really, b/c the host character of Steve or Joe was great.


----------



## bobica (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I'm trying to phrase this gently, and not detract from the OP's question, but why do people feel the things television "teaches" are so important? Why does a toddler need to know about fortissimo, or the various types of reasoning skills, or "reasoning skills"? Aren't reasoning skills for a toddler things like playing peekaboo and hide the toy? If music is really important to you, why not listen to some together or take a class? Even just listening to the radio, you can point out the different instruments and use the "language" of music. Sure, it takes a little more time and interaction, but you'll have great memories. I feel like our society spends so much time pushing kids with things they don't need that they don't get the time on the things they do need--face-to-face playful language-rich interaction. I think the OP is right on track with no TV. I think it is a gift and a blessing for little children to be TV-free for as long as possible.

Answering, b/c your post seems related to my pp.....for us, those concepts are *not* important. i was pointing out that she *learned* something i didn't/couldn't teach her on my own (without having the forsight to research musical concepts & apply them when we listen to music...). Of course you can point out instruments, etc. in natural occurrences and i would hope most people do take advantage of natural occurrences of different things.

I don't agree that children *need* to be tv-free. not looking for a debate to hijack the thread, or at all







i believe it's a choice each family makes based on their own individual philosophies and dynamics. AND, i do agree that kids are missing tons of stuff they *DO* need. when i see preschoolers who can't put a cap on a marker b/c they don't get to play with them at home b/c it either never occurred to the parents or b/c it's messy







, or kids who have no clue how to play pretend with toys unless it involves something they watched on tv or played in a video game. For me, it's about balance. Not about what's cool, or what makes my child appear smarter than another, or what would sound neat to one-up other moms, or even what would give me down time to un-plug from my child. It's balance. I'm a fan of moderation & practice it with tv. it works for us.

again, to the OP, my example was merely anecdotal to show that dd did actually *learn* something from tv. but it in no way taught her how to talk! neither did i and i'm a speech pathologist. she talked when she was ready. your dc will talk when she's ready. that should be good enough for your MIL!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bobica*
I don't agree that children *need* to be tv-free.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think children under two being TV-free is one of the only things the AAP and I actually agree on.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

I have a great book called How Babies Talk, by Golinkoff and Hirsh-Pasek. It addresses the issue of whether or not TV can aid in language learning, and says that the only way it is known to do so is in teaching object names to older toddlers. It also cites experiments in which hearing children of deaf parents were exposed to TV to help them learn spoken English: there was no effect. The main point made is that *interactive* conversation is the key to language learning, and TV is not interactive.

My DD was speaking hundreds and hundreds of words at 18 months. She also hardly ever watches TV (maybe an hour a month?) I don't ascribe her verbal skills to her lack of TV, though; I think it's much more complicated than that. I don't get why other people ascribe their kids' verbal skills TO TV. Perhaps your kid learned to say "teapot" or whatever from X show; fine, but if he hadn't been watching that show, he probably would have learned another word from another situation.

I am not adamantly anti-TV, but I never understand why people feel the need to defend it so vehemently. So, your kid enjoys some TV and you enjoy some down time. It doesn't have to be the World's Best Thing for Babies for it to be an occasional part of your life.


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *beansavi*
Humans are designed to learn speech from a real live person and real life! Have faith in thousands of years of evolution...

Big fat ditto to that.


----------



## AugustineM (Mar 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc*
So, your kid enjoys some TV and you enjoy some down time. It doesn't have to be the World's Best Thing for Babies for it to be an occasional part of your life.

:LOL Ha ha, nicely said.







DS watches about half an hour of a baby video a day and it's when I can sit there holding him and just **REST** for a few minutes... I know it's not the absolute best thing for him, man, I just need it for me sometimes.

To the OP: My DS is exactly 18 months, doesn't really say any words without prompting. When prompted, can say maybe 5. He signs about 5 words as well. He understands pretty much EVERYTHING though... I'm tooootally not worried. I feel it's completely normal, and wouldn't do anything to "rush" her, rather than communicating with her!


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ArlyShellandKai*
Annette Marie









I guess some feel the need to have their children resite things like a book. To bad many children these days sound smart at very young ages though many do not have much comprehension or imagination. Im sure I could spat out big words and even tell DS the meaning just for him to repeat it. That would show nothing other then he can imitate. There is a big difference between imitating and actually grasping and comprehending. I can sit here and write a ton of things my son can do that he learned without tv however no need for me to try. I will say though that I dont see how a little toddler can have time for tv when they are allowed the opportunity to enjoy a true magical commercial free childhood.

michele

Thank you for that!







Additionally, there really isn't much supporting evidence that knowing how to say a lot of words at a very early age is related to future intelligence anyway. In fact, it could even be the opposite.


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mollyeilis*
And I am saying that experts and studies aside, I've experienced that it can HELP.

I have experience with Noggin. I have experience in controlled TV. I have experience in watching my kiddo's language EXPLODE after letting him watch a Noggin program (not just one show ever, but different episodes of one program, Blue's Clues, over a period of time).

The question in the post was can it *help*; the thought of the MIL is that it would *help ... improve* the child's speech.

And I say, if watching Noggin's shows carefully, yes yes and more yes. Boobah or Teletubbies? No, can't see how it would possibly help. Sesame Street? If they got rid of the incomprehensible Elmo. Barney? Actually I don't know, I've never watched it. The Noggin stuff? Oh I already answered that from my experience.









I think the OP (and everyone giving an opinion who has never watched) should check out a couple days of Noggin programming, and figure out if she feels it might be useful. I do NOT think her MIL or DH are crazy, because I have experience the usefulness of the programming.

"every moment a child spends "interacting" with the television is a moment they are not interacting with the real world all around them."

Hmm. I put more stock in my son's brain than that...I think he can do several things at once. If he's playing with trains and seems totally absorbed while DH and I are talking, and later he pops out with some random word we've used in that conversation, he *certainly* can pick up things that he's not completely interacting with. Ew that sentence is ugly, grammar-wise, but I don't feel like working on it LOL.

I'm sorry you don't recognize that it could be a teaching time. I don't know why anyone would thoughtfully use the TV if they thought it was useless, since kids learn all the time. Just as I learn about the world by reading lots of books (most of it fiction), I use TV for myself in that way too. And I see LOTS of learning going on with my son, from the show he watches.




Respectfully, I think you are missing one of the points here. Sure TV can be fun and enjoyable to children. That doesn't mean it's teaching or that it isn't harmful. And you can believe all you want that it is doing something like teaching, but the scientifc evidence is there that there is nothing beneficial and something possibly harmful going on in the young child's brain when they are watching TV. It doesn't mean that you would notice it while it is happening or that it would look like anything bad was going on.

I occasionally let my daughter watch TV, but I am never kidding myself. And frankly, I am not that concerned with what the content is except that it is a "kids" show usually. And that is because TV is for _entertainment_. I know that no show she watches is going to be teaching her anything. And also, frankly, I _do_ use that TV time to do something else. Again, that is because I don't consider it a learning time for my daughter--it is entertainment and will keep her mesmerized (unfortunately).

The question here is about whether it _teaches_. The evidence is there, regardless of what it looks like is happening, that it does not do so.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I'm not going to address the other stuff. To be honest, it seemed as if you were more concerned with parsing and nitpicking then in trying to hear what I was saying. I do want to rephrase what I said here, though. I don't believe there is anything they are passively learning on television that couldn't me taught even better by a real life real time interaction with the real world.

Started replying hours ago and suddenly the FIL dropped by.





















:

Luckily it gave me time to think, and yeah, I was probably being snotty. I'm sorry about that.

I felt like I was hearing you and replying each time I had a thought, but it probably came across otherwise. Well, it must have, since you said it. Again, I'm sorry.

I did want to say that the show we watch isn't something we just started watching and then I came up with "reasons". Of all the crap my mainstream friends let their kids watch, I noticed BC ages ago. The boy who watched it way back when is now in something like 3rd grade! I thought it was an interesting concept, and so, once we got cable back (we didn't have it for ages) I made the choice to watch it with DS. And I haven't regretted it. And I wanted to share that with others in response to the rather specific question; I just really get bothered by people telling me that my experience isn't possible, you know?


----------



## rabrog (Dec 20, 2005)

We're using Signing Smart (ASL) for DD and that has helped her vocabulary immensely. We do sign classes once a week with an instructor. If you can't find an instructor in your area, just get an ASL based book and start working on it at home.

Don't get Baby Signs. It's not actual sign language - ie your child could not use it in public and have another person readily understand what she was trying to say.

Jenn


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc*
I am not adamantly anti-TV, but I never understand why people feel the need to defend it so vehemently. So, your kid enjoys some TV and you enjoy some down time. It doesn't have to be the World's Best Thing for Babies for it to be an occasional part of your life.

I can totally get behind that way of thinking (once a child is beyond age 2-ish. I'll never believe TV is good or necessary for babies or young toddlers)


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mollyeilis*
Luckily it gave me time to think, and yeah, I was probably being snotty. I'm sorry about that.

No problem, and I likewise apologize if I offended. Believe it or not, this has been an amazingly civil conversation on television for MDC.









I felt like I was hearing you and replying each time I had a thought, but it probably came across otherwise. Well, it must have, since you said it. Again, I'm sorry.

Quote:

And I wanted to share that with others in response to the rather specific question; I just really get bothered by people telling me that my experience isn't possible, you know?








I understand what you're saying, and I was thinking about this thread as well, and wanted to clarify. It's not that I don't think kids pick up things from TV. I know they do, both good and bad. I just don't believe that (a) the things they pick up are better learned than a real-life interaction or (b) that the things they learn have value and meaning in their little two-year-old lives. Factual knowledge about the various types of conifers isn't going to help them learn to talk, walk, understand object permenence, or any of the other myriad of toddler skills they need to master. And four years down the road, it's not going to help them learn to read any faster, or do any better at math, or get along better than their peers. It's not just studies that tell me this. It's based on personal experiences, observations as a mother of three, teaching experienecs, and graduate-level work in early childhood education. I'm not adding that stuff to seem snotty or like an expert, just to explain what my base of experience is.


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
........ My children watch about a half an hour a day, although this is a very recent addition to our daily routine. But I don't believe it's "teaching" them a thing.



Wow....that seems kind of extreme. I agree with a lot of your thoughts on this issue. But I can at least admit that my child learned the word "hat" and the sign for hat and toilet from a video. She must have been 10-11 months at the time, and of the many words I had taught her, I certainly hadn't dreamed to teach her the word hat or toilet at the time. She's used the word "hat" every day since. And I'm sure she's actually learned a lot of other things since. But I'd have to call myself a liar if I said she didn't learn ANYTHING from t.v......It's just that the vast majority of things she's said, she's learned from me. (And she talks an awful LOT.)

For the OP-- T.V. really doesn't seem to be great for our kids brains. I don't think you can say a tot can't learn a few words here and there from t.v. But if it really concerns you, consider teaching some sign language along with the words for things. (I used Joseph Garcia's video for teaching myself signs and the teaching methodology.) Choose words that really excite your DC, and see what happens. And don't worry about his being 18 months at this point. It's really not clear that early speech has anything to do with increased intelligence. (But it sure is fun to have a talking baby around the house! LOL!...Thus far.







)

Faith


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
Wow....that seems kind of extreme. I agree with a lot of your thoughts on this issue. But I can at least admit that my child learned the word "hat" and the sign for hat and toilet from a video. She must have been 10-11 months at the time, and of the many words I had taught her, I certainly hadn't dreamed to teach her the word hat or toilet at the time. She's used the word "hat" every day since. And I'm sure she's actually learned a lot of other things since. But I'd have to call myself a liar if I said she didn't learn ANYTHING from t.v......It's just that the vast majority of things she's said, she's learned from me. (And she talks an awful LOT.)

You must have missed my later clarification on this.









Just last night my daughter learned that beans make you fart from a Discovery Health program. But it wasn't anything that (a) was a necessary part of her preschool development or (b) that I couldn't have taught her myself, probably in a much more hands-on and exciting way, if I felt it was.


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

Plain and simple I dont see why parents need to feel they have to have a infant/toddler watch television at all. there is no reason for it plain and simple. If someone uses it to get something done then that to me is a babysitter.if parent and infant/toddler are watching together that is taking away from true quality interaction! All i keep reading are people justifiing why they turn on the tube and what their child had 'repeated'' i say repeated because its not learned. What is scary is that parents will continue to be sucked into the thinking that infants/toddlers will truly be educated and advanced by having tv as a part of their rhythm. It is sad to also add that April 4th ( though some may want to buy it : ( ) seseame street and nonprofit 0-3 is coming out with a program (line of dvds and other commericialsm garbage to target 6months and up. They are stating it is to help child parent interaction. That is very sad.

I see so many teenagers and adults sucked into 'Reality' tv. I wouldnt be surprised if some toddlers grow up thinking tv is REALITY!
Michele

michele


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

How does a child's brain develop and how does a child learn?

Joseph Chilton Pearce in his book, Evolution's End, sees a child's potential as a seed that needs to be nurtured and nourished in order to grow properly. If the environment doesn't provide the necessary nurturing (and protections from over-stimulation), then certain potentials and abilities cannot be realized. The infant is born with 10 billion nerve cells or neurons and spends the first three years of life adding billions of glial cells to support and nourish these neurons (Everett 1992). These neurons are then capable of forming thousands of interconnections with each other via spider-like projections called dendrites and longer projections called axons that extend to other regions of the brain.
It is important to realize that a six-year-old's brain is 2/3 the size of an adult's though it has 5 - 7 times more connections between neurons than does the brain of an 18-month-old or an adult (Pearce 1992). The brain of a 6 - 7 year old child appears to have a tremendous capacity for making thousands and thousands of dendrite connections among neurons. This potential for development ends around age 10 - 11 when the child loses 80% of these neural connections (Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998). It appears that what we don't develop or use, we lose as a capacity. An enzyme is released within the brain and literally dissolves all poorly myelinated pathways (Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998).
In the developing child, there is a progression of brain development from the most primitive core (action) brain, to the limbic (feeling) brain, and finally to the most advanced neocortex, or thought brain. There are critical periods for brain development when the stimulus must be present for the capacity to evolve (for example, language). There is also plasticity in brain development so that even adults can make new dendritic connections, but they have to work harder to establish pathways which were more easily made in childhood. [Figure (Pearce 1992) shows a brain cross-section with labels. 1. Thought: New Mammalian "Human" Brain 2. Feeling: Old Mammalian Limbic System 3. Action: Reptillian R-System]
The core (action) brain is dedicated to our physical survival and manages reflexes, controls our motor movements, monitors body functions, and processes information from our senses. Along with the limbic (feeling) brain, it is involved in the "flight or fight" response that our body has to a dangerous or threatening situation. Humans react physically and emotionally before the thought brain has had time to process the information (Buzzell 1998).
Our limbic (feeling) brain wraps around our core (action) brain and processes emotional information (e.g., our likes - dislikes, love - hate polarities). Our feeling brain gives meaning and value to our memories and what we learn. It influences behavior based on emotional feelings and has an intimate relationship to our immune system and capacity to heal. It is involved in the forming of our intimate relationships and emotional bonds (e.g., between mother and child) and is connected with our dreaming, subtle intuitive experiences and the daydreams and fantasies that originate from the thought brain (Healy 1990). This feeling brain connects the more highly evolved thought brain to the more primitive action brain. Our lower action brain can be made to follow the will of our thought brain or our higher thought brain can be "locked into" the service of the lower action-feeling brain during an emergency that is real or imagined (Pearce 1992). The action and feeling brains can't distinguish real from imaginary sensory input. It is a survival advantage to react first and think later.
Finally our thought brain, the neocortex, represents our highest and newest form of intellect. It receives extensive input from the core (action) brain and limbic (feeling) brain and has the potential of separating itself and being the most objective part of the brain. It connects us to our higher self. However, the neocortex needs more time to process the images from the action and feeling brains. It is also the part of the brain that has the most potential for the future, and it is the place where our perceptions (experiences), recollections, feelings, and thinking skills all combine to shape our ideas and actions (Everett 1997). The thinking brain is "5 times larger than the other brains combined and provides intellect, creative thinking, computing and, if developed, sympathy, empathy, compassion and love" (Pearce 1992).
There is a sequential development (a progressive myelination of nerve pathways) of the child's brain from the most primitive (action) brain to the limbic (feeling) brain and finally to the most highly evolved thought brain, or neocortex. Myelination involves covering the nerve axons and dendrites with a protective fatty-protein sheath. The more a pathway is used, the more myelin is added. The thicker the myelin sheath, the faster the nerve impulse or signal travels along the pathway. For these reasons, it is imperative that the growing child receives developmentally appropriate input from their environment in order to nourish each part of the brain's development and promote the myelination of new nerve pathways. For example, young children who are in the process of forming their motor-sensory pathways and sense organs (the action brain) need repetitive and rhythmical experiences in movement.
Children also need experiences that stimulate and integrate their senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. Their senses need to be protected from over-stimulation, since young children are literally sponges. Children absorb all they see, hear, smell, taste and touch from their environment since they haven't developed the brain capacity to discriminate or filter out unpleasant or noxious sense experiences. The sense of touch is especially crucial since our culture and its hospital birth practices (including the high rate of C-sections) and, until recently, its discouragement of breast-feeding, deprive infants of critical multi-sensory experiences.
The stimulation and development of our sense organs is the precursor to the development of part of our lower brain, called the Reticular Activating System (RAS). The RAS is the gateway through which our sense impressions coordinate with each other and then travel to the higher thought brain. The RAS is the area of the brain that allows us to attend and focus our attention. Impairments in motor-sensory pathways lead to impairments in children's attention span and ability to concentrate (Buzzell 1998). Over-stimulation and under-stimulation of our senses and poorly developed fine and gross motor movements may lead to impairments in attention.
By age 4, both the core (action) and limbic (feeling) brains are 80% myelinated. After age 6-7, the brain's attention is shifted to the neocortex (thought brain) with myelination beginning first on the right side or hemisphere and later joined by the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere is the more intuitive side of the brain, and it particularly responds to visual images. It grasps wholes, shapes and patterns and focuses on the big picture rather than the details. It directs drawing and painting and monitors melodies and harmonies of music. It is especially responsive to novelty and color and is the dominant hemisphere when watching TV (Healy, 1990, Everett 1997).
The left hemisphere dominates when a child reads, writes and speaks. It specializes in analytical and sequential thinking and step-by-step logical reasoning. It analyzes the sound and meaning of language (e.g., phonic skills of matching sound to letters of the alphabet). It manages fine muscle skills and is concerned with order, routine and details. The ability to comprehend science, religion, math (especially geometry) and philosophy relies on abstract thinking characteristic of the left hemisphere.
Even though we emphasize which functions of learning are performed by which hemisphere, there is a crucial connection between the two hemispheres called the corpus callosum. It consists of a large bundle of nerve pathways that form a bridge between the left and right hemispheres. It is one of the brain's latest-maturing parts. The left and right sides of the body learn to coordinate with each other by this pathway. Gross motor activities like jumping rope, climbing, running, and circle games and fine motor activities like form drawing, knitting, pottery, origami, woodworking, embroidery, and bread-making are crucial to myelinating this pathway and lead to more flexible manipulation of ideas and a creative imagination. This pathway provides the interplay between analytic and intuitive thinking, and several neuropsychologists believe that poor development of this pathway affects the right and left hemispheres' effective communication with each other and may be a cause of attention and learning difficulties (Healy 1990).
We myelinate our pathways by using them. Movements of our bodies combine with experiences of our senses to build strong neural pathways and connections. For example, when a toddler listens to the sound of a ball bouncing on the floor, tastes and smells the ball or pushes, rolls and throws the ball, neurons are making dendritic connections with each other. When a toddler examines balls of varying sizes, shapes, weights and textures, a field of thousands (and possibly millions) of interconnecting neurons can be created around the "word" ball (Pearce 1992). Repetition, movement, and multisensory stimulation are the foundations of the language development and higher level thinking. The toddler's repetitive experiences, with an object like a ball, create images or pictures in his/her brain. "The images of the core limbic brain form much of the elemental "food" for the remarkable and progressive abstracting abilities of the associative high cortex [neocortex]" (Buzzell 1998).

Question: What is so harmful to the mind about watching television?

Watching television has been characterized as multi-leveled sensory deprivation that may be stunting the growth of our children's brains. Brain size has been shown to decrease 20-30% if a child is not touched, played with or talked to (Healy 1990). In addition when young animals were placed in an enclosed area where they could only watch other animals play, their brain growth decreased in proportion to the time spent inactively watching (Healy 1990). Television really only presents information to two senses: hearing and sight. In addition, the poor quality of reproduced sound presented to our hearing and the flashing, colored, fluorescent over-stimulating images presented to our eyes cause problems in the development and proper function of these two critical sense organs (Poplawski 1998).
To begin with, a child's visual acuity and full binocular (three-dimensional) vision are not fully developed until 4 years of age, and the picture produced on the television screen is an unfocused (made up of dots of light), two-dimensional image that restricts our field of vision to the TV screen itself. Images on TV are produced by a cathode ray gun that shoots electrons at phosphors (fluorescent substances) on the TV screen. The phosphors glow and this artificially produced pulsed light projects directly into our eyes and beyond affecting the secretions of our neuro-endocrine system (Mander 1978). The actual image produced by dots of light is fuzzy and unfocused so that our eyes, and the eyes of our children, have to strain to make the image clear. Television, like any electrical appliance and like power lines, produces invisible waves of electromagnetism. Last June, a panel convened by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences decided there was enough evidence to consider these invisible waves (called electromagnetic fields or EMFs) as possible human carcinogens. In the article it was recommended that children sit at least 4 feet from TV and 18 inches from the computer screen (Gross 1999).
Our visual system, "the ability to search out, scan, focus, and identify whatever comes in the visual field" (Buzzell 1998), is impaired by watching TV. These visual skills are also the ones that need to be developed for effective reading. Children watching TV do not dilate their pupils, show little to no movement of their eyes (i.e., stare at the screen), and lack the normal saccadic movements of the eyes (a jumping from one point to the next) that is critical for reading. The lack of eye movement when watching television is a problem because reading requires the eyes to continually move from left to right across the page. The weakening of eye muscles from lack of use can't help but negatively impact the ability and effort required to read. In addition, our ability to focus and pay attention relies on this visual system. Pupil dilation, tracking and following are all part of the reticular activating system. The RAS is the gateway to the right and left hemispheres. It determines what we pay attention to and is related to the child's ability to concentrate and focus. The RAS is not operating well when a child watches television. A poorly integrated lower brain can't properly access the higher brain.
In addition, the rapid-fire change of television images, which occurs every 5 to 6 seconds in many programs and 2 to 3 seconds in commercials (even less on MTV), does not give the higher thought brain a chance to even process the image. It reportedly takes the neocortex anywhere from 5 to 10 seconds to engage after a stimulus (Scheidler 1994). The neocortex is our higher brain, but also needs a greater processing time to become involved.
All the color combinations produced on the television screen result from the activation of only three types of phosphors: red, blue and green. The wavelengths of visible light produced by the activation of these phosphors represents an extremely limited spectrum compared to the wavelengths of light we receive when viewing objects outdoors in the full spectrum of reflected rays from the sun. Another problem with color television is that the color from it is almost exclusively processed by the right hemisphere so that left hemisphere functioning is diminished and the corpus callosum (the pathway of communication between the brain's hemispheres) is poorly utilized (i.e., poorly myelinated).
Reading a book, walking in nature, or having a conversation with another human being, where one takes the time to ponder and think, are far more educational than watching TV. The television -- and computer games -- are replacing these invaluable experiences of human conversations, storytelling, reading books, playing "pretend" (using internal images created by the child rather than the fixed external images copied from television), and exploring nature. Viewing television represents an endless, purposeless, physically unfulfilling activity for a child. Unlike eating until one is full or sleeping until one is no longer tired, watching television has no built-in endpoint. It makes a child want more and more without ever being satisfied (Buzzell 1998).

Question: Well, what about watching Sesame Street, isn't it educational for our children? Doesn't it teach them how to read?

Jane Healy, Ph.D., in her book, Endangered Minds, wrote an entire chapter entitled "Sesame Street and the Death of Reading". In addition to the concerns already mentioned about watching television, Sesame Street and the majority of children's programming seems to put the left hemisphere and parts of the right hemisphere into slow waves of inactivity (alpha waves). Television anesthetizes our higher brain functions and disrupts the balance and interaction between the left and right hemispheres.
Brain waves can be measured by an EEG, and variations in recorded brain waves correspond to different states of activity in the brain. In general, reading produces active, fast beta waves while television watching leads to an increase in slow alpha waves in the left hemisphere and at times even in the right hemisphere (Buzzell 1998). Once again, the left hemisphere is the critical center for reading, writing and speaking. It is the place where abstract symbols (e.g., the letters of the alphabet) are connected to sounds (phonic skills). The pulsating fluorescent light source of television may have something to do with promoting slow wave activity. Our brain "wakes up" to novelty and falls asleep or habituates to repetitive, "boring" stimuli. Advertising agencies and many children's shows (including Sesame Street) have had to counter children's tendency to habituate to television by increasing the frequency of new images, using flashing colors, close-ups, and startling, often loud, sounds. These distracters get our attention momentarily but keep us operating in our lower core and limbic brains.
The lower brain can't discern between images that are real or created on TV, because discernment is the function of the neocortex. Therefore, when the TV presents sudden close-ups, flashing lights, etc. as stimuli, the core-limbic brain immediately goes into a "fight or flight" response with the release of hormones and chemicals throughout the body. Heart rate and blood pressure are increased and blood flow to limb muscles is increased to prepare for this apparent emergency. Because this all happens in our body without the corresponding movement of our limbs, certain TV programs actually put us in a state of chronic stress or anxiety. Studies have shown atrophy of the left hemisphere in adults who are chronically stressed and only functioning from their core-limbic brain. Even as adults, what we don't use, we lose.
Finally, when our brain is simultaneously presented with visual (images on the screen) and auditory (sound) stimuli, we preferentially attend to the visual. A dramatic example of this phenomenon was illustrated when a group of young children (6-7 years old) were shown a video show where the sound track did not match the visual action and the children, when questioned, did not appear to notice the discrepancy. Therefore, even in Sesame Street, studies have shown that children are not absorbing the content of the show (Healy 1990).
Maybe the most critical argument against watching television is that it affects the three characteristics that distinguish us as human beings. In the first 3 years of life, a child learns to walk, to talk and to think. Television keeps us sitting, leaves little room for meaningful conversations and seriously impairs our ability to think.


----------



## mamatoablessing (Oct 17, 2005)

WOW! All I can say is thank you for some very interesting reading! You all have really helped me put this situation into perspective, even with the conflicting opinions (which I knew would come up in a post like this). I am impressed at how civil the thread remained as well. I appreciate everyone's honesty and thoughts on the subject.

If you're interested, I wanted to provide a quick update. After a few days of lettings some posts build up here, I printed this thread out for DH. Additionally, I found various articles, studies and recommendations on the internet suggesting that tv for kids under two should probably be avoided.

I must admit I did have my own agenda because I don't want DD watching any tv yet. While I can understand some of the pro-tv comments posted here, I guess I really just want to delay the tv battle as long as possible. Also, I don't want to start relying on the tv for DD to a) teach her things (I think that should be done by the people and things around her) and b) to get my own stuff done. I like our life the way it is now, with very little tv exposure.

Personally, I love tv. DH and I spend an hour or two a night catching up on our favorite shows we've TiVo'd and it's our quiet/relaxing time together.

So anyway, after showing DH this thread and the stuff I got off the internet, he agreed that tv probably wasn't going to help "teach" DD to speak more. Maybe later on down the line, we 'll use tv in many of the same ways you all do (for general learning, in a controlled environment, for a very short period of time a day/week).

Again, I really appreciate all of the responses. This has been a very interesting thread.


----------



## mamatoablessing (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:

In the first 3 years of life, a child learns to walk, to talk and to think. Television keeps us sitting, leaves little room for meaningful conversations and seriously impairs our ability to think.
This is such a powerful statement.


----------



## AppleOrangePear (Apr 17, 2004)

HI Jen,
Glad to hear it did help to figure things out and research and most of all to have DH support the decision.









When and if it comes up again with your MIL just simply state that you are the parent yada yada.

DH and i use to be fanatics to the show Friends. We tease and say since that ended it ended our love for tv







thats around the same time we got rid of cable. HOwever like many adults we will occasional rent movies together even though that technically would be taking away from quality interaction

















































(by the way the movie Derailed with Jennifer Aniston was great)

michele


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

I was thinking about this thread today. I was thinking in terms of learning any new langauge. If you wanted to learn a new language-- which would be more helpful? 1. A video, or
2. your own one-on-one native speaker tutor who adjusts the curriculum to fit your needs and interest?









And that's you. Your child has it's own personal teacher right there in the house. Sure an occasional video might be fun, but not the prefered way to learn anything!


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AidansMommy1012*
Do you think that the competitive atmosphere in the States contributes to us trying to push our children to go faster and faster developmentally? I don't know what it's like in France, but my mother, who is fairly well traveled, has told me that life is more leisurely and laid back in most parts of Europe than it is here in the States. It seems that in the US we have a climate of wanting to go faster and be better than everyone else at any cost, due to the prominence of the corporate workplace and competition being almost an American value. I've seen news shows where they talk about parents getting tutors and putting their children in preschool earlier and earlier because they feel competitive with other parents as well as wanting their children to have a head start on their education so they are better prepared to succeed in the corporate workplace. They talked about how a lot of the time, this can create too much stress for the child and they can start exhibiting some disturbing behaviors due to being under more stress than they can handle. What is it like in France, and do you think that this is an accurate portrayal of what's going on here in the States?

Last summer, I read that book _Perfect Madness_ by Susan Warner and all I could think was, "Boy, am I ever glad that I don't have to be a parent in the United States!" Parents getting their children speech pathologists at 18 months, buying computers for their one year olds, showing their babies Baby Einstein religiously in case it makes the kid smarter, putting their preschoolers through 70-hour workweeks consisting of dance, sports, language classes, etc. The whole thing is just mind-boggling. What most amazes me is this whole culture of OVER-parenting: You take your 5-year old kid to the recreation park and instead of just sitting on the bleachers while the kid has fun in the park, THE PARENT GOES IN WITH THE KID. In France, the mothers would sit at the side, chat and smoke cigarettes!









That being said, France is by no means perfect. Children are put into preschool, often for full days, at age 3 and it is REAL school, not just your anglo-saxon playgroup thing. This can be pretty exhausting for a 3 year old. But the whole competitive parenting thing is just not really done here at that stage. The preschool is effectively a substitute for daycare (there are very few French SAHM). Later on though, the French do tend to put enormous pressure on their older kids to perform academically in junior high and high school

OK well I guess this little rant was a little







Sorry, just wanted to answer this inquiry.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I'm trying to phrase this gently, and not detract from the OP's question, but why do people feel the things television "teaches" are so important? Why does a toddler need to know about fortissimo, or the various types of reasoning skills, or "reasoning skills"? Aren't reasoning skills for a toddler things like playing peekaboo and hide the toy? If music is really important to you, why not listen to some together or take a class? Even just listening to the radio, you can point out the different instruments and use the "language" of music. Sure, it takes a little more time and interaction, but you'll have great memories. I feel like our society spends so much time pushing kids with things they don't need that they don't get the time on the things they do need--face-to-face playful language-rich interaction. I think the OP is right on track with no TV. I think it is a gift and a blessing for little children to be TV-free for as long as possible.

Annettemarie, I just wanted to say that I am a huge believer in the Montessori method and I agree with everything that you have said. I think that Montessori and Waldorf have a lot in common on this front. TV turns children into passive learners. Dr. Montessori believed that children learned best by doing (as you put it) and by using their senses (and that means more than just their eyes and ears to glare at a TV).

Dr. Montessori also believed that very young children do not understand the difference between real and pretend. Many Montessori educators discourage television for young children because young children do not understand that what they see (including violence, for example) is not real. It is just pretend.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ArlyShellandKai*
Plain and simple I dont see why parents need to feel they have to have a infant/toddler watch television at all. there is no reason for it plain and simple. If someone uses it to get something done then that to me is a babysitter.if parent and infant/toddler are watching together that is taking away from true quality interaction!

Exactly!


----------

