Babies and the TV, Baby Einstein, etc. - NOT SO BAD AFTERALL??

[KL]

The topic of the effects of TV on babies has been discussed many times before on this Forum, for example:

http://forum.brillkids.com/product-discussions-and-reviews/baby-einstein-dvd%27s-bad-or-good-for-baby/

http://forum.brillkids.com/product-discussions-and-reviews/does-the-dvd-like-baby-einsteinbrainy-baby-help-children-to-learn-english/

http://forum.brillkids.com/product-discussions-and-reviews/the-baby-einstein-videos/


We also have an article written on this topic at BrillBaby:

http://www.brillbaby.com/early-learning/watching-television.php


A lot of the discussion centered around a 1997 University of Washington study done on DVD programs like Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby, with the result of the study summarized as being that for every hour per day spent watching the DVDs, babies learnt six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who had never watched TV.

I recently stumbled upon this article which challenges that study, and which I find a very interesting read:

http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070823.html

Here's an excerpt:

First, the study is small. Although the researchers touted the inclusion of 1,008 children in the study, only 384 children were between the ages of 8 months and 16 months. Only 215 of those engaged in any TV, DVD or video viewing. It’s not clear how many children watched baby DVDs, but the answer is likely fewer than 215.

The number watching for one hour or more per day is likely fewer still. Next, the validity of the raw data is questionable. Data on viewing habits were collected by a telephone poll of parents. The researchers didn’t observe or validate any of the data collected and parents may easily have over- or underestimated their children’s actual viewing habits.

It’s also quite possible the data are biased, potentially skewing study results, since they weren’t collected from a representative sample of the general population. Study subjects were drawn from limited geographic area on the basis of telephone number availability.

Telephoned parents could decline to participate. Moving past the study’s questionable data, the researchers' technique for measuring child language development also is problematic. While the so-called MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory, or CDI, seems to be a reliable assessment tool for older toddlers, its application to 8- to 16-month-olds is not so reliable, according to a study published in the journal Child Development (March-April 2000).

Again, see here for the full article:
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070823.html


These are my thoughts:

Firstly, what we must remember is that the issue isn't whether TV is 'bad', as some people seem to lump it all together.  TV is just a medium, just like computers, just like books.  What's key is the CONTENT (even books can be 'bad').

On the subject of Baby Einstein, and speaking from my own experience, I felt that most of the DVDs didn't hold Felicity's attention, and I didn't feel they had too much educational content.  (One exception I would mention is the multi-language one which I thought was good, and where I ripped out the audio track and played it often to Felicity even when in utero.) 

HOWEVER, I didn't feel that they were 'bad' either and I do question myself whether it's really true that these DVDs could have a direct effect on decreasing a child's vocabulary.

Of course, I think it must be the case that if we let our child spend a lot of time doing one non-interactive activity like passive TV/DVD watching instead of interacting with that child, then the child's vocabulary would suffer. But then, that argument would also apply to playpens, 'solo' playing in general, or any activity where there isn't any verbal interaction.  Should we frown on playpens and playing too then?

I think the lesson which we SHOULD take from this study is that whatever we do with our children, we should always try our best not let that activity be a substitute to our interacting and spending time with them, or at least to reduce it to as little as practically possible. 

I know often it can be very convenient for us busy and tired parents to use the TV (and playpens etc) as a babysitting tool (and I will be the first to put up my hand as someone who has been guilty of having done that!), but we just need to be mindful of it and not let it get out of hand and to reduce it to a bare minumum.  And also, if we're going to use the TV or DVDs, then we should at least try to choose the ones with the most educational value.

[Kappasweet]

Wow, why would they have a "study" where most of the kids didn't even watch the baby DVDs, and a telephone poll seems like it would be one of the least reliable ways to collect information like that.

[karianne]

I don't find it surprising that there is an article challenging the study.  It seems like this happens with everything nowadays...a study proves something is good and then another proves it is bad (coffee and chocolate come to mind!).  I had a similar experience with the Baby Einstein DVDs in that they didn't hold my daughter's attention for very long.  I would sit there with her and talk about all the animals and do the signs for the animals so she got a bit more out of them.  But after awhile I just stopped because she was more interested in doing things with me.  I haven't even put them in for my second daughter.

I agree that content is important if you are going to put your child in front of the TV.  For example, I really like the LeapFrog Letter Factory and Word Factory DVDs.  I think they do a great job of incorporating visuals with each alphabet letter to make them more memorable, along with the repetitive audio for each sound.

Have I put my children in front of the TV to keep them quiet while I make dinner?  Yes.  But I try to keep it to a minimum and if possible sit and watch with them to help with understanding and even expand on what they've watched.  We are planning on building a sandbox soon, which I know will keep my girls busy for hours (and is better than TV)!  That's a win/win in my book.

[KL]

Thanks for your input, Karianne - good to see you here! 

[PY]

I have to say you guys have a good point, TV in another media, like computer...etc.We need to organized our time to be able to interact more with our kids, I guess is not only about tv , because if we are busy in the phone hours and then cooking and then in internet...we are not giving enough time for our kids, I read this book" What's Going on in There? : How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life by Lise Eliot "  where she says: to raise a smart children parent need to spent time with them,play with them for hours and hours, interact with them. Forget about work,tv,chores...etc. It is diffcult!! But at least give them quality of time if we don't have all this time in hours hands.

[karianne]

Thanks KL!

I think people struggle with balancing work and home and technology...at least I know I do.  One reason, I believe, is because many more people are able to work from home (thanks to technology!) than back in the 'old days'.  This sounds like a good thing, but really it can be very difficult to separate home life from work life since it is all done from the same location.  It all merges together and before you know it you can be doing email or talking on the phone for work at the dinner table.  It's almost easier when work is one place, you drive away, and it can stay there until the next day.

Another thing is that technology can easily take over our lives if we let it.  Like you said PY...phone, TV, internet, etc. can keep us occupied for hours and time can slip away easily.  For example, I can go on to check email and think it will take 5 minutes, but by the time I get done responding and doing a couple other things I didn't expect, 20 minutes can go by. 

Technology has made things easier in many ways, but I also believe it has brought us another set of challenges...at least where family life is concerned.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 34076
• Latest: sanelabh

Stats

• Total Posts: 46898
• Total Topics: 7130
• Online Today: 94
• Online Ever: 175
• (September 12, 2009, 10:55:55 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 13
• Guests: 69
• Total: 82
• MySunshine
  swadhinya
  the_matlocks
  Malathi
  nhockaday
  KFparit
  name
  hypatia
  sharmila begum
  andrewinpp
  kirthika
  Charlow
  daniela 64