Baby Einstein dvd and audi cds for Newborns???
Those that have used these, do you mind recommending dvds and audio tapes suited for newly born babies that aren't even up to 1 month yet?
Mar 24th, 2008 9:54 am
Mar 24th, 2008 10:26 am
Mar 24th, 2008 11:55 am
Mar 24th, 2008 1:01 pm
Mar 24th, 2008 1:01 pm
Apr 3rd, 2008 12:33 am
Apr 3rd, 2008 9:19 am
While I also mentioned the studies, you have to read exactly what they are saying; I'd be cautious before completely disregarding them. While I also agree that TV is a negative, we do let our daughter watch "books" on TV - there is a series of books that are still images with a narrator, somewhat like reading. She greatly prefers books, but these videos are easy when travelling - and we get them from the library (ie, no DVD charges, just your yearly library card fees)!frogblender wrote: ↑I think the following needs to be shouted:
The American Association of Pediatricians says:
NO TELEVISION AT ALL FOR KIDS UNDER 2 YEARS OF AGE. Period.
So take all that baby einstein crap and other DVD junk and get rid of it all. Wikipedia has info linking baby einstein videos to language delays and other problems - go check it out.
Apr 3rd, 2008 5:09 pm
Get the books on CD from Scholastic. Our son loved them....no need for a TV.brendonp wrote: ↑While I also mentioned the studies, you have to read exactly what they are saying; I'd be cautious before completely disregarding them. While I also agree that TV is a negative, we do let our daughter watch "books" on TV - there is a series of books that are still images with a narrator, somewhat like reading. She greatly prefers books, but these videos are easy when travelling - and we get them from the library (ie, no DVD charges, just your yearly library card fees)!
Apr 3rd, 2008 6:23 pm
I doubt they used that font.frogblender wrote: ↑I think the following needs to be shouted:
The American Association of Pediatricians says:
NO TELEVISION AT ALL FOR KIDS UNDER 2 YEARS OF AGE. Period.
robertalan wrote: ↑"Neighborship" (or "neighbourship") is a real word, it's in my Oxford dictionary, and also online at Dictionary.com - so someone is indeed compensating for their limited vocabulary, but it ain't yao416!
Apr 6th, 2008 9:05 pm
Apr 6th, 2008 9:13 pm
Apr 7th, 2008 1:14 am
Apr 7th, 2008 8:32 am
Apr 7th, 2008 8:31 pm
bionicbadger wrote: ↑Our kid became entranced by the TV just after a year old. We unplugged it and have canceled our cable service. No one in the house has watched any TV since New Years. We'll wait until the baby is a few years old before turning on the TV again. Amazingly niether the wife or I miss the TV, and we save a bunch of money to boot.
Apr 7th, 2008 9:20 pm
+1canadiankorean wrote: ↑Oh also this whole thing about watching tv..
my daughter watches tv. not regularly or that often.. but more than 30mins a day.
She's 14months old and her vocabulary is well over 300 words.
She spoken words is around 40 although they are not perfect in sound.
She knows sign language and can do signs for a lot of words also.
eg water, tree, caterpillar, chicken, dog, bath, potty/toilet, and many more
So it's all about balance in activity.
We read to her a lot. We have her point and direct us in the book and we say what she points to.
She now recognizing letters and numbers and somewhat seeing words.
All this and she watches the evil tv...
She knows go diego go, 4 squares, roll play, all the treehouse shows and knows the beat and song. I always watched with her and made the shows interactive by pointing to the images and making the big motions in roll play.
Tv is not that bad.. it's like any other thing people see (images)...
It's just people get tempted to use it as a babysitter and leave the child there unattended.
robertalan wrote: ↑"Neighborship" (or "neighbourship") is a real word, it's in my Oxford dictionary, and also online at Dictionary.com - so someone is indeed compensating for their limited vocabulary, but it ain't yao416!
Apr 8th, 2008 12:27 pm
canadiankorean wrote: ↑Oh also this whole thing about watching tv..
my daughter watches tv. not regularly or that often.. but more than 30mins a day.
She's 14months old and her vocabulary is well over 300 words.
She spoken words is around 40 although they are not perfect in sound.
She knows sign language and can do signs for a lot of words also.
eg water, tree, caterpillar, chicken, dog, bath, potty/toilet, and many more
So it's all about balance in activity.
We read to her a lot. We have her point and direct us in the book and we say what she points to.
She now recognizing letters and numbers and somewhat seeing words.
All this and she watches the evil tv...
She knows go diego go, 4 squares, roll play, all the treehouse shows and knows the beat and song. I always watched with her and made the shows interactive by pointing to the images and making the big motions in roll play.
Tv is not that bad.. it's like any other thing people see (images)...
It's just people get tempted to use it as a babysitter and leave the child there unattended.
I think there are two streams of consciousness here. Some people are talking about the QUALITY of the programming for infants, but some of these studies are talking about the actual physiological effects of television images and they way they are produced, on the developing brains of infants under the age of 2. Without being able to quote, I remember reading some different things about the flickering images and bombardment of visual stimulation (colours, movement, etc.) interfering with how well ganglions(?) in the infant brain build their bridges. It is these brain connections going on at such a hyper level that allow for the largest window of learning opportunity, for things like languages, in babies. I saw Dr. Jean Clinton speak, and she quoted research that showed that by the age of 9 months, infants have already lost close to 50% of their ability to distinguish different and particular language sounds.robertalan wrote: ↑+1
Very sensible approach. There is some amazingly high quality programming available for young children nowadays.
Apr 9th, 2008 11:04 am
Apr 9th, 2008 1:23 pm
Apr 10th, 2008 8:34 am
Not to put too fine a point on it - but that sounds like bull.inntents wrote: ↑I think there are two streams of consciousness here. Some people are talking about the QUALITY of the programming for infants, but some of these studies are talking about the actual physiological effects of television images and they way they are produced, on the developing brains of infants under the age of 2. Without being able to quote, I remember reading some different things about the flickering images and bombardment of visual stimulation (colours, movement, etc.) interfering with how well ganglions(?) in the infant brain build their bridges. It is these brain connections going on at such a hyper level that allow for the largest window of learning opportunity, for things like languages, in babies. I saw Dr. Jean Clinton speak, and she quoted research that showed that by the age of 9 months, infants have already lost close to 50% of their ability to distinguish different and particular language sounds.
That being said, we do allow limited viewing of Treehouse shows that are slow-paced and story/lesson/morality based..............
robertalan wrote: ↑"Neighborship" (or "neighbourship") is a real word, it's in my Oxford dictionary, and also online at Dictionary.com - so someone is indeed compensating for their limited vocabulary, but it ain't yao416!
Apr 17th, 2008 9:49 am
."is when you find the courage to let go of what you can't change"