Are Headphones Bad for Kids’ Ears ?

September 24, 2015 by Kristy Leave a Comment

Dangerous Decibels: Are Headphones Harming Children’s Hearing?

Getting kids to listen is difficult at the best of times.

We often joke that our children’s hearing may have been harmed because of all of the loud music that they listen to. But there may be some truth in this claim.

Noise-induced hearing loss is a serious and permanent condition. It’s associated with incorrect and/or excessive headphone use, or exposure to loud music. And we need to be concerned about young children’s exposure to loud noise, given that many children now regularly use headphones (and often at excessive levels).

The World Health Organisation (WHO)* estimates that 1.1 billion people worldwide could be affected by noise-induced hearing loss because of unsafe use of personal music devices including mp3 players and smartphones and exposure to noisy entertainment venues.

How do our ears work?

Ears convert the vibrations of sound waves into signals that our brains interpret as sounds. If ears are exposed to excessive sound pressure, it can damage the hair cells in the ears that hamper their ability to transmit sound to the brain. Consequently, this can result in noise-induced hearing loss, which is permanent.

What are the symptoms of noise-induced hearing loss?

Symptoms of noise-induced hearing loss include:

muffled or distorted sound
feelings of pressure in the ear
difficulties understanding speech
ringing sounds in the ear in silence (tinnitus).

Noise-induced hearing loss can occur as a result of exposure to one loud noise. However, it typically occurs because of repeated exposure to loud sounds over time. And this is why we need to be concerned about children’s use of headphones. They do often blast them to their highest volume and often on a regular basis. This could be potentially having harmful consequences on their hearing.

Anecdotally, audiologists confirm that they’re treating more and more young children and adolescents for tinnitus (ringing in the ears) and noise-induced hearing loss. The WHO is worried enough that they’ve produced guidelines for safe listening practices and many governments around the world are undertaking awareness campaigns as it’s recognised as a growing health concern.

Consistent use of headphones above 75dB can cause permanent hearing loss. What’s most concerning is that most commercial mp3 players can reach more than 130dB (contingent upon the model of mp3 player and brand of headphones used).

A child’s duration and exposure are important to consider.

Like many aspects of children’s ‘digital health’ we may not yet have a comprehensive picture from the research at this point in time (raising my hand here as a researcher to acknowledge that we’re slow in keeping up with the advances in technology), but we don’t want to wait until it’s too late and have compromised children’s hearing in the process. Again, this is why precautionary measures are essential when it comes to young children using headphones.

Tips for healthy hearing

Volume control– Show children how to adjust the volume on their headphones (ideally it would be below 75dB). Whilst it’s difficult to specify a precise decibel level on most commercially-available headphones, we can teach children about relatively appropriate sound levels. With some headphones and mp3 players we can use the settings to place a limit on the maximum decibel level on the device. Check with individual manufacturers as to how to do this.
Monitor time– Try, where possible, to limit children’s time to less than 60 minutes/day with headphones.
Use noise-cancelling headphones– Use ear-muff type headphones as these cancel some of the background noise, making it easier for children to listen to the music, without having competing background noise.

*World Health Organization. (2015). Make Listening Safe. World Health Organization.

http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/activities/MLS_Brochure_English_lowres_for_web.pdf

Are you worried about your child’s use of headphones? Do you enforce rules regarding headphones?

I talk to parents throughout Australia about screen-time and how parents can help their children use technology in healthy and helpful ways (and also minimise any potential risks). If you’re interested in having me speak at your pre-school, school local council or community group, Click here to find out more.

Do Kids Learn More From Handwriting or Typing?

September 10, 2015 by Kristy Leave a Comment

Is Typing or Handwriting Better for Kids?

The keyboard versus the pen. Which is better for children’s learning?

As laptops and tablets become commonplace in schools many parents and teachers are left wondering if note-taking with paper and pencil will become an obsolete skill.

Do young children still need to learn how to handwrite?

As adults we’re spending less and less time scribing things on paper and more and more time typing and using screens and gadgets to record our ideas. In fact a 2012 study showed that the average time since an adult last scribbled was 41 days.

So whilst we might be doing less typing as adults, it’s still a really essential skill for our digital kids to acquire. I’m here to say we certainly shouldn’t be packing away pencils and rushing to pull out keyboards. Handwriting is still an essential skill in the 21st Century. Kids still need to learn to handwrite.

Is handwriting really different to typing?

The two activities require different cognitive skills.

When we type, we simply tap a key. It’s relatively the same cognitive process each time. The movement is the same, regardless of the letter. It’s a skill that’s often acquired fast and easily.

By contrast, handwriting is a much more complex task. It takes years to master (if we think about all the fine motor skills little ones have to develop before they even grip a pencil). It requires muscle memories to recall letter formations. Unique neural circuits are automatically activated when we handwrite. It mentally stimulates the brain.

What impact does typing have on children’s learning? Do they recall more or less if they handwrite?

A 2012 study showed that children who hadn’t yet learned to read or write demonstrated increased activity in three areas of the brain (the same three areas which are activated in adults when reading and writing) when they attempted to handwrite letters on a blank piece of paper. In contrast, those children in the study who traced letters or shapes with dotted outlines, or those who typed the letter on the computer showed no such effect. Their activation was significantly weaker.

Do children learn better when handwriting or typing?

Preliminary research in the area suggests that handwriting may be better than typing for students’ recall of information. The video below outlines the benefits of handwriting.

However, the research in this area is not clear at this stage.

The research confirms that handwriting is the superior option (especially for older children in secondary school) as it results in better retention of information.

The research tells us that when children type they:

// Recall fewer details long-term. Studies have shown that students recall more information from handwritten notes after one week, than they do with typed notes. It appears that handwriting stimulates more memory cues as you form a context for the writing.

// Take copious notes and record verbatim. This mindless transcription means that they’re not consciously absorbing what they’re writing. Students are much more selective about what they write when they handwrite notes.

// It takes them a lot less time to record their information (if they’re a speedy typist) as compared to handwriting. So the extra time required to hand-write the information may help with their memory consolidation and subsequent recall. Handwriting also creates unique motor memories in the brain.

// Are more likely to get distracted by other tasks that you can do on a computer or tablet.

**But this may not be the case with younger children**

It’s important to note that the available studies at this stage have looked at secondary and college students. This means that the findings may not be transferable to younger children. For example, younger students whose fine motor skills are emerging, or for children with additional learning needs, typing may free up some of their cognitive resources that they’d otherwise dedicate to handwriting.

This is called “cognitive automaticity”. So typing may in fact allow them to focus on the content of what they’re writing, as opposed to focusing exclusively on forming letters and fine motor skills.

So before we toss out paper and pencils, we need to still foster children’s handwriting skills, even in this digital age. Whilst we don’t yet have a definitive answer from the research when it comes to young children and the handwriting vs typing debate, we know that handwriting requires different neurological resources and it’s probably still an important skill.

Do you prefer to handwrite or type? What do your kids prefer?

Why Background TV Isn’t Healthy For Little Ones

August 26, 2015 by Kristy Leave a Comment

Leaving the TV switched on throughout the day is commonplace in many homes. It’s often just the “done” thing.

So parents are often quite shocked to learn that there are unintended consequences of “background TV” on their child’s development.

I live by the mantra by Maya Angelou, “When you know better, you do better.” I start this blog post with this mantra, because I’m going to share some information that most parents are completely unaware of. I’m not trying to make parents feel guilty because I understand, as a parent myself, that we already have enough to fret and worry about, without feeling unnecessarily ‘guilty’ about TV.

Background TV is harmful for little ones

Also referred to as “second-hand TV”, background TV is often considered to be a benign part of everyday life. But it’s not! Second-hand TV can have an adverse effect on how children develop, particularly their language skills.

It’s not obvious to think that background TV could adversely impact on young children’s development. This is one of the reasons I started my business. I feel passionate about bridging the gap between what research tells us about how children learn and develop in the digital age and what parents (and teachers) need to know. And it’s not always obvious or intuitive to know (remember we’re the first generation of parents who are navigating this digital terrain with our little ones).

And understanding the adverse impact of background TV is really important for today’s parents (especially considering there are more and more digital devices entering family homes).

How much background TV are children exposed to each day?

A US study reported in the Pediatrics journal has shown that today’s American children are exposed to nearly 4 hours a day! As an average, there are some children who are being exposed to even more than 4 hours of TV each day. This is a huge concern.

So what impact does background TV have on young children?

Background TV interferes with how children play. Just because children aren’t staring at the TV with their mouth ajar or gesturing at the screen, doesn’t mean they’re not watching it. Children may not appear to be ‘watching’ but their attention is often drawn to the sound effects or bright lights of the TV. Research has shown that children’s sustained attention is lower when there is background TV. As a result, their play is interrupted as they drift in and out of TV viewing. Children’s self-talk is also significantly less when there is background TV. Play and language are absolutely vital for young children’s development. We must therefore protect the conditions which optimise play and language. And this means, switching off TV (and other digital devices) that can potentially interrupt their play experiences. (Background music is not as distracting as TV and other screen-based digital devices as explained in this post).

Parents tend to engage less with children when the TV is on. Children lose their conversational partner when the TV is switched on. When we’re watching TV (particularly if it’s something we’re engrossed in) then we’re not able to respond to our children in the same way that we would, if the TV had not been switched on.

I’m not proposing that we should never watch TV in the presence of our children. This is not sensible (or practical) advice. [Total disclosure- I watch the morning news most days while the little ones are playing and I don’t feel guilty about that.) However, we need to be mindful of how our children might be distracted when a TV is constantly turned on throughout the day, or during play times.

This is especially the case for very young babies who are often fed by parents who are consumed with screens (smartphones, tablets or TV). As a Mum, I understand first-hand how many hours are dedicated to feeding a baby and how TV viewing helps, especially in the wee hours of the morning when we’re exhausted, or when you simply need to ‘escape’ or have some down-time. However, it’s essential that TV is not the norm at every feed, as babies, in particular, need face-time (real face-to-face interactions with lots of eye contact). This is where they engage in facial mapping and other critical interactions that build their brains. Click here to read more.

Background TV has been shown to impair academic performance. Research has also shown that children who are exposed to excessive amounts of background TV have reduced performance on cognitive tasks. Long-term and excessive background TV can impact later on, in terms of how a child learns. Excessive amounts of background TV has been shown to be correlated to poorer attention spans. It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean that background TV causes attentional issues. There’s simply a connection- perhaps children with attention issues gravitate more towards TV.

Important To Know

I’m not suggesting that TV, per se, is ‘bad’ for children. That is not true. In fact, we have ample evidence to suggest that appropriate TV content actually helps children to learn. There are numerous studies that have shown that appropriate content can help children develop basic learning skills, social competence and even emotional control.

As parents, we just need to be mindful how much we are exposing children to TV. As a children’s media researcher I feel it’s imperative that parents are at least aware of what the research actually tells us about background TV. Ultimately, it’s up to individual families to make choices about how they will use TV in their household. I hope this post has provided some evidence so parents can make informed decisions.

When no one is watching the TV, switch it off.

TV is one of the topics I talk about in my Parenting in the Digital Age Parent Seminar. I translate the research into essential and digestible information for today’s modern parents. Find out more here.

Were you aware that background TV was potentially harmful for young children? How do you manage background TV with your kids?

Boost your baby’s BQ – Dr Kristy Goodwin says baby’s brains need to see your face

July 30, 2015 by Kristy 1 Comment

How to boost your Baby’s Baby Quotient (BQ^TM), to promote optimal brain development and give your baby the best chance in life. Early Childhood Development Researcher and manduca ambassador, Dr. Kristy Goodwin, explains her top tips to maximize your baby’s BQ.

1. Put away your smartphone – babies need laps not apps!

Dr. Goodwin explains that many studies show eye contact is an essential form of non-verbal communication. Newborn babies are able to process faces long before they recognise other objects, which is typically between 4 and 6 months of age. Brain scans have shown that babies, as young as 4 months, have similar neural responses to adults when processing faces. This is why infants require face-to-face interaction, which is critical for their brain and behavioural development.

2. Talk ‘parentese’ with your baby

Parentese is the term for the silly, playful sounds that adults often naturally utter to babies, which are long vowel sounds, short-clipped and high-pitched sounds that barely sound like real words! Babies have an innate ability to imitate adults’ mouth patterns and gestures when adults use parentese. As infants observe an action or mouth pattern, neurons in their brain fire and form new brain pathways, as if they were performing the action themselves.

3. Remove distractions by using a parent-facing baby carrier

With 80% of brain architecture established before a child is 3 years of age, it’s important for parents to make the most of their time with baby. Dr. Goodwin states “It’s vital that infants are given ample time to engage, verbally and visually with parents, in close proximity, with minimal distractions of competing factors to distract them. Parent-facing baby carriers provide ideal opportunities for parents to engage in such interactions on a daily and incidental basis, without placing additional demands on a parent’s time.”

4. Watch your language!

“Don’t worry, he’s just a baby – he doesn’t understand!” – sound familiar? Contrary to popular belief, your baby understands more than you know! It might be best to avoid that unpredictable uncle who can’t seem to watch his words, as according to a research piece by Dr. Goodwin, babies are biologically designed to mirror or imitate everything they observe. This can be attributed to “mirror neurons” that are a network of nerve cells that run inside our brains.

5. The more the merrier – introduce your loved ones

When introducing friends and family, let your baby see your warm and friendly expression as you greet them. Babies will pick up on your cues when assessing new situations and strangers and this social reassurance is vital for baby’s learning and development.

6. Lots of love and cuddles

Studies have shown that a mother’s nurturing relationship in the early years could literally shape a child’s brain anatomy. Dr. Goodwin’s research review found children with responsive, warm and caring parents have a larger hippocampus (part of the brain responsible for memory, learning and stress responses) than their peers who didn’t receive the same sorts of interactions and relationship building.

(Chris:) To see a really beautiful video of how strong the connection can be between baby and mother when wearing a parent-facing carrier, try this one from the Baby Carrier Industry Alliance.

Find out more about parent-facing carriers, click here.

Digital Babies

November 21, 2014 by Kristy Leave a Comment

There’s no doubt that today’s children are born into a digital world.

Children now experience ‘digitalised childhoods’.

What about very young babies- is this digital immersion appropriate? What impact is this ‘digital dunking’ having on their very plastic brain? As a Mum, about to have another baby in a couple of months and also as a children’s technology researcher, this is a question I have been pondering.

I was wandering around a toy store last week. I was amazed to find the huge number of digital toys that are now designed and marketed towards babies. Well, to doting parents of babies.

There are dribble-proof smartphone contraptions (Fisher-Price Apptivity case), activity gyms with iPhone attachments (Fisher-Price Apptivity Gym), plastic book covers that turn your iPhone or iPod Touch into an interactive book experience (Fisher-Price Laugh & Learn Apptivity Storybook Reader) and potties with iPad attachments (the aptly named iPotty). Yes, there really are iPad potties. Technology is becoming more and more pervasive for our youngest babies.

And this terrifies me.

It’s been four years since I had my first baby. He was born a few months after the first iPad was released. Boy, how times have changed.

There’s been an explosion in the baby techno-toy market. As a children’s media researcher I have to admit that this scares me more than it excites me. This may come as a shock (as a children’s technology advocate). People, with the very best of intentions, have asked me if I will be buying a new activity-gym with an iPhone attachment or a dribble-proof case for my new baby. Many people are surprised when I answer an emphatic ‘NO!’

Do babies REALLY need techno-toys?

I have to declare that I am a little bit more conservative when it comes to babies and technology. I am talking very young babies here (less than 12 months).

Why? I don’t think that babies, especially very young babies, need techno-toys such as touch phones and tablets. I don’t believe that they are learning from them (despite what the marketing materials will tell you). In fact, I think that the time spent using these devices would be better spent in other ways. The latest neuroscience research clearly spells out what babies actually need for optimal brain development. And it is simple.

Babies need:

* strong and warm ATTACHMENTS to a caregiver;

*to MOVE and EXPLORE what their bodies can do;

*to hear lots of LANGUAGE; and

*’serve and return’ interactions with adults.

BABIES DO NOT NEED SCREENS! Young babies need LAPS not APPS. They want to interact with faces not screens!

Basically, how your grandparents approached child rearing: ‘ancestral parenting’ is best for building your child’s brain. No app or device can replace these rich, human interactions, especially in the early days.

Given that babies are awake for limited hours each day, it is vital that we make very careful choices about how we use this time. Passively watching or swiping at a touch screen is not necessarily the best use of a baby’s time. It is not necessarily providing a baby with the ideal conditions to develop their brain. It is not going to make them a genius because they have been exposed to colours or letters.

Personally, I think that a baby would be better playing on their tummy and caressing a woolen mat, than swiping colours or watching a movie on an iPad.

Will techno-toys hurt my baby?

We don’t yet know precisely about if/how very young children learn with touch technologies (research is slowly catching up). However, we do know that children only start to learn from passive TV at approximately 18 months of age (despite what Baby DVDs claim). Touch devices are more interactive than passive TV or DVD viewing, so perhaps young children can learn from these more interactive devices. We don’t just know. I am not willing to take a gamble and conduct a living experiment with my next baby. There is plenty of time for tablets and phones!

In the very early days I believe babies need lots of ‘face-time’ where they interact with their caregivers (hear language and build an attachment) and goo and gaa (‘serve-and-return’ interaction). I don’t believe that they need gadgets to entertain them. Nothing can replace the sound of Mum or Dad singing to a baby (not even a cute app that sings songs or a book app that reads nursery rhymes).

Will a little bit every now and then ‘hurt’ them?

Now I’ll wear my practical parenting hat. Before you panic and think that you have caused adverse effects on your child because they have used your smartphone, take a deep breath and read on.

As a parent, I understand that from time-to-time, using devices like the iPad or your iPhone to pacify or entertain a baby actually works (and is a life-saver). Sometimes the toy box is no longer appealing and won’t occupy your baby whilst you prepare a meal. I totally understand. So should we resort to these digital devices all the time to calm upset babies? No. We need to teach babies, even from a very young age that adults can help soothe them or that they can calm themselves. We do not need digital pacifiers for babies. We need to be mindful that we’re not establishing media habits where we resort to gadgets to appease us.

Can my baby actually learn from techno-toys?

Despite the marketing claims of many apps and techno-toys marketed towards young children, there’s no known research (at this point in time) that has proven that babies learn from screen-based media. The research on children’s toys suggests that the more the toy does for the child (i.e. the more technologically sophisticated the toy is), the less thinking that is required on the child’s behalf. If a baby only needs to swipe at a screen, or even worse, just lie there passively, to activate an on-screen display (say for example a movie or an animation), it is safe to say that there is minimal learning occurring on the baby’s behalf. Therefore, it is unlikely that very young babies will actually learn from these devices. Grab them some stacking cups or wooden blocks and see what they can do!

So tell me in the comments below, am I alone on this one? Am I being too conservative (perhaps it is my protective hormones kicking in)? Or do you agree: do babies REALLY need digital devices?

Baby Learning Apps: What You Really Need to Know

September 16, 2014 by Kristy 1 Comment

So what baby learning apps does your baby like?

Say what?? I glance at my 4-month-old son and back at the lady whose question took the wind from my sails. And so she repeats the question. My mouth ajar, I look around perplexed. Ummm…

Yes, this is a question that a baby health nurse recently asked me. She was unaware of what I do for work. I was so shocked that I almost spat out my coffee. Ummm…my four-month old isn’t using baby apps…not just yet anyway.

There’s a preponderance of techno-products marketed towards parents with babies. Many of these gadgets are labeled as ‘educational’. And so parents feel compelled to buy these gadgets and programs for their babies.

What parent doesn’t want to give their child a head start?

The baby media market is BIG business.

We have the Apptivity Case which offers a dribble- and vomit-proof case for young children. And then there are the corresponding baby learning apps, some of which claim to teach letters and numbers.

We have early reading systems that (falsely) claim that they can teach babies to read.

We also have Baby Einstein DVDs whose marketing materials claimed that the DVDs enhanced baby brain development (until they were required to remove the advertising and offer consumers a refund because the marketing claims were not based on any research).

This recent conversation with my son’s baby health nurse really shocked me. As a children’s technology researcher and a mum, I have two problems with baby learning apps. In fact, I have issues with baby media in general. Let me explain my objections.

1. As a Researcher: The baby media market is not actually grounded in any research.

In fact we have research to the contrary.

[tweetability]Babies need laps not apps. [/tweetability]

They need real ‘face-time’ with adults.

A study reported in the Journal of Educational Psychology* in 2014 confirmed that babies do not learn to read from baby media like DVDs and videos. The study involved 117 babies aged from 9 to 18 months, over a 7-month period. Using eye-tracking technology and standardised measures, it found that there were no observable differences in children’s emerging reading skills between the children who used baby media and the control group who did not use any media.

What’s interesting to note, was that the only discernible difference between the babies who used baby media and the babies who did not in the above study, was their parents’ perceptions. The parents whose children used baby media believed that their babies were learning new words, despite evidence to the contrary.

Now I think this speaks volumes. Parents want to feel assured that they are doing a good job. So if they believe that their baby is having a jump-start on learning, then they must be doing a good job. Right? It gives us something to quantify.

Now don’t panic. Just because you used an early reading DVD with your baby, or allowed them to watch Baby Einstein DVDs, you have not ‘harmed’ them. That’s not what I am saying. What I am saying, is that using these media is not necessarily going to have the learning games that you may have been led to believe. If you are a new parent don’t feel compelled to buy these gadgets and programs for your baby. They are making false promises. We now have the science to prove it.

2. As a Mum: Why do we want babies formally learning letters and numbers?

I’m not saying that babies cannot learn. We know from neuroscience that the early years are a time of rapid brain development. They are learning a lot (in fact the neuroscience tells us that in the first few years children are making about 700 neural connections every second).

So why are we in a rush to introduce formal learning?

There’s plenty of time for that. I am more interested in watching my four-month old giggle at my silly faces and laughing as I sing him songs. I want him to dribble, roll around on the floor and laugh at nonsensical things.

Teaching him letters and numbers is not on my agenda just yet. There’s time for formal learning later on.

Too often there is a push to introduce formal academic learning at a young age. The curriculum push-down seems to occur at a younger and younger age now. This has resulted in the ‘hurried child’ phenomenon.

For now, our ‘curriculum’ involves lots of babbling and our classroom is the floor. No apps required at this stage!

So to answer my baby health nurses’ question, YES my baby does have a favourite baby learning app- it is me, his Mum, (for now anyway). He swipes, presses, taps and flicks her. She responds. Her screen is a little scratched. Her battery needs a re-charge. But she wouldn’t have it any other way.

Tell me in the comments below do you agree or disagree? Do babies (younger than 12 months) learn from apps and other baby media?

*Neuman, S. B.,Kaefer, T., Pinkham, A. & Strouse, G. (2014) Can Babies Learn to Read? A Randomized Trial of Baby Media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2014; DOI:

Can Babies Learn to Read?

September 3, 2014 by Kristy Leave a Comment

No doubt you’ve seen the products that claim to teach babies and toddlers to read. Infomercials tout their benefits, such as “…giving your baby the IQ advantage.”

We’ve got DVD and flashcard kits, apps and even TV programs that propose that as parents we’ll be giving our little one a head start by teaching them to read.

Heck, I want what’s best for my children, as I’m sure you do too. And I know reading is vital so why wouldn’t I purchase these products?

Well they simply don’t work. They’re a whole lot of bolony.

Are you a time-poor parent? Want to access this blog post as an audio-recording? Click here or below.

https://soundcloud.com/kristy-goodwin-1/your-baby-cant-read

Recently the Federal Trade Commission in the US settled charges against the manufacturers of the popular product ‘Your Baby Can Read’. The company was shown to have made baseless claims about the effectiveness of their program and misrepresented the scientific studies that supported their assertions.

We’ve been duped!

The product designers and marketers play on parental fear. They know that as parents we’re eager to provide what’s best for our precious babies and toddlers. (That’s why we spend way too much on prams and buy clothes that only fit for a couple of weeks… but hey, they were organic and cute.) And we’ve been falsely misled into believing, thanks to the marketing hype and claims, that we should be helping our little ones learn to read (by purchasing expensive and ineffective programs and products).

Well, let me share some great parenting advice I once heard from Pinky McKay, “Don’t let anyone should on you when it comes to parenting.” [Try it on for size: it’s great advice for new parents who get bombarded with lots of ‘shoulds’.]

You see, babies and toddlers can’t learn to read. It’s just not cognitively possible. It’s a whole lot of bolony!

Babies and toddlers don’t yet have the brain architecture that’s required to read. Sure, they might learn to parrot words and rote learn picture cards and letter shapes, but this isn’t real reading. Birds can learn to recite words. Monkeys can be taught to recognise picture cues. Real reading is making meaning and understanding what’s being read. It’s so much more than simply reciting words.

And to be perfectly frank, babies and toddlers don’t need to learn to read. There’s plenty of time for formal academic learning. When it’s developmentally appropriate. And learning words and letters is just not developmentally-appropriate for babies or toddlers. It’s not what their developing brains need.

So why shouldn’t I teach my baby to read with these programs and gadgets?

1. There’s an opportunity cost

When babies and toddlers are sitting watching a baby reading DVD (or using an app, or looking at flashcards), they’re not doing something else. And that something else may have been so much more beneficial for their developing brain.

For example, they may have otherwise spent the time crawling on the floor, or babbling to mum or dad, or stacking blocks to form a tower. And we know, from the neuroscience research that these types of experiences are exactly what developing brains need. No fancy equipment required.

Remember, babies need laps not apps.

2. It’s not developmentally-appropriate

Neuroscience confirms that babies’ and toddlers’ brains are built from the bottom up. Just like a house, a solid foundation is required before we can erect frames and walls and roofs. So for babies and toddlers it means that we have to get the basic brain circuits built first, before we build more complex circuits. And learning to read certainly requires complex brain circuits.

So babies are just not capable of learning to read. Instead, this time should be spent building the basic brain circuits (such as developing language skills, learning how to physically move their bodies and building attachments and relationships with parents and carers).

Sitting in front of a TV or iPad memorizing letters and words, or reciting flash cards takes away from these essential experiences.

3. It’s the ‘hurried child’ phenomenon

Kathy Walker coined the term the “hurried child”. She used it to describe the social phenomenon of inappropriate expectations for children. It’s a term used to describe the phenomenon of pushing children along the developmental trajectory.

More and more often we’re seeing formal, academic learning being introduced at younger and younger ages. It’s sometimes referred to as the ‘academic creep’. We’re now seeing ABCs and 123s part of pre-school programs, where they were once skills and concepts addressed in Kindergarten.

If we start to teach babies and toddlers to read, where do we stop? What’s the rush? Early childhood is a unique period in our lifespan. There really is no need, or rush to introduce reading. There’s plenty of time for that when it’s right.

But isn’t reading important?

Absolutely. There’s no denying that learning to read is an essential academic skill.

And reading to your baby and toddler is vital. In fact, reading to your baby, even your newborn baby is one of the best (and easiest) things that parents can do. It exposes them to language and that’s exactly what their developing brains need. Lots and lots of language and serve-and-return interactions with parents and/or carers.

This exposure to books and language develops the basic skills and concepts that will enable them to become a reader later on…when it is developmentally-appropriate. On their own developmental schedule.

But there’s no need to rush the process. To hurry it up. To speed up the process. Nothing gained, but a frazzled child and a parent who feels the need to push, push, push. No one wins here.

My Grandma has a lovely saying and that is, “You can’t hurry a baked dinner.” And it’s so true, especially when it comes to teaching children how to read. (In fact, it’s a great analogy for just about anything to do with raising children.)

So save yourself money and time and don’t feel compelled to buy products and programs that claim to teach babies and toddlers to read. It’s just not possible.

I’d love to hear in the comments below, have you felt pressured to buy products or programs that will help your little one learn?

Too Much Tech for Tots?

August 20, 2014 by Kristy Leave a Comment

As I flicked through the latest toy catalogue today I was overwhelmed with just how many techno-toys and battery-operated devices and gadgets are now available for babies and toddlers.

Yep, we now have teddy bears with mobile phones attached to their paws and pretend tablet devices for babies. Tablets for babies…whaaaaat?

And if that wasn’t bad enough, we also have the iPotty and the Apptivity Seat. Don’t believe me, click below.

Now don’t get me wrong, my children do have techno-toys. We’ve been woken up in the middle of the night by a talking teddy bear and thought we had a burglar in the house, haven’t you? So I’m not suggesting that techno-toys are ‘bad’. Not for one minute. They definitely have their place. But do we need to introduce babies and very young toddlers to these devices?

This latest toy catalogue has got me thinking.

Have we crossed the line? Are we introducing technology too early? Are we ‘technologising’ all aspects of childhood?

Or is this simply a reflection of our techno-obsessed society? It’s natural that children want digital replicas of our adult devices. Hey, it used to be the toy replica of the lawn mower, or the plastic high heels. So perhaps this just a natural progression.

But there are increasing, and in my opinion, worrying numbers of gadgets and devices marketed towards parents of babies and toddlers. Any what’s even more alarming for me as a children’s brain and technology researcher are the misleading marketing claims. In many instances, the marketing materials suggest that the early introduction of these techno-toys and gadgets is advantageous for little ones.

Make your child smarter. Increase language skills. Teach your baby old how to recognize letters, shapes and colours.

The claims go on and on and but are often not substantiated by research. Marketing hype often persuades parents to buy, buy, buy.

As you know, I’m an advocate for young children using technology.. So I’m certainly not a Luddite or anti-technology, in any way. Absolutely not the case at all.

I firmly believe (and have the research evidence to substantiate these claims) that young children can and do benefit from technology. But there’s a caveat: the technology has to be used in developmentally-appropriate ways.

So I question whether babies and toddlers really benefit from techno-toys and gadgets. Is this really developmentally-appropriate?

Do little ones really need a teddy bear that holds a mobile phone?

I just don’t think so. The latest neuroscience tells us that babies and toddlers need simple things for optimal brain development. The research is calling it ‘ancestral parenting’ which is basically how our grandparents raised our parents. It’s the basic things that developing brains need (not flashing devices that ping, beep and flash).

Developing brains need:

Develop attachments to their carer (goo-ing and gah-ing with mum or dad or grandparents: not pre-programmed voices that respond to touch);
Physical movement (crawling and climbing: not a bouncer that has a tablet attachment dangling over the baby’s face);
Serve-and-return interactions with adults (yes, even ‘parentese’, that high-pitched way we often talk to babies is beneficial: not a device that that parrots words to a baby)
Sleep (I don’t need to tell parents how vital this is…for everyone)
Good nutrition (this is a whole new topic on its own)

So I’m not sure how techno-toys and gadgets fit into this picture… especially for babies and toddlers.

Given that little ones are awake for such a limited number of hours each day, I think that we really need to optimise this time. Giving them battery-operated devices, all the time, isn’t the best use of their wakeful hours. (Now don’t go and throw out all of your battery-operated, techno-toys for your baby or toddler- that’s not what I’m suggesting. I have them and use them every now and then.)

Instead, I’m proposing that we don’t need to feel obliged to buy these devices for our little ones. Ignore the marketing pressure and hype. You’re not increasing their IQ when you give them a techno-toy. You’re not increasing the chance that they’ll get into Harvard if they have early access to a tablet device before they can independently sit up.

Instead, the best toys that you can give your baby or toddler are your time, wooden blocks and space to explore and move.

A simple rule when it comes to picking toys for little ones (even slightly older children), is that it should be 90% child and 10% toy. With a lot of techno-toys it’s 90% toy and 10% child. The toys do a lot of the thinking and exploring for the child. This isn’t what babies and toddlers need.

So save yourself some money. Don’t feel obliged to buy the newest gadget or techno-toy from the catalogues that claims it will help your baby or toddler learn. Sit them on your lap, or give them a set of blocks and know that this is exactly what they need.

I’d love to know in the comments below, what toys does/did your baby or toddler like? Do you feel pressured to buy techno-toys?

Baby Learning Apps: What You Really Need to Know

March 24, 2014 by developer Leave a Comment

So what baby learning apps does your baby like?

Say what?? I glance at my 4-month-old son and back at the lady whose question took the wind from my sails. And so she repeats the question. My mouth ajar, I look around perplexed. Ummm… Yes, this is a question that a baby health nurse recently asked me. She was unaware of what I do for work. I was so shocked that I almost spat out my coffee. Ummm…my four-month old isn’t using baby apps…not just yet anyway.

There is a preponderance of techno-products marketed towards parents with babies. Many of these gadgets are labeled as ‘educational’. And so parents feel compelled to buy these gadgets and programs for their babies. What parent doesn’t want to give their child a head start? The baby media market is BIG business. We have the Apptivity Case which offers a dribble- and vomit-proof case for young children. And then there are the corresponding baby learning apps, some of which claim to teach letters and numbers.

We have early reading systems that (falsely) claim that they can teach babies to read. We also have Baby Einstein DVDs whose marketing materials claimed that the DVDs enhanced baby brain development (until they were required to remove the advertising and offer consumers a refund because the marketing claims were not based on any research).

1. As a Researcher: The baby media market is not actually grounded in any research. In fact we have research to the contrary.

[tweetability]Babies need laps not apps. [/tweetability]

They need real ‘face-time’ with adults.

What is interesting to note, was that the only discernable difference between the babies who used baby media and the babies who did not in the above study, was their parents’ perceptions. The parents whose children used baby media believed that their babies were learning new words, despite evidence to the contrary. Now I think this speaks volumes.

Parents want to feel assured that they are doing a good job. So if they believe that their baby is having a jump-start on learning, then they must be doing a good job. Right? It gives them something to quantify.

Now don’t panic. Just because you used an early reading DVD with your baby, or allowed them to watch Baby Einstein DVDs, you have not ‘harmed’ them. That’s not what I am saying. What I am saying, is that using these media is not necessarily going to have the learning games that you may have been led to believe. If you’re a new parent don’t feel compelled to buy these gadgets and programs for your baby. They are making false promises. We now have the science to prove it.

2. As a Mum: Why do we want babies formally learning letters and numbers? I am not saying that babies cannot learn. We know from neuroscience that the early years are a time of rapid brain development. Why are we in a rush to introduce formal learning? There’s plenty of time for that.

I’m more interested in watching my four-month old giggle at my silly faces and laughing as I sing him songs. I want him to dribble, roll around on the floor and laugh at nonsensical things. Teaching him letters and numbers is not on my agenda just yet. There’s time for formal learning later on.

Tell me in the comments below do you agree or disagree? Do babies (younger than 12 months) learn from apps and other baby media?

*Neuman, S. B.,Kaefer, T., Pinkham, A. & Strouse, G. (2014) Can Babies Learn to Read? A Randomized Trial of Baby Media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2014; DOI:

10 Reasons Why Handheld Games do NOT Need to be Banned

March 6, 2014 by developer Leave a Comment

A recent blog post has caused much concern amongst parents and teachers alike in recent days. I have fielded a couple of media calls about this controversial post and have also had friends and worried parents asking me about some of the claims in the blog post. So I thought I should respond to the post at the centre of the controversy and allay some of your fears. I also want to clarify some points made in the blog post.

In a nutshell, Cris Rowan, the blog’s author, calls on parents, teachers, and government organisations to ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years. She is an occupational therapist and a child development expert and has written a book titled Virtual Child. She provides ten “research evidenced reasons for this ban”.

And this is what I want to clarify. I want to start by acknowledging that there are some arguments that Rowan proposes that I actually agree with:

1. Rapid brain development does occur in the first two to three years of life. Neuroscience has confirmed this. There is no doubt that the first two to three years of life is a vital period for brain development. This is why babies do not need screen-time. We have some recent research evidence that confirms that babies do not learn from baby media.

2. I also agree that there are increasing rates of childhood obesity and this is likely to be attributed to today’s children being more sedentary because of technology use. For example, we know that children with television sets in their bedrooms are more likely to be obese than those children who do not have a TV in their bedroom.

3. Technology has also been associated with sleep problems. I also agree. Technology use has been shown to have an adverse impact on children’s sleep patterns when it is used in the 90-minute period before children sleep. The light emitted from devices, coupled with the fast-paced on-screen action has been shown to cause sleep delays in children and over times these delays accumulate in a sleep debt.

4. Violent media content is associated with (note, I did not specifically say causes) aggressive and anti-social behaviour. In particular, we have increasing evidence that confirms that video game violence is a cause of increased aggression in the player.

So I propose that there is NO NEED to ban handheld devices for children under 12 Years. Why?

1. These devices are here to stay. Whether we like it or not, technology is not going to disappear. Rather than ‘banning’ technology (or fearing it) we need to have open conversations about how to best use technology with young children. We need to look for ways to optimise, not stifle, children’s development in a digital age. What types of TV shows, DVDs, apps, websites and games are suitable for young children? How can children actually learn from them?

2. Research has not shown that digital devices diminish executive functioning skills or impair attention skills. Rowan claims that “Stimulation to a developing brain caused by overexposure to technologies (cell phones, internet, iPads, TV), has been shown to negatively affect executive functioning, and cause attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity, and decreased ability to self-regulation e.g. tantrums” However, there is yet to be any published data that I am aware of that examines the effects of mobile phones and iPads on these skills. Note the date of the references that Rowan cites- both studies were conducted prior to the release of the iPad in 2010. Furthermore, we do not have research-evidence that shows that digital technologies cause attention problems or hamper executive function. Sure, we have studies that provide a correlation but this doesn’t prove that media causes these problems.

3. We need to teach young children how to form healthy media habits, from the outset. Banning technology is not the solution. We need to inform parents about the best ways to use these devices with young children. What does ‘healthy media use’ look like?

4. The Christakis (2004) study that Rowan cites about “high-speed media” causing attention deficit and reduced concentration and memory is methodologically flawed. One of the problems with this study is that the children were not clinically examined or diagnosed with ADHD. Instead, parents assessed their behavior at age 7 using five criteria, two of which are not associated with ADHD (confused and obsessive). The study also did not acknowledge that some of the children who were three in the study may have already started to display ADHD traits and that increased TV use may have been a result of and not the cause of ADHD. Does the chicken come before or after the egg?

5. Radiation emission is a contentious area and one that I am further exploring. At this point in time, the research evidence does not indicate that digital devices are harmful for young children. However, I am also aware that this research is in its infancy. Due to possible risk of harm, I always advise parents to exercise caution and minimise any radiation emission with tablet and mobile phone devices. For example, switching mobile and tablet devices to airplane mode and disabling Wi Fi when children are using them, reduces their radiation exposure. Similarly, turning off routers when not in use is another practical way to minimize possible harm.

6. Not all children are addicted to technology. Rather than banning technology because a small proportion of children are addicted (Rowan cites Gentile’s 2009 study that indicated that 1 in eleven children aged 8-18 years was addicted to technology), we need to look at teaching parents and children how to set parameters around media use, so that it can be used in a healthy way.

7. Today’s parents are the first generation of parents who are raising complete ‘digital natives’ and who are also using digital devices. Rather than ostracising and criticising parents’ use of technology, we need to have open discussions about how we should use technology with and around children. We know that children absorb our habits (including our media habits) so we certainly need to be mindful about how we use smartphones, TV and tablets around children. When parents know better, they (usually) do better.

8. Parents need to know how much media time is appropriate for young children. Parents are often unaware of guidelines regarding screen-time. Once again, banning technology is not a long-term solution. It is merely a band-aid solution for a bigger problem.

9. Rowan’s blog post implies that all ‘handheld devices’ are created equal. This is certainly not the case. David Kleeman recently said, “A screen is a screen is a meme”. Young children use handheld devices in different ways. For example, children may use a tablet device to simply watch a YouTube video. This is a very passive use of the device. On the other hand, they may use a movie-making app to record, edit and publish a movie they have created with a friend. The latter example requires significantly more cognitive investment on the child’s behalf. They are completely different learning experiences.

10. My biggest criticism with this blog post is that the positive potential of digital media is completely ignored. We have ample and increasing evidence to confirm that when technology is used intentionally and in developmentally-appropriate ways that young children’s learning and development can actually be enhanced, not hampered by technology.

Aghh. Now that feels better. There you have my personal and professional take on Rowan’s post.

Tell me in the comments below, which, if any, of Rowan’s ideas, do you agree with?

Raising Your Child in a Digital World:

Finding a healthy balance of time online without techno tantrums and conflict