Teaching my child sign language

Don't overthink, shewolf! :-)

(Said the pot to the kettle, but really.)

She's using signs to communicate -- that's all good. If you understand her, reinforce it. If you'd like, you can respond with "Oh, you want some more food? Sure!" Adding the sign for "food".

Grammatically, "more" is probably about as correct as "food" -- "I'm hungry" would be the perfect formulation for what you're talking about. She has had food in the past, and now she wants more of it. ;-)

.

That's really common. Again one of those parallel language acquisition things. When babies learn how to speak, often one word "means" another -- like, I dunno, "blanky" means "I'm tired."

Adults, often unknowingly, are continually giving babies the information they need to move on in the world. Language is a perfect example of this, Gopnik said; grown-ups everywhere, including Gopnik herself, talk to their babies in a "weird, funny way called motherese." The sometimes embarrassing speech, she claimed, is in fact giving babies the information they need to solve language problems. "The high squeakiness, for example, seems to be something that actually attracts a baby's attention. And those big distinctions between loud and soft, the kind of exaggerated intonation that we use when we talk motherese, seems to help babies pick out the sounds of a language."


Interestingly enough, Japanese and English speaking mothers fashion different kinds of motherese. This is necessary, Gopnik asserted, because mothers must exaggerate the linguistic distinctions that are unique to the languages. "So motherese is a kind of an unconscious tutorial for the babies. We do this spontaneously, without thinking about it, just because we see an adorable, cute baby. And by doing it we're giving babies the information they need to understand what's going on around them."


Gopnik concluded her presentation by insisting that artificial interventions on the supposed behalf of babies-playing Mozart tapes or using flash cards for instance-are useless. "The natural mechanisms for teaching and learning that we're talking about," she said, "are overwhelmingly more powerful than anything that anybody could do as an artificial intervention."


Unfortunately, this natural caregiving is not well-respected or supported in our society,-something that Gopnik feels must be redressed. "It is actually incredibly inexpensive to stay at home and look after a baby. And when people like preschool teachers help to look after babies they get paid less money than dogcatchers. Caregivers and babies playing with mixing bowls and playing peek-a-boo is really the fundamental thing that makes us human, and it's the lowest status, lowest paid activity in our culture."

First, the strengths of the book. It provides an alternative view to the frantic parents who are trying to do everything for their kids and in fact, are overdoing it. I completely agree with his points about too many parents getting obsessive about the first few years with their children.

But here are three things that I find troubling. 1) The very research studies he tries to debunk in other's findings are the same ones he uses to support his own position. He says you can't use the basic neuroscience to justify the more practical end uses, then he uses basic neuroscience research to support his own position.2) He ignores a huge body of research from studies on attachment, emotional abuse, physical abuse, drug abuse and neglect that supports the critical value of early emotional involvement and the delicate caregiver-to-child process of attunement. This is the underpinnings of emotional intelligence--which may be more important than the standard cognition. 3) He ballyhoos the current trend in schools towards a more brain-based approach, saying that it'll be 25 years before we can apply neuroscience to classroom learning. That's dead wrong. Thousands of educators are already using strategies and programs based on recent research. He apparently doesn't know about them--maybe he does not visit cutting edge schools. As an example, the technology of FastForWord (a software that is treating phonological deficits) is just one of several hearing improvement programs. Other teachers are using research on emotions, stress, memory and the brain's structural constraints to enhance teaching--and scores are going up. Bruer is well-meaning, but not in touch with the cutting edge of learning.

This being the case, it is not surprising that "The Myth of the First Three Years" is stirring controversy even before it reaches bookstores. Dr. Bruer's critics, for the most part, do not dispute the fact that neuroscience findings have sometimes been exaggerated or misused. "There's no question that those extremes do exist, and that is a danger," said Dr. David Hamburg, president emeritus of the Carnegie Foundation, who spearheaded the "Starting Points," campaign.


But Dr. Hamburg and others mentioned critically in the book said that what irked them about Dr. Bruer's assault was that he seemed to ignore a wealth of research in areas other than neuroscience -- developmental psychology, for
example -- which shows that the first years of life are indeed critically important. Such studies, they assert, clearly demonstrate that what parents do in the first three years matters, and underline the need for parents to be
attuned to developmental milestones, and the value of activities like reading and talking to young children.


"Neuroscience or not, we've learned a tremendous amount over the last 30 years through scientifically valid research mechanisms," said Matthew Melmed, executive director of the Zero to Three Foundation. "And we do have a lot to say and advice to share with parents about the early years."


Melmed, Dr. Hamburg and others mentioned in Dr. Bruer's book say that their organizations have never suggested that a window slams shut on development at the age of 3, or that the later childhood years -- or adulthood, for that matter -- are unimportant. And they worry that the appearance of a book titled "The Myth of the First Three Years," will send parents off to the other, equally misguided extreme -- setting back the field 20 years, as one expert put it -- and make advocacy more difficult in a nation that, in comparison with other Western countries, is not known for making the health and welfare of its youngest citizens a priority.

Some neuroscientists also disagree with Dr. Bruer's assertion that neuroscience has nothing to say about early childhood. Dr. Patricia Kuhl, whose book, "The Scientist in the Crib" (William Morrow), written with two other research
scientists, will be published next month, said she thought Dr. Bruer made some valid points. But the findings of research, "have shown us that babies are not just cute faces but the greatest learning machines in the universe," said Dr. Kuhl, a professor of speech and hearing sciences at the University of
Washington.

"Babies revise their views about people and things in the world based on new information, just as scientists do," Dr. Kuhl said. "A difference is that babies do it more quickly and more profoundly than adults, because their brains are less committed -- literally less cluttered -- than ours are."

And while such findings "don't provide a prescription for revamping our educational system," she said, "they do alter our views of the mental life of the child."