Piaget and Baby Sign Language - thoughts?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was watching the news tonight, a special segment on Baby sign language and that got me to thinking about Piaget and his theories of cognitive development. Where's all my psychology friends?

Has Piaget underestimated the ability of these toddlers?

I'm just thinking out loud here. Are also redefining any of our developmental theories?

Oh my what to do? There is other thoughts in my head other than food, money, sex, and god (not in any order). Laughing

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,294 • Replies: 10

No top replies

Hey, husker. Can you explain the segment that you watched about baby sign language? (erase all other thoughts from your mind Razz

)

0 Replies

I bet the segment said something like " kids who learn sign language at an early age , dont develop verbal skills as well"? Am I correct?
If im not, I apologize.
I have heard ALOT about that. People, doctors, and other random news clips ... saying that sign language impedes the verbal growth of children.
I dont tend to believe that at all. If we think about it ( espically those WITH kids ) children used forms of sign language on thier own with out instruction from day one. Infants often stick thier fingers in thier mouths when they are hungry , imitating the sucking they get from bottle/breast.
A few months along the way, alot of infants squeeze thier hands when they make eye contact with thier parents and it tends to mean " pick me up" , they swat open hands at certain objects to signify " done, no more, take away" etc. As parents we identify these motions as - words-.
So, if children do this on thier own, how can teaching them NEW motions impede thier verbal skills?

( hehe.. I hope I didnt completely derail this thread.. ) Embarrassed

0 Replies

Shewolf, if anyone's telling you that, I can point you to studies that say SO NOT!!

All the studies show that kids who sign early have language gains, though the gains tend to fade in grade school. As in, on the first day of kindergarten, the kids who signed as babies have better language skills than average, though the advantage tends to fade.

You guys all know about sozlet, but that's the first thing that comes up with her -- "what a communicator!" Her teachers went on and on about that at her conference, a parent who works with my hubby and observed in class went on and on about it, etc.

Now, to Piaget, not sure of your question, Husker. Piaget's thing is that children move through four stages of development -- sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational. It's a pretty flexible theory (cognitive-developmental theory), with a lot of useful parts, though I guess I'd agree that modern science is showing that babies are capable of much more than originally thought.

0 Replies

Quote:

Signing To Toddlers
FOLSOM, Calif., May 11, 2005

How did one California mother talk to her toddlers even before they could speak?

Although they can hear perfectly, she taught them sign language.

As CBS News Correspondent Sandra Hughes reports, a growing number of young mother's believe sign language soothes frustrated babies. In La Jolla, Calif. some young moms have taken the trend in hand.

The mom says she's noticed less frustration and less tantrums.

"Mainly around mealtime, and the more signs we do the less crying, the less frustration on his face," she says.

Babies as young as six months can learn American sign language, mostly to communicate basic needs. The national chain Gymboree has started "Mommy and Me" sign language classes.

So, are babies developed enough to sign but not develop enough to speak?

"Babies usually have the finger dexterity or the fine motor skills to actually put the signs together and that comes sooner than speaking," says sign language instructor Astrid Difuntorum.

In the movie "Meet The Fockers," it wasn't computer animation, but 18-month-old twins Bradley and Spencer Pickern signing to actor Robert DeNiro.

"The boys really did all of the signs, and parents should know that it's entirely possible for their kids to do it," says their mother Wendy Pickern.

She started teaching them sign language when they were just a few months old.

"I think a lot of parents spend the first one to two years before the child begins to speak playing a guessing game about what they want," she says. "And by using these American signs with them we were able to really know that they wanted the banana and not the crackers when they are sitting in the high chair going ah, ah."

Now that the twins are 2 1/2, they alternate between speaking and signing.

What about those who say if you're signing you're not developing your speech?

"That's actually the opposite," says Difuntorum. "When you're signing you're actually enhancing speech development."

Studies show increased IQs for some children who both sign and speak. Still, there are language experts who worry if you're focused on signing you might not notice if your child isn't speaking well.

The Pickern family doesn't agree and hopes parents give their Hollywood adventure two thumbs up.

"I just hope that they, along with laughing along with the movie, learn that this is an option for them to use with their kids," says Pickern.

Now, what was that sign for dinner and a movie?

Link

Quote:

"Babies usually have the finger dexterity or the fine motor skills to actually put the signs together and that comes sooner than speaking."
Astrid Difuntorum,
sign language instructor

0 Replies

Yep. Cool, eh?

We've talked about this kind of a lot here, Husker, Shewolf has a thread on the subject.

Not sure of your question..?

0 Replies

I more wondering if developmental theories are ever being revised or re-worked? Piaget was one of my favorite guys way way way back in my higher learning days. We was more my example many a folk already had differing ideas thought about this theories. But in general you think theories become somewhat outdated, fall aside, or what ever?

0 Replies

shewolfnm don't worry I'm always derailed

0 Replies

First thought, WHAT are those twins gonna do now with their new found "words" that were used in Meet the Faulkers????

(Was that the real signs for what they were saying?)

Second thought, we already know that humans are born with the ability to speak any language. What language they are taught determines which skills develop and which ones disapper. For example, many Americans have trouble with slavic languages, or rolling their "R's" for Spanish. But, had they been taught that language from birth, they wouldn't have that problem.

We also know that young children more easily learn several languages than older children or adults.

I would assume sign language would be another example of just teaching a second language. Afterall, words and hand gestures are both just associations.

I loved Piagets theory, too in my higher learning days. Not sure what new theories have developed so I can't make a comparison without doing some research.

But, I hope we would all agree that Freud is a little dated.

0 Replies

Yep, exactly about like any other second language.

Only difference with this one is that it's accessible to infants/ toddlers in a way that spoken languages aren't.

Thanks for clarifying what you're asking, Husker.

Sure, I think theories are constantly being revised/ updated/ made obsolete. I completely agree with Squinney that Freud is getting more and more dated. Piaget still has some good stuff I think, and there's a lot to it, not sure if it needs to be too thoroughly discounted.

I'm very interested in the theories put forth by Alison Gopnik et al (authors of "The Scientist in the Crib", I think their findings will be the basis of a lot of child development theory in the future.

0 Replies

"" Shewolf, if anyone's telling you that, I can point you to studies that say SO NOT!!
All the studies show that kids who sign early have language gains, though the gains tend to fade in grade school.""

Oh yeah, people still tell me this alot. I have read THOUSANDS of studies to support it and it seems , maybe ONE out of all of them said other wise. I know that giving a child sign langauge as a first communication tool is a great thing. It is a beneficial thing. It is also a great security for them as well.
Funny, I usually get people in grocery stores.. baby stores.. etc.. asking about sign language. They see a hearing/speaking parent and child and automatically ASSUME one of us cant hear. Until I correct them and just say " I taught her so she could speak to me before she could talk".. they are clueless. When I tell them what I am doing with Jillian, then I hear the small things like " I read somehwere about that.. it isnt good ( or what ever) " I roll my eyes, chuckle , say something to Jillian about it in sign language and walk away. Laughing

--
Husker-

I think theories change , are ammended, and thrown out all the time. Remember the theory that holding a child too much would cause them to be spoiled? Or that giving them what they wanted all the time caused them to be secure? Rolling Eyes

hehehe
..if I had more caffeine in my system , I could think of more popular theories that have been pushed to the way side . I have noticed.. it seems.. that it is about a 20 year window for a theory to :
1) Hit the media..
2) Be contested
3) Be re-tested
4) either dismissed.. or accepted.

0 Replies

Piaget and Baby Sign Language - thoughts?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know