Is Christian pedagogy any different to sound secular pedagogy? Part 1

This was the question that shaped one of two plenary addresses I presented to the 300 delegates of the "Australian National Leaders' Summit Christian Schools Conference" (Brisbane 19-22 Aug 2024).

The brief was to unpack the ideas in my book 'Pedagogy and Education for Life'. It was a challenging task to synthesize all aspects of my work in two 45 minute addresses. But, it's even more difficult to do so in two posts. But here goes!

1. What do we mean by Christian Pedagogy?" 

The word 'Pedagogy' is derived from the Greek word “Paidagogeo” which is a compound of “paidos” (child) and “agogos” (one who leads or guides) (Cairney, 2018, p.32). Some quick questions in response. Is this how we see the role of the teacher in Christian schools? I believe it should be. If so, how do we lead or guide our students? Does it look any different to secular schools?

 

The Apostle Paul used the word “Paidagogeo” in Ephesians 6:4 in relation to “discipline" which is how it is often translated. But Paul and others were using it in the sense of “bringing [them] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” But what does he mean by this? Let me work through some key points.

 

2. Is there such a thing as 'Christian Pedagogy'?

I think most Christian Christian leaders would agree that teaching is different in Christian schools. But as I have visited Christian schools, and talked with teachers and administrators, much of what they mean when using the term “Christian teaching”, or in some cases “Teaching Christianly”, was that staff and teachers saw their own personal faith somehow shaping their work in the classroom. That's one of the reasons, I use the term Christian pedagogy NOT Christian teaching.

In a school with all (or mostly) Christian teachers, what's different about their practices? Is the relationship between teacher and students different? At a broader level, what do the principal, school board and parent body, see as the fundamental things that make their school a Christian school? 

How recognisable would this be to others? Would they be recognisable to parents, students, other non-Christian schools and so on? Or, are our schools (and parents) just as distracted by academic success, and simply relegate matters of faith to the background?

I believe we need to devote more time in Christian schools to considering what faith-based pedagogy looks like in all classrooms. In fact, we need to develop a 'whole of life perspective as well as a community perspective in our schools. Why? Because our schools should be places where faith is evident in varied ways, and where it is discussed and seen as a priority with teachers, students and parents.

3. But What Does it Mean to Teach in a Christian way?

One of the key assumptions and priorities in the type of pedagogy I'm suggesting is that we create classroom and school environments where:

"Education is seen as the whole of life of a community, and the experience of its members learning to live this life, from the standpoint of a specific end goal" (Cairney, 'Pedagogy and Education for Life'). And of course, I'm suggesting that the "whole of life" of the school is more than studying subjects and succeeding academically, in order leading to gain good results and employment. 

Rather, the whole of life of the school should be just as much about shaping students to grow in faith, with an understanding that God created them to do more than simply being successful in life. Our God wants our students to know Him, seek to honour Him, and lead lives that bring glory to Him.

• If so, what does such community ‘life’ look like?
• How do we live from the standpoint of a specific goal? 
• What might the goals of the school and the teacher look like?
• What is our role in helping to achieve such communities? 
  

I will look more closely at some of these questions in my next post. I quote John Hull in the introduction to me book, who helpfully notes:

"What normally passes for Christian Education can more accurately be named 'Christians educating'." Ouch!

Trevor Hart identifies rightly in the foreword to my book that I have sought to describe a “teleology” (i.e. a reason or explanation for the function or purpose of something) or an “eschatology” (i.e. seeing our students in the light of a bigger and more ultimate vision). We do not simply seek educational and intellectual accomplishments, or future wealth.

Hart also suggests, as I do, that what makes “Christian Education” distinctive, is not the curriculum, specific pedagogical methods and so on, but an “eschatology” that views our hopes for our students, in light of a much bigger vision than academic success, future employment and ongoing self-advancement.

4. Summing Up

 

I hope our schools, teachers and leaders, articulate and offer clear reasons for the faith that drives their every action? I implore all of us to assess whether our pedagogy and priorities demonstrate a much bigger vision for our students’ future (and their parents), than just top marks and rankings, careers and success. Of course, this might be different from what some parents (and even staff) perceive as the ‘good life’. But there is no reason to see these things are incompatible. We need to keep asking, what does “success” look like for students and us as teachers? Finally, if teachers, parents and students have different views, how do we reconcile them?

 

Christian schools should seek to create rich school environments, that point students towards faith in our Lord and Saviour, not just ‘success’ in life?

 

In my next post, I will look more closely at how Christian Pedagogy has a key role in shaping our students in the faith which at times might be invisible. While we can easily see and assess student growth in knowledge, skills, and commitment to learning, how do we assess growth in the inner life of our students?

---

John Hull, “Aiming for Christian Education, Settling for Christians Educating”, Christian Scholar Review 32 (2009) 203-23.

 

 

 

 

 

Helping Preschoolers to Become Writers

I get many questions from concerned parents on this blog worrying about how fast they should push their preschool children as writers (see the comments on a previous post on writing HERE). Some worry about their four year old children reversing letters like 'd', 's' and 'b'. Others wonder why their children can't write their name by age three. Others want their children writing words from memory before they start school. While such concerns are well motivated, they miss the point that real writing is more than just correct letter formation, accurate spelling and neat handwriting. While all these things are important, and are important component skills for writing, your child might be able to do some of these things before the age of three and not be far along the path to becoming a good writer. For writing, like reading is above all, about meaning. Being able to communicate, record, express, instruct, persuade and so on. If parents become too preoccupied with letter formations, sound-symbol relationships and transcription too early, they may neglect other key understandings. 

1. What are the things to look for and encourage?

Here are six things that are foundational to early writing success.

Writing is about meaningful intent - What I mean by this is that when your child picks up a pencil, crayon or piece of chalk and makes a mark on paper, the path or (sadly) the wall, the hope is that they will be trying to 'say' something, even if it is just "Hey, I did this!"

Writing is about connection - When your child starts to bring a piece of paper to you and says "For you Daddy", he is saying, I did this and I think it's special and, I want you to have it. This suggests an understanding of written language as a symbolic system, a way to make meaning that others can grasp.

Writing is about ownership - As your child begins to attempt to place their name on everything, it is about them saying, this is mine; I know this (and you will too) because I've put my mark on it.

Now this image shows perseverance and intent!

Writing is about perseverance - When your child sits with a piece of paper for 15-20 minutes scribbling, drawing, trying to form letters and words, this suggests that they are motivated and can show perseverance.

Writing is about words - When the young writer begins to connect writing with spoken language play, words heard or seen via radio, CDs, computers, iPhones or television, they are developing a sense that language resources are to be used for writing.

Writing is about response - When your child reaches for some paper to draw and write after hearing a story, watching a television program or experiencing something, they show that they grasp that writing can be a way to respond and say, this is what I think this means. 

2. What can parents do to encourage the above?

There are many things that parents can do to encourage the above. Here are six that should seem obvious but need to be stressed.

Her sister reads Lydia her first story at age 2 hours

Read to your children from birth - Books will teach your child about language, story and the world. This is what will ultimately determine whether they have much to say.

Provide lots of writing materials - Have a writing table from the time they can sit, or use a high chair for this purpose. Give them paper, crayons (not pencils before 12 months) and pictures to 'play' with in order to communicate, make their mark or respond.


Discuss print in their world - Show them words, point to signs, direct their attention to packaging symbols and brands, television logos, writing on clothing, computer images and graphics.

Give them rich experiences - Use language to explore their world, encourage them to draw as a record and try to add words. Write some words for them and read them together.

Sing songs, read poetry, dance, and create - And as you do, use language in all its forms.

Show them how to form letters - You can do this with paper and there are many great iPad apps that help and are fun (see my review here).

3. What should I expect my child to be able to before school?
 
I'm always amazed that almost every parent expects their children to arrive at school able to write sentences that are perfectly formed with accurate spelling. I have rarely found any child who by 5 years can attain this. What are reasonable milestones that most children achieve before school?

At age 7 months Lydia already has some reading intent

18 months

Between age one and two, most children should be scribbling with some intent. By this I mean that they will try to make repetitive scribbles, make unusual lines, play with crayons and paper for up to 3-5 minutes. They should also be able to listen to parts of stories, try to turn pages, make noises when pictures are shown etc.

24 months

By two they should be able to scribble with intent, try to make written forms that could approximate letters (circle shapes, lines and circles). They will listen intently to stories, turn pages, say words that correspond to pictures, play with simple word and sound apps like Peekaboo Barn.

Above: Sample from the "Young in Art" site showing intent in the drawing of a young child

36-42 months

Most children will be attempting to draw letters, represent words with some letters, or letter-like shapes and associate these signs with pictures and meaning. They will try to 'read' books alone by turning pages, looking at pictures, making up the story to go with the pictures or reciting simple predictable stories from memory (e.g. 'There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly')

48-54 months

Between the age of four and five most children will be trying to write their name but not achieving it accurately. They will be beginning to use letters or numbers, word-like forms and pictures to communicate meaning. They might also make up signs to put on doors or the fridge that have a purpose (but are not necessarily written in accurate form). They will be beginning to learn to recognise letters and numbers. They will enjoy sending and receiving cards, looking for words in their world and recognise their association with meaning (e.g. store signs, brands, own name). They may try to write on an electronic tablet and will enjoy books.

60 months

By age 5 many children (probably 50-60%) can write their name and read some signs. A majority will also be able to write some numbers up to 10 (some will reverse them), and some letters (again some children will do this with reversals). A small number (less than 10%) will be beginning to read words, sound words out, and read predictable books. A small number (less than 10%) will also write messages that use invented and conventional spelling that can be read or partially read with the child's help.

4. What do researchers have to say about this?

There have been many studies of children's early art and many that have examined early literacy, but few have looked at the relationship between the two. A colleague of mine from Indiana University, Professor Jerome Harste conducted significant research in late 1970s and early 1980s that did just this and is seen as seminal work. With his colleagues Professors Virginia Woodward and Carolyn Burke and many graduate students, they studied the early writing of children aged 3, 4, 5 & 6 years. Harste, Woodward and Burke published their research in a book called Language Stories and Literacy Lessons. They concluded that most children know the difference between reading and writing by age 3, and that by this time they are developing an understanding of written language, demonstrated in their scribbles and attempts to write and draw, and that these parallel those of older proficient language users. They put to one side traditional developmental notions and suggested that children, at least from age 3, begin to demonstrate elements of authoring; they called this the "authoring cycle". For example they identified in the early scribble and 'writing' of very young children:

• Organization (evidence of conventions and the genesis of cognitive processes similar to adults)
• Intentionality (evidence that the children know that their marks signify something)
• "Generativeness" (an attempt to generate or make meaning)
• Risk-taking (trying things they haven't before)
• An understanding that language has social function
• Awareness that context matters in language (the situation is related to what you and write and how you use it)
• That one's scribbles and later words form a text or unit of meaning (they realise that the sum of the elements collectively mean something)

For example, picking up on just one the above elements of authoring, Harste, Woodward and Burke observed in the scribbles of children from families who had a first language other than English some interesting differences. The writing below shows just one example of how different scribble can be for four-year-old children living in homes that speak different languages; in this case, English, Arabic and Hebrew. They concluded that evidence like this demonstrates that at age four, even before these children are writing words, that there scribble demonstrates organization, and that this is similar to the processes used by proficient writers.

Above: Harste, Burke & Woodward (1984), p. 82

I have also written about this topic at length in other publications such as "Pathways to Literacy", Cassell: London, 1995.

Your Baby Can Read - Part 2

Readers of this blog may recall that I provided a brief review of 'Your Baby Can Read' (YBCR) in July last year (here). YBCR is a successful reading program designed for toddlers. My first post created a lot of interest with over 10,000 viewings and many comments. It had never been my intention to offer an extensive review of the program; in fact, I wrote it in response to a simple reader's question, “Is it a good idea?” However, the many comments on the post suggest that there is strong interest in the program and varied views on its usefulness. I have written this post as a follow up to the previous discussion. I apologise in advance that it is VERY long as a blog post but hopefully some will find it helpful in full and others can skim.

1. A recap of the last post

I indicated in my last post that YBCR is primarily a word recognition program designed for children as young as 12 months. It aims to teach children to recognise words by ‘sight’ (instant word recognition), with the words being taught using a variety of stimulus materials including DVDs and word and picture cards. As with any sight word program, the child is taught to use visual clues such as the shape of the word, and some aspects of letter configuration (e.g. an initial letter, an unusual ending) to identify the word instantly. The program developer suggests that YBCR also seeks to develop incidentally some phonic skills as a by-product of the repetition of sight words, but the program does not systematically teach phonics.

I expressed three concerns with the program. Some of the readers of the post expressed other views in their comments that do not necessarily reflect my own views, you should read their comments as their own, not mine. I shall recap my three original key points:

• First, the program does not teach children to ‘read’ in the fullest sense of the word, rather it teaches them to recognise instantly a number of words. As I outline in a previous post (here), to be an effective reader any child ultimately needs to: learn the sounds of language and their correspondence with print; understand the structure of language and how it works; learn how to use language appropriately for specific purposes; and learn to comprehend, interpret, use, appreciate and critique written texts. The program is focussed on one strategy for instant word recognition. While some of the supporters of the program (as seen in their comments on my last post) claim that it teaches children incidentally about sound-symbol relationships, the program does not teach phonics and claims that it does help such skills are not backed by research.
• Second, if you introduce this program at ages as young as 12 months (as suggested by Dr Titzer) you are essentially introducing the child to formal instruction 3-4 years before what has traditionally been the practice. While Dr Titzer suggests that an early introduction to written language in the form of his program will accelerate learning, he does not provide any evidence to support the claim. I pointed out that the country that has some of the best literacy results in the OECD is Finland, a country where just 9 years of school education is compulsory and where it doesn’t start till age 7!
• Third, in introducing a program like 'Your Baby Can Read!' you are essentially devoting time to structured repetitive learning of a limited type that would probably replace other forms of learning. I asked parents to consider what they would stop doing while using the program.

In addition to my own comments, a number of readers of my first post also offered their own additional points. There were many comments mostly based heavily upon personal experiences of one kind or another. I tried within the limits of the space one has in a blog comment to respond to the various issues one by one. Some suggested that I am opposed to early stimulation of literacy; this is not the case. What is at issue here is the nature of this early stimulation and whether some types of early accelerated learning might be harmful. At the outset let me say there is limited evidence in either direction in relation to children of this age. My own view is that I would not begin formal instruction too early based on wider research on literacy, learning and development. Not all readers of the blog agree. In fact, embedded within a number of challenges to my first post were questions about the value of accelerated learning and the suggestion that I should comment further on this issue. A number of the comments made by readers of the first post have led me to write this second post. Please note that I am not writing this post for a research journal so it is not meant to be comprehensive in nature, nor is it referenced like a research paper. Rather it represents a synthesis of the major trends and outcomes of research in this area.

2. What we know about the benefits and risks of acceleration of children's learning

a) Generic research on the acceleration of the gifted

Acceleration is the practice of speeding the progress of children through school grades and/or providing them with programs, activities or learning experiences typically experienced by older children. Acceleration can take many forms including early school entry, grade skipping, introducing children to academic skills such as reading much earlier than usual etc. In effect, using 'Your Baby Can Read' with your child at age 12 months is an example of acceleration. Most of the research on acceleration has been conducted with children aged 6 years and above and relates mostly to institutionalised education. Research on the acceleration of gifted children is generally accepted to be harmless for most children when the child is carefully selected and appropriately taught. The evidence (in general) also suggests that there are benefits for gifted children when the practice is adopted and some negative impacts when bright children are left in ungraded and unstimulating classes. Terman’s (1925) earliest study pointed in this direction and others have achieved similar broad findings, for example Kulik and Kulik (1982, 1992), Grose (1993), and Rogers (2004). However, questions still remain in applying this type of generic support for acceleration to approaches to the education of older children in formal settings, to a program like 'Your Baby Can Read' designed for very young children. Why, you ask? Here are a few reasons.

First, the studies cover so many different versions of acceleration (e.g. grade skipping, more advanced work, early school entry etc), that assuming a general effect for a program like YBCR may not be appropriate for your child. Second, research looks for trend data, uses mean scores, and general patterns. This 'smooths' the effects so that the varied ways in which examples of acceleration impact on individual children are masked. For example, in one pro-acceleration study at the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth conducted in 1994, it was found that while 95% of the 175 participants perceived positive consequences of acceleration, almost 50% perceived some negative consequences and 2% reported only negative impacts. Neihart (2007), who supports acceleration, when examining socio-affective effects makes this point, reminding us that in spite of benefits from acceleration, "some accelerated gifted children do exhibit problems with conduct or mood." As well, she reminds us that there are documented cases of individual accelerated children having adjustment problems, and hence we cannot conclude that all gifted children should experience acceleration or enter kindergarten early. However, she suggests that the conclusion that academic acceleration will cause social or emotional harm to gifted children is not supported by research in relation to grade skipping, early admission to kindergarten or school “…we cannot make similar claims for other accelerative options, because they are not as well researched”. The main point to be made here is that parents need to make choices about acceleration based on their individual child and not assume that the benefits are uniform and that negative impacts don’t occur.

Second, many of the studies rely on qualitative research with less than rigorous methodology (Note: I'm not suggesting that qualitative research is generally non-rigorous). This is particularly the case in relation to emotional and social development, but is also the case (to a lesser extent) for academic development of young children. The research generally doesn’t control for pre-existing differences between subjects and often uses data in the form of student perceptions rather than measured psychological changes or behaviour. Most of this research is also descriptive and correlational and often participation is voluntary rather than random, making comparability more problematic. The same can be said for academic effects for young children.

Third, how studies define academic and social/emotional development varies greatly making comparisons between studies more difficult. This is particularly the case with the muddy term social and emotional development where studies use a variety of indicators (e.g. antisocial behaviour, leadership ability, self concept, peer relations, absence or presence of psychological problems variously described) and so on.

Fourth, in relation to assessing the impact of a program like YBCR, and in fact any home-based intervention, it is virtually impossible to control for variability in relation to approach, frequency and conditions. This limits our ability to make judgements about the likely impact of such programs for all children.

Fifth, the evidence in relation to the age at which formal instruction begins for literacy does not support the idea that starting early gives a long lasting positive benefit for children.

b) What developmental psychologists have to say?

While maturational theories have been critiqued at length in recent decades we cannot ignore the work of psychologists like Piaget whose work has been so influential in early childhood education. Piaget’s work and in particular, his notions of stages of development, have been badly interpreted at times. For example, we should reject the common assumption that stages of cognitive development are relatively fixed, that they unfold in a linear and automatic way, and that specific stages should be reached before children are ready for specific cognitive tasks like reading. Piaget never wrote this and in fact stressed that development involved an interaction between the child and their social and physical world. Margaret Donaldson provided one of the strongest critiques of the notion that developmental stages are fixed (here). Similarly, the application of the work of constructivists like the Russian psychologist Vygotsky (see my related post on scaffolding here and a helpful video here) has helped to underline the fact that development is not fixed. Vygotsky saw a much closer relationship between learning and development and indeed argued that learning affects development. Of course, this doesn't mean that it is appropriate to thrust any learning experience on a child whenever one we feel like it. Development is by definition progressive in all children, some tasks are more complex than others, some skills more abstract than concrete thinking, and language can be literal or metaphorical and so on. We cannot simply assume that children can do anything when we want them to without regard to their pre-existing skills and ability. Furthermore, we cannot assume that pushing our children into new areas of learning before they have important foundational skills won’t have an impact on them.

Piaget’s observations of children are consistent with the experience of parents and teachers, which is why the notion of clear stages became so firmly entrenched. The general observations, in effect, locked some teachers into thinking that this is the way it must be for children. While this view is not justified, we cannot ignore the observations of Piaget that in general terms the young child (up to roughly 2 years) is focused on sensorimotor learning and early language learning. At this time children are trying to learn how to move, use their hands and feet to manipulate objects, make sounds, exploring their world through all the senses and communicate with other people. From age 2 most children grow quickly as language users, learning that symbols can convey meaning and later trying to use symbols to do just this. They also begin to understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and to use objects as tools. From early school age most children begin to understand that they can manipulate symbols, make judgements about concrete or observable phenomena and manipulate them for their own purposes. Learning is still very concrete for the primary age child but an understanding of abstraction develops for most children. By the teenage years the child no longer needs concrete objects to make rational judgements, by this age they are capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning.

Teachers and parents need to take care in assigning work to their children that is too difficult for them or inappropriate. The work of Vygotsky has shown that learning occurs best when the activity or task is within what he calls the child’s ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). Vygotsky demonstrated that children learn not when doing things that are too easy (and repetitive), or when too difficult and frustrating, but when the task is just in advance of their capabilities. The best learning activities for your child are not necessarily those which they can complete alone, but rather, those which are a little in advance of their ability, which with help and support from a more skilled person (typically an adult), they can complete successfully.

c) Research specific to early literacy learning

One of the difficulties that I have with 'Your Baby Can Read' is that it places so much emphasis on sight word recognition, repetitive learning and memorisation. All have a place in learning but their predominant use at such a young age may divert time from other useful activities such as language stimulation, being read quality literature, discovery learning that stimulates problem solving and inquisitiveness. While some of the comments made in relation to my last post suggested that Titzer encourages parents to stimulate decoding skills and to use literature, the fact is that the primary focus of the program is whole word recognition. This approach while relevant and useful should always be used with other approaches such as decoding and phonics and more holistic approaches such as language experience (see my earlier post on it here), and the reading of quality literature to and with them (see my post on this topic as well here).

Some suggested in their comments to my first post that I was reducing this discussion to a debate between whole language and phonics, with my bias being towards phonics. I have been accused at times of stressing holistic approaches but never of being an apologist for phonics-based strategies. The reality is that my own research and writing have always demonstrated a concern for balanced approaches to literacy instruction (see for example my book 'Balancing the Basics'). This was the methodological concern that I was raising in my last post, that is, that YBCR relies predominantly on a relatively limited reading strategy. While whole word recognition can teach children to memorise and recall isolated words, the approach at best is a useful supplement to other strategies.

One of my over-riding concerns with approaches like YBCR is that children at a very young age are being placed under the pressure to learn material using repetitive memorisation traditionally not encountered until years later within the context of formal education. I’m not convinced that the evidence for acceleration at later ages and in typically formal education settings is relevant to children aged 12-24 months at home who have not been professionally identified as gifted nor assessed in relation to their needs as learners. My view as expressed in my last post is one that I still hold, I have concerns about unintended effects of ‘hot-housing’ (i.e. intense study to stimulate a child's mind) by parents at home with limited training and knowledge of language development and learning.

This is not a new view; in fact David Elkind devoted a whole book to the subject in the 1980s, ‘The Hurried Child’ (1981) in which he warned against the tendency for some parents to want to accelerate their children’s progress prematurely. Elkind (1986), Sigel (1987) and Minuchin (1987) are amongst those who have stressed that children need time and appropriate learning strategies to develop normally. Elkind also warned against the temptation to pressure children with simplified learning tasks at a very young age which inevitably end up relying on lower-level cognitive processes such as memorisation, repetition and simple word and sound recognition that could ultimately be at the expense of activities with greater richness and complexity.

4. Summing up

This has been a very long post but I want to stress just a few points in summing up. Parents who want to give their children a head start in life are using 'Your Baby Can Read'. This is a good motivation, but being well motivated does not equal being right. I have argued over two posts now that I have significant doubts about the wisdom of introducing children to a sight word program like YBCR at the age of 12-18 months, this does not mean that I don't see value in what it is trying to do for older children. There is little evidence to support the long term benefits of the program being used at such a young age, nor has there been sufficient attention to research that could discount any potential negative effects. This research should be done before parents can confidently use YBCR with total confidence. While there is evidence to support the benefits of acceleration for older children when learning in institutional settings, we should not assume based on this evidence that the research offers support for the use of YBCR.

UPDATE (14th June 2011): 

I have done a third post on YBCR HERE

Related links

While I didn't comment on Glenn and Janet Doman's work, most of my comments about 'Your Baby Can Read' could also be made about the materials and adaptations based on their book (here). Here's one example (click here).
One view on the problems with hot-housing (click here).

Readers of this post might also find the following posts of interest:
Teacher might find 'Scaffolding in action' of some use (click here)

When do children start writing? (click here)

Basic literacy support: Reading with children (click here)
The importance of play - Part 1 (click here)
Basic literacy support 3: Is phonics all we need? (click here)
The language experience approach (LEA) (click here)
Brain development and the first weeks of life (click here)

Your Baby Can Read

As a parent it is always difficult to know just how to support your children as they develop physically, emotionally, spiritually and intellectually. One of the readers of this blog (Louisa) has asked about the program “Your Baby Can Read!”. Is it a good idea? So I decided to review it for readers of this blog.

Above: Elsie reading "My Mum" with her Nanna Carmen


The program was developed by Dr Robert Titzer. His website suggests that he is a “recognized expert, infant researcher…professor and teacher…(who has) extensively researched infant learning and development….(with) a Ph.D. in Human Performance at Indiana University, where he developed this revolutionary early learning approach with his own infant children. His research on reading during infant and toddler years captured the interest of educators, researchers, parents, government agencies, and the media worldwide. Dr. Titzer’s research has been published in scientific journals, including the prestigious Psychological Review.” Most people would probably have become aware of this program through TV current affairs programs.

The “Your Baby Can Read!” program includes 5 DVDs, 5 word and picture cards, and 1 wipe-clean word card and pen. The Starter DVD introduces your child to 22 words. You play the DVD twice a day (which takes about an hour in total) for a month and then use Volume 1 for two months. Volume 1 reviews the starter video and introduces 30 new words. After that, parents are encouraged to move on to Volume 2 that introduces 50 new words for two months. Revision of the Starter and Volume 1 DVDs is encouraged. Volume 3 follows and introduces 50 new words and more songs and poems. You are advised to use this almost exclusively for another month and then switch to Volume 4, which reviews the other DVDs. You then alternate this video with the other videos.

The basic approach is straightforward, it is primarily a program that teaches children to recognise words by ‘sight’. This means that the child uses visual clues such as the shape of the word, and some aspects of letter configuration (e.g. an initial letter, an unusual ending) to identify the word instantly.This is a program that trains children to recognise words instantly.

There is no doubt that some very young children can be taught basic sight words at a very young age. And, the many videos that you’ll find on YouTube of little kids ‘barking at print’ are cute and even a little compelling. However, there are three concerns that I would point out to any parent considering its use:

• The program does not teach children to ‘read’ in the fullest sense of the word, rather it teaches them to recognise instantly a number of words. This approach (which does have its place in beginning reading education) stresses that the mind prefers holistic approaches (this has been contested of course by many researchers). It utilises the brain’s capacity for the Gestalt effect - the ability to retain an holistic image of a figure, a word, an object, a number etc, rather than just a collection of lines, elements or separate objects. As I outline on my website, (here) to be an effective reader any child ultimately needs to: learn the sounds of language and their correspondence with print; understand the structure of language and how it works; learn how to use language appropriately for specific purposes; and learn ultimately how to critique written text. While the program claims to teach children incidentally about sound-symbol relationships there is little evidence to support this.
• If you introduce this program at ages as young as 12 months (as suggested) you are essentially introducing your child to formal instruction 3-4 years before this has traditionally been done. While Dr Titzer suggests that an early introduction to written language in the form of his program will accelerate learning, I would contest this as unproven. I was unable to find any evidence that he has presented to verify that this is the case. Furthermore, research on the benefits of acceleration suggests mixed outcomes. We now that some children can be badly affected by too early an introduction to formal learning. But studies are conflicting in relation to any positive benefits of acceleration. Overall, children with normal ability (i.e. without any specific learning disabilities), who start later, generally catch children who do make an early start. Dr Titzer suggests on his website that the best readers in the world are from Russia where children start school early. This does not match the most significant international study ever conducted (PISA) that has assessed the reading achievements of 15 year-old children in over 58 countries. The country that has done best (virtually since assessments began) is Finland, a country where just 9 years of school education is compulsory and where it doesn’t start till age 7! They also have non-compulsory preparatory school for most 6 year-olds that is similar to our preschools. Australia has consistently performed in the top 6 nations (as high as 3rd)
• In introducing a program like “Your baby can read!” you are essentially devoting time to structured repetitive learning of a limited type that would probably replace other forms of learning. I'd encourage any parent who is considering using this program to ask themselves two simple questions: What other things would I stop doing while I use this program? What would be the impact of the loss of this other activity?

Would I introduce my children to this program? No. This program does not teach children to ‘read’. Neither is it clear what its benefits are, nor if in fact it could have a negative effect on your child and impede their long-term learning. While the program’s creator claims research expertise in early literacy, I was unable to find much evidence to support this claim, and virtually no citations of his limited publications by other researchers. Instead of using this program I would encourage my children from birth by stimulating their language (singing to them, reading with them, asking questions etc) and learning (exploration, invention, creative play etc). In short, I would be constantly engaging with my child in varied ways. See related previous posts on “Teaching moments in everyday life” (here), “Play” (here) and “Basic literacy support: Reading with your children” (here). I also provide an outline of an integrated approach to early literacy on my website that might be of some use.

UPDATE TO THIS POST: Please note that I have done a second post on 'Your Baby Can Read' which can be found by clicking here
 

Related links

Readers of this post might also find the following posts of interest:

When do children start writing? (click here)
Basic literacy support: Reading with children (click here)
The importance of play - Part 1 (click here)
Basic literacy support 3: Is phonics all we need? (click here)
The language experience approach (LEA) (click here)
Brain development and the first weeks of life (click here)
You can also view a demonstration of Your Baby Can Read (click here)

Government to fund Family-School initiatives

The Minister for Education has announced funding of $800,000 for a Family-School and Community Partnership Bureau that will help develop partnerships between parents, schools and the community.

The Rudd Government will provide the funding over four years to two key national parent bodies - the Australian Council of State Schools Organisation (ACSSO) and the Australian Parents Council (APC) - to conduct research and develop pilot programs to ensure schools are more welcoming to parents and the broader community.

The government recognises that while formal education settings are an important part of a child’s education, parents play a key role in bridging the education experience a child receives at school and at home.

The new Bureau will work with organisations across the country in developing and encouraging effective partnerships between schools, parents and the broader community to improve students’ learning experiences and outcomes.

In announcing the initiative the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard indicated that "the aim will be to reach the disengaged, the disempowered and those families that often are not drawn into their children’s learning."

Basic Literacy Support 2: Some great resources

My colleague Brian Cambourne from the University of Wollongong has reminded me that the National Council for Teachers of English (an international organisation for teachers based in the USA) has some great resources for teachers and parents. I have placed a link on the sidebar for the parent section of the organisation (there are plenty of resources for teacher too which I'll highlight in a future post), but I thought I would highlight some of the following useful links for parents and teachers:

Helping children to become better writers.
Helping children to become better readers.
Tips for parents to help their teenagers write better (you need to download this one as a PDF document).

Another brilliant resource is the Read.Write.Think section of the NCTE site. While those of us in the southern hemisphere (the top of the world!) will find that some of the ideas have a north American flavour, there are some great suggestions for holiday, weekend or after school activities. It's a shame I didn't post this before the Australian Summer vacation ended. This very helpfully provides ideas by grade and age group. Given the variations in the use of grade names and the different starting ages for children (see my last post), I'd suggest you choose the right section by age, not grades.

Basic literacy support: Reading with children

When parents ask what they can do to help their children at home, my most common first response is "Read to and with them". While people are often looking for more complex answers there is no more fundamental way to support literacy. There are two related reasons for this:

First, time on task is important for success in anything. One of the most basic insights from literacy research in the 1960s and 1970s was the repeated observation by researchers like the late Dame Marie Clay in New Zealand and Richard Allington in the USA that struggling readers read less than successful readers. Less books and only about one third of the words. This doesn't seem too startling, but think about it. If a child is struggling with reading, how do they catch up with other children by doing less reading? The answer is that they don't! The gap gets wider.

Second, being read to and with an adult offers many opportunities for learning. Mem Fox talks about children needing to be read at least 1,000 books before the age of five to be successful readers. While we could quibble over the precise number, the principle is clear. Being read to teaches much about language (vocabulary, how language works at the sentence and text levels, the sounds and rhythms of language and so on, concepts of print and how it works), knowledge of the world and positive experiences with books.

The key is that reading should be enjoyable and the child needs to feel successful.

Over the next few posts I'll offer some basic advice (primarily for parents) about reading to, reading with and listening to children as they read. Much of this same advice can be found in my book written for with Lynne Munsie, titled Beyond Tokenism: Parents as partners in literacy. Note that this book is meant for teachers who want to help parents to support their children and was an outcome of our research on familiy literacy. It is not written for parents.


Reading to..

• Read early - at least from birth (yes some parents even read when their child is in the womb).
• Read often - at least daily.
• Make it special - treat books as if they are precious, anticipate reading as if it's the most special time of the day and make the text an extension of a warm and loving relationship.
• Choose books carefully - think about the things your children like, talk to other parents about books that kids like, consult lists like my list of 200 Great books.
• If you can, read the book before you read it to your children - reading out loud is a performance.
• Try to read the book with emotion, with invented sound effects, with different voices for characters and the narrator, changes in voice volume and tone.
• Be physically engaged - point to pictures (or parts of pictures) as you read, point to text devices and features.
• Make connections as you read with other books, experiences, TV etc (don't overdo this) - "This is a bit like the story....", "This is a bit like Daddy doing.....", "This sounds like...".
• Talk after you finish the book - again don't overdo it, it's all about response and reflection, it's not a comprehension test. "Did you like...?" "Don't you think this was like...?"

The above comments are written with parents of young preschool in mind, but the principles are pretty much the same for children of all ages. You can read to your children until at least 10-12 years of age. It will be less regular with older children and it is likely that you'll share the reading rather than just reading to them. But the basics are still read regularly and often > making it special > choosing books carefully and with your child in mind (or help them to choose) > reading as well as you can > being physically and emotionally engaged > making connections with other books and experiences > encouraging response.