anybody ever tried "how to teach your baby to read"

[cakesofstring]

just wondering if anyone here has tried "how to teach your baby to read" by Glenn Doman. did it work? was it worthwhile? any perspectives?

[BikeBookBread]

Read through this thread from January. Much good insight.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I did it with ds13 when he was a baby. I think the positive of it was that it gave us one more way for us to interact. He started to really read at age 4. With my dd8, I was so busy that I did not do it. She started to really read 6 months later than ds had.

[OrganicAnn]

I read a lot about it, without buy the book or any program. I decided that doing baby sign language was more beneficial than his program. That's just my opinion.

[chubbyhugs]

I used Doman's book (found it in my local library) when dd14 was 6-8 months old, and I also read aloud to her every day. I remember making flashcards that were 16-18 inches long and 4-5 inches high with words in red (parts of the body) 3-4 inches tall. I'd hold the flashcards in front of my chest while we were sitting on the floor and I'd say the word out loud while pointing to the body part. I don't remember now how long it took, but when I'd show her the card she'd point to the correct body part without speaking. Now I don't know that that was "reading" or remembering. I never corrected her when she decided not to respond. She started reading at 2 years of age; when dh and I were driving she'd say phrases; I turned around to look at her in the carseat and I realized she was reading the billboards. At 4 yrs of age she was reading to other kids in the children's library. I joined a PSP by the time she was 6 and she was reading at 5th grade level. I can't contribute her early reading just to techniques in the Doman book because I always read to her every day from all sorts of genres: picture books, nursery rhymes, poetry, Eyewitness books, etc.

 

I remember reading two Doman books, and since it has been 14 years ago I can't say for certain if I followed his techniques to the letter. I think the other book had to do with math.

Edited July 31, 2010 by chubbyhugs
added second paragraph

[mhg]

What would the baby read? What's the point of this? To read concepts they don't understand? What is the purported "good" for this? (not judging, just curious)

[Athome]

I've never tried it, so maybe a bad judge, but why should we push our kids so hard. Seems the exact opposite of a Classical Education. Let you baby be a baby and your child be a child. Snuggle and read together while you still can!

[MorganClassicalPrep]

I haven't tried it, and after speaking to me about it a friend actually returned the program.

 

I'd never try it. For one, what's the point? Does a 2 year old really need to be reading? There will be plenty of time for that later! Besides, there aren't many books out there that a 2 year old would be able to understand, even if they could read the words. The fun part of "reading" for a 2 year old is the listening to Mommy's voice, cuddling on the couch part.

 

Plus, it teaches whole word, and I believe in phonics instruction. Whole word instruction limits you to only those words which have been memorized, and provides no way to decode new words.

 

Then again.. I have a 4.5 year old who probably could have started reading a year ago if I had pushed her, but we just recently started phonics instruction. I didn't really see a need for her to read a year ago... we read together plenty, and there were so many other things for her to be doing! Running... screaming... making a mess... :D

[MotherGoose]

I read the book from the library, and decided that it was just sight reading and if that wasn't good for older children it wasn't good for babies. I also still wonder if they are just memorizing the certain print on the card you show them, like my dd4 who can "read" lots of logos but if I wrote out the word in my handwriting or typed it she couldn't. Anyway, I think you need to be able to spell "cookie" to your husband in front of the child for a long time past babyhood without them realizing what you are saying :)

[ScoutTN]

Why does a baby need to read?

A baby needs to develop baby skills.

Seems silly to me and probably not good for baby.

[Angela Beshears]

I did it with my dd (26 months now) and intend to do it with my ds (10 months). I start around 1 year doing the word cards and later we did some phrases on powerpoint and now am printing a few homemade books. She really loves it when she can read a word. I was really hesitant about doing this and wanted to keep it a secret for fear that it would appear as though we're those really pushy parents.

 

But if you read the book- Doman is really big on keeping things very short (15-30 second) and stopping while they are still interested and never quizzing them. My daughter LOVED to do the word cards and thought it was so fun. We also did signing, and often did them together. She has a great vocabulary now and I read a lot to her. I really slowed down on the Doman stuff when my ds was born, but I still read a lot to her.

 

We are now doing some cards now that are grouped phonetically (from the site www.childandme.com ), b/c I do think phonics is very important and am not holding out that she will somehow just figure that out on her own. Still, everything we do is short and fun. And we still snuggle and read books together and I plan to read aloud to her even when she is reading on her own, whenever that may be.

[Liz CA]

What would the baby read? What's the point of this? To read concepts they don't understand? What is the purported "good" for this? (not judging, just curious)

 

If I could do it over, I would start a baby on Plato and Aristotle to get him/her off to a right start. :lol:

[MorganClassicalPrep]

Anyway, I think you need to be able to spell "cookie" to your husband in front of the child for a long time past babyhood without them realizing what you are saying :)

 

:lol: YES! DD can now figure out a number of words that I spell... the big ones! Nap, beach, snack, bed, bath, home... :tongue_smilie:

Mommy: "We might be going to the b-e-a-c-h this weekend..."

DD: "YAY! Beach!!"

Mommy: -sigh-

[staceyobu]

:lol: YES! DD can now figure out a number of words that I spell... the big ones! Nap, beach, snack, bed, bath, home... :tongue_smilie:

Mommy: "We might be going to the b-e-a-c-h this weekend..."

DD: "YAY! Beach!!"

Mommy: -sigh-

 

:lol:

 

Reminds me of DD leaning over to see the computer screen and asking me not to type so fast because she can't read that quick. Sigh.

[kmacnchs]

I'd never try it. For one, what's the point? Does a 2 year old really need to be reading? There will be plenty of time for that later! Besides, there aren't many books out there that a 2 year old would be able to understand, even if they could read the words. The fun part of "reading" for a 2 year old is the listening to Mommy's voice, cuddling on the couch part.

 

Plus, it teaches whole word, and I believe in phonics instruction. Whole word instruction limits you to only those words which have been memorized, and provides no way to decode new words.

 

I agree & disagree...My oldest 2 started OPGTR at age 2 and a couple of months and were reading at late age 2. It is great to have early readers - reading is such a joy and it's so fun to see them read to their younger siblings. There are TONS of books out there that a 2yo can understand and that does not mean we do not do read alouds as well.

 

However, I do not like the program b/c it is whole word. I much prefer phonics instruction (helps them figure out harder words by sounding them out one syllable at a time - harder to do that if all you learned was whole words; and learning to read phonetically helps with spelling). I would venture to say most on this forum would agree that phonics is best, mainly b/c of WTM :)

[MorganClassicalPrep]

:lol:

 

Reminds me of DD leaning over to see the computer screen and asking me not to type so fast because she can't read that quick. Sigh.

 

:D

I make my daughter go away from my computer... because I'm really not sure what she can and can't read these days!!

[cakesofstring]

Thanks for the info. I was just wondering if anyone could give a stellar recommendation for it. My oldest knew all his letters, upper and lower case when he was two, and was reading pretty well by the time he was four. my youngest is showing alot of interest in letters, but he doesn't talk much. i can't find anyone who would say it works wonders, or at least anyone ordinary like me.

 

thanks folks

 

 

:auto:

[6packofun]

No. Down with babies "reading"!!! Boo! Hiss! :D

[Pamela H in Texas]

I used it in order to teach ds how to *talk.* At the time, my ds was significantly delayed in speech due to oxygen deprivation. We were trying to adopt a little boy who had CP (from Russia) and I had read some information regarding some kids learning to talk when they learned to read. Of course, that was 6yos and phonics, but I figured it was worth a try. My son quickly caught on and learned many new signs and started talking (though it was unintelligible; he was in the 1% in articulation). We didn't continue which I strongly regret since he didn't read for many many more years and didn't find it "easy" (not easy like I find it but easy as in can do it for schoolwork at least) until he was a teen....and he may never LIKE it.

 

AND if I managed to have another child (so not happening as my "baby" is 15!), I would use it from infancy (the Doman version, not the one on TV). We can go back and add phonics at 4 or 7 or whatever, but after having a child not read so long, I'd never take that chance again. But it isn't even that. I just see a few reasons reading well early is a good thing (despite things like the spelling).

 

Additionally, I do not consider it pushing AT ALL. A few times a day to spend 20 seconds? It's just a fun thing that will also give them a much needed skill. And though I believe in phonics, I do not think it's anti-phonics at all. If I had one of those babies that learned to walk without crawling, I would make sure they crawled plenty, but it's okay if they walk too. I see it the same with reading. Whatever works :).

[chubbyhugs]

I used it in order to teach ds how to *talk.*

Additionally, I do not consider it pushing AT ALL. A few times a day to spend 20 seconds? It's just a fun thing that will also give them a much needed skill. And though I believe in phonics, I do not think it's anti-phonics at all. If I had one of those babies that learned to walk without crawling, I would make sure they crawled plenty, but it's okay if they walk too. I see it the same with reading. Whatever works :).

 

I agree with you, Pamela. I think I spent about 30 seconds a day with the flashcards when she was sitting/crawling around the floor. We didn't do it every day. Most of this time dd was in a baby carrier with me. We didn't do it like it was a "lesson." I talked with (at?) her all the time about what I was doing at the particular moment: changing her diaper, gardening, sorting clothes, walking about in the neighborhood . . whatever one does during the day. Perhaps all she understood was "blah, blah, blah" - since I didn't follow the Doman book to the letter I can't really recommend it or not recommend it. I can only say how I used it. As far as the point of teaching a baby to read - she enjoyed a set of alphabet tiles (which had pictures of animals, ie, goat on "g") at 6 months of age and would string letters together. She'd be at it for at least 30 minutes at a time. I'd sound the letters out and string them out to spell something (phonetics?). She was interested in it. I just followed her lead. Fifteen to fourteen years ago I hadn't heard of the WTM nor any of the philosphies of teaching, nor did we have a computer or the internet connection. Doman's book was one of the first I found in the library. I think it attracted my attention because it was such a small book too - not that much for me to read. At that time all I knew was that I wanted to homeschool my dd, I liked being with her, and she is an only child. Perhaps because there was nobody around telling me that reading is not a baby activity I just followed what I thought she wanted to do. She liked looking at all sorts of books with writing/pictures. When she was reading, she really enjoyed reading to other kids in the children's library. She was crazy about dinosaurs and the 4 and 6 syllable dino names rolled off her tongue correctly, and better than I could say them.

 

I think it's best to do what works best for your family.

[cakesofstring]

well one of the main reasons i was interested, is not so much because i see so many opportunities for a reading 2 year old, but because my middle child is just now learning to read, at 5.5. that isn't late by any means, but i wonder if he will ever be enamored with books like my older son. i don't think he will be, to be honest. and is that because of his nature, or because he was older when he learned and has had a harder time with it. he hasn't had it from the "beginning"; he might even remember that it hasn't been easy.

 

i think if i thought that it would make him a good reader by the age of 3 or 4 i would try it. but i think i'll try the same techniques i used with my oldest and hope for the best. which means i need to start teaching him his letters now, while he is interested.