How do you think Postman would respond to this new system of learning where infants watch television to learn to read? I mean, isn't that contradicting itself? And even if they do read, what is the point if the toddlers don't understand the book's meaning?
If you notice, near the end of the commercial, a little girl is reading from Charlotte's Web. When she reads aloud, "...and she took the axe from her father's hand," (or something like that) she comments on the behavior of the girl. Clearly, this two year old has no idea of the significance of Charlotte's Web, for even though she can read beyond her years, she can not think critically (or comprehend) beyond her years.
More to the point, this toddler is Stage 1 of Kohlberg's Six Stages, as she focuses on the fact that the female character in the novel acted against her father rather than being sympathetic for the girl and her beloved pig.
So it's nice and all that toddlers can read novels and such, but what's the real point? There is none; it's to enhance the appeal of the commercial. These children should read books for their own age level, because there's more to reading than figuring out what the symbols on the page mean.
Again, my question: How do you think Postman would respond to having seen a commercial like this? Would he wonder what the long term effects of this method of teaching were, as I do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I always thought those "My Baby Can Read" products were pretty ridiculous. I think that Postman would see this strategy of learning as counter preductive. First, because the television uses images, not words that make up the bases of reading. Second, because words without meaning don't really count as reading, more like looking at the pictures the word forms. So although it is information, it is useless, and serves no significant purpose to the baby because the baby does not know what to do with that information.
ReplyDeleteMelissa, do you believe it is sort of like when the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning tells the history of hypnopaedia? As in how when it was first used, all the children could do was repeat a paragraph of fact, such as "The Nile is the longest river...," but they did not know what it meant?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you guys are saying to a certain extent. There is so much more to reading than just the words, and some toddlers probably would not comprehend what they are learning. But what if some of them do? However, what can they loose by learning to read before other toddlers their age? I don't see why they shouldn't. You've got to start somewhere, haven't you?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, Breanna, I do not think Postman would smile upon such a case where a toddler is learning from a television set; however, Postman wouldn't agree with the use of much technlogy at all. Look at what technology has benefitted us with today, how can we agree with what he is saying? If Postman would be here today to witness how much technology has inspired and taught and benefitted us with, then maybe he'd have a different point of view.
As for the long term affects, I do not think it would differ far from what it would be without learning from a television set. If you are right, that toddlers would do nothing with the information they have learned from the programs, then they would just learn the regular way with everyone else in school. OR they could become super advanced in their class and skip a jillion grades, but that's just supposing. But what is there to loose if you have much to gain.