http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...100947.htm

"... Using modified clips from the program Sesame Beginnings, the researchers showed children a video of characters performing unfamiliar actions that were labeled with new words (for example, "Look, she's daxing"). In some instances, the children watched without adult support, while in others, they watched with an adult who demonstrated the action that later appeared on the screen. The researchers then measured the children's ability to learn a new verb and apply that word to a new scene.

Without adult support, children under age 3 could not learn the words directly from the program, nor could they understand them when they appeared in a different context within the video. When they watched with an adult who reinforced what they were viewing, they could learn the words. In contrast, children over age 3 were able to learn the verbs from the video program and understand them later, even without an adult interacting with them... "

No idea what 'daxing' is, guess I'm too young. ;p

Some very useful info for all our members under 3.

i think it's false b.c. there's that YOUR BABY CAN READ whatever crap & so basically the babies learn to read at whatever months old.
I think probably they can make a transition from words -> verbs

Thora Wrote:Some very useful info for all our members under 3.

Sometimes I'm sneaky and I post links because I'm curious whether people will follow the tacit tangents.

So basically, the did an experiment that proved that children learn better when what they are learning is reinforced by additional sources of input?

Did they really need an experiment to prove that?

"...Watching on their own is not as 'educational' as watching with an engaged adult...""

How does that compare to watching with a monkey or a 4 year old?

kazelee Wrote:So basically, the did an experiment that proved that children learn better when what they are learning is reinforced by additional sources of input?

Did they really need an experiment to prove that?

Maybe just for confirmation? There's a whole lot of stuff like that.


Also "daxing" is probably just a variable.

Citing as proof that mothers shouldn't work - they ought to be home for the first 3 years to act out Sesame verbs.

Thora Wrote:Citing as proof that mothers shouldn't work - they ought to be home for the first 3 years to act out Sesame verbs.

Well said.^^

or perhaps the husband shouldn't work?

In an ideal world, no one would work.

That's interesting; I've seen studies like that before. One of the (many) strange things about the child learning process is that while it's well established that a child can learn to speak without anyone speaking directly to them (as long as they're hearing language), TV doesn't work. I haven't really seen a good explanation as to why this might be.

(As for "daxing", typically the way that child language acquisition is studied uses fake, created words that fit into the sentence structure of the language. This is for isolation purposes, to make sure that none of the experiment subjects will know the words before the experiment.)

yudantaiteki Wrote:That's interesting; I've seen studies like that before. One of the (many) strange things about the child learning process is that while it's well established that a child can learn to speak without anyone speaking directly to them (as long as they're hearing language), TV doesn't work. I haven't really seen a good explanation as to why this might be.

I would be interested in any studies concerning this as I have more the feeling that the "children can learn only by hearing" paradigm is something made up by the ajatt guy and only the believers want to believe it without any scientific backup.

Very interesting is e.g.:
Kuhl ; Patricia, K.: Is speech learning gated by the social brain? In: Developmental
Science 10 (2007), January, Nr. 1, S. 110–120. – ISSN 1363–755X

yudantaiteki Wrote:(As for "daxing", typically the way that child language acquisition is studied uses fake, created words that fit into the sentence structure of the language. This is for isolation purposes, to make sure that none of the experiment subjects will know the words before the experiment.)

That's bucked up. I wouldn't want my kid learning bullshit words in his/her early stages. That will stuff up and slow him down!

*Mental note to never let kid take part in research*

Better keep your kid away from fantasy or science fiction novels as well, then. Probably best to avoid books in general.

~J

thorstenu Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:That's interesting; I've seen studies like that before. One of the (many) strange things about the child learning process is that while it's well established that a child can learn to speak without anyone speaking directly to them (as long as they're hearing language), TV doesn't work. I haven't really seen a good explanation as to why this might be.

I would be interested in any studies concerning this as I have more the feeling that the "children can learn only by hearing" paradigm is something made up by the ajatt guy and only the believers want to believe it without any scientific backup.

This isn't AJATT related; I learned about this a long time ago, before I had heard of AJATT. But perhaps more recent studies have shed more light on that topic -- part of the problem is that it depends a little bit on what is meant by "acquisition". You're not going to meet a native Japanese speaker who can't pronounce the syllables correctly because they were neglected by their parents, for instance, or a person who can't use causative verb forms because of limited interaction with people as a child.

ruiner Wrote:

Thora Wrote:Some very useful info for all our members under 3.

Sometimes I'm sneaky and I post links because I'm curious whether people will follow the tacit tangents.

Sometimes? Ruiner you start so many posts that half of them are never replied to.

Thora Wrote:Citing as proof that mothers shouldn't work - they ought to be home for the first 3 years to act out Sesame verbs.

Or perhaps each side should take turns being off from work. I don't see why mom should have to sacrifice her career because her and her husband decided to pop one out. Since it takes two to make a new life, I don't see why only one person should take responsibility for its well being: both sides need to take care of a baby when it is born until it leaves the test, as it was their (two people's) decision to have it in the first place.

Anyway, interestingly enough and on a related topic, Disney's Baby Einstein has been reported to product the opposite effect of what it advertises to create -- instead of growing your own genius baby by simply plopping in front of the TV, baby is simply getting dumber in front of it:

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting...am-531147/