Classical Tunes: 15 instrumental classics from Mozart, Vivaldi, Tchaikovsky, Bach and more

Sing-Along Songs: 12 songs you'll love to sing including Old MacDonald, Mind Your Manners, Bingo and more

Seriously though, It's nice to see educational plans that aren't simply "stick this in the tv and leave your child alone" I had trouble finding reviews for this specific bundle, but individual components were fairly well received on amazon with plenty of great reviews.

I love that this bundle includes a signing DVD. won't be able to get this bundle today though :-( blah! Bills! Boo! I hope to see this set again!

I'm considering this for my niece but $69 seems kinda steep for some picture books and children DVDs. A similar classical music collection can probably be found for $3.99. To the company's credit, they only claim that the CD will expose the child to classical music. Less scrupulous companies will cite the discredited Mozart Effect (where classical music supposedly alters an infant's developing brain). At best, any increase in IQ is temporary, and the change is not anatomical. Even the original researchers, Rauscher et al, claim that their original work has been misrepresented. Regardless of IQ, exposing the child to all types of music is a good thing. Well, with the exception of Gangsta Rap...

FYI, the company was selling the collection for only $31.96 last Christmas.

sdc100 wrote:I'm considering this for my niece but $69 seems kinda steep for some picture books and children DVDs. A similar classical music collection can probably be found for $3.99. To the company's credit, they only claim that the CD will expose the child to classical music. Less scrupulous companies will cite the discredited Mozart Effect (where classical music supposedly alters an infant's developing brain). At best, any increase in IQ is temporary, and the change is not anatomical. Even the original researchers, Rauscher et al, claim that their original work has been misrepresented. Regardless of IQ, exposing the child to all types of music is a good thing. Well, with the exception of Gangsta Rap...

FYI, the company was selling the collection for only $31.96 last Christmas.

I tried pricing this out on Amazon which was kind of difficult as they don't have quite the same collection but rather pieces of it. The DVDs are on sale for $49 or $35 depending on which collection you buy for 6 DVDs. This collection has 8. The Flash cards sell for $10 a pack and this offer has 4. The board books are $12 each, this offer has 4. The music CDs are $20 each, the collection has 2. If I can add this up at this hour, that's a total of as little as $178, give or take a little depending on what you buy to build your collection. It also says it is the recipient of 75 national awards and recognitions, whatever that is. So, guess this is a good buy if you are interested.

cookie1943 wrote:I tried pricing this out on Amazon which was kind of difficult as they don't have quite the same collection but rather pieces of it. The DVDs are on sale for $49 or $35 depending on which collection you buy for 6 DVDs. This collection has 8. The Flash cards sell for $10 a pack and this offer has 4. The board books are $12 each, this offer has 4. The music CDs are $20 each, the collection has 2. If I can add this up at this hour, that's a total of as little as $178, give or take a little depending on what you buy to build your collection. It also says it is the recipient of 75 national awards and recognitions, whatever that is. So, guess this is a good buy if you are interested.

Thanks for the effort. I took a similar approach on the Brainy Baby Learning website, and you're right, it's difficult. Each bundle (consisting of a DVD, flash cards and board book) costs $24.99. This set consists of at least 4 bundles so it'll cost at least $100 to compile. So yes, it's a discount. Still, it stings to know that the company's website was selling this very set for only $31 last Christmas.

As a telecommuter I bought and used the Brainy Baby set (along with Baby Bumblebee, Baby Einstein, Leap Frog and Baby Babble) to give my son a 'daycare' experience while keeping him at home through pre-K. I started playing educational dvds as soon as he was old enough to focus on the television in his room, and I would set aside related toys (shapes, colors, letter, etc) for him to play with in conjunction with the lesson of the day. This worked very well for us.

The production quality of the Brainy Baby set is quite good compared to some of the others I have viewed. As a bonus, your child will also learn the sight words associated with each topic as they appear on the screen. By age two the little guy was doing simple reading and knew all the basics, and it seemed to give him a real jump start on his learning.

These are entertaining enough for occasional viewing or you can build as curriculum around them as we did. Either way, I recommend. He has outgrown the set now but still asks to watch one on occasion!

Anytime I see flashcards designed to "teach" young children I am very very cautious. If you look into best practice with young children you will learn that they learn best from play and that while they may be able to demonstrate memorization of flash cards, it's not the appropriate type of learning or developing that their brains should be doing. I can completely relate with parents' desire to make sure that their children are learning but babies are supposed to be learning to explore their worlds and interact with the people around them, not memorize flash cards.

How good are these DVDs for getting my screaming baby/toddler to shut up and zone out in front of the television so I finally get a chance to shower/clean the house/drown my sorrows in whiskey?

jaymanmsu wrote:How good are these DVDs for getting my screaming baby/toddler to shut up and zone out in front of the television so I finally get a chance to shower/clean the house/drown my sorrows in whiskey?

Wow, this is truly a sad comment. People with this attitude about kids shouldn't have any. What a great idea... throw the kid in front of a TV so I can get wasted because my life sucks. Poor kid. I feel awful for your child. I am glad my mother and father didn't feel that way about me.

nspendlove wrote:Wow, this is truly a sad comment. People with this attitude about kids shouldn't have any. What a great idea... throw the kid in front of a TV so I can get wasted because my life sucks. Poor kid. I feel awful for your child. I am glad my mother and father didn't feel that way about me.

Oh, come on, you know the wasted part was a joke. But anyone who thinks their kid is going to get smarter by having their kid watch videos is in for a disappointment.

Given the price for most baby-related DVDs, flashcards, and books, this one looks like a good deal.

Babies and toddlers should not be watching DVDs! You know that other baby learning system, "Your Baby Can Read"? They just got ordered to stop using that name and fined by the FTC for making false advertising claims. Buy a bunch of books and read them to your kids- that will be much more valuable to them.

kbluspiro wrote:Babies and toddlers should not be watching DVDs! You know that other baby learning system, "Your Baby Can Read"? They just got ordered to stop using that name and fined by the FTC for making false advertising claims. Buy a bunch of books and read them to your kids- that will be much more valuable to them.

Well yeah - but as it was pointed out earlier, the books don't read themselves..

kbluspiro wrote:Babies and toddlers should not be watching DVDs! You know that other baby learning system, "Your Baby Can Read"? They just got ordered to stop using that name and fined by the FTC for making false advertising claims. Buy a bunch of books and read them to your kids- that will be much more valuable to them.

Exactly!

Wolffhardt wrote:Well yeah - but as it was pointed out earlier, the books don't read themselves..

As an educator I hate that companies are still allowed to market this crap. Get lots of books and read to your child. Our 18 month old has never seen a television she loves books, interacting with people, and is way ahead in her benchmarks.


The best way you can help your baby or toddler learn and develop a healthy brain is to unplug the TV and other media screens, and play with them, says the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) whose new policy reiterates, in the light of newer data, their previous recommendation that parents and carers keep children under 2 years of age as "screen-free" as possible.

jaymanmsu wrote:Oh, come on, you know the wasted part was a joke. But anyone who thinks their kid is going to get smarter by having their kid watch videos is in for a disappointment looks like a good deal.

Actually, it may not be that disappointing. My blue collar immigrant parents didn't speak any English so I was basically raised by TV (Sesame Street). By pre-kindegarten, my English was considered above average. By sixth grade, my reading scores were in the top 3-percentile (12th grade reading level). And I tested well enough to enter the what the Wall Street Journal called the best high school in the US (here's a hint: Supreme Court Elena Kagan is an alumnus). My SAT scores were also in the top 5%.

Am I more intelligent than average? Perhaps a little, but that's not my point. I credit Sesame Street and other PBS programs with providing me the linguistically-immersive environment that my parents (and neighborhood) couldn't. Likewise for high school. I was clearly out of my element Freshman year. Most of my classmates came from wealthy well-educated homes. But the immersive environment allowed me to learn naturally, almost by imitation. I heard and used words that I wouldn't have if I stayed in my neighborhood.

My guess is that immersing your infant in these videos can have the same effect. Especially with parental interaction. And I would extend to other subjects as well. Frequent exposure to PBS, for example, also gave me a lifelong interest in the sciences and classical music.

ps - I have one of the largest collection of videos on philosophy, mathematics and [quantum] physics that I'm aware of. Although I myself don't understand much of them, I plan to play them for my children as "background noise."

Wolffhardt wrote:Well yeah - but as it was pointed out earlier, the books don't read themselves..

Heh. Surprisingly enough, that's not strictly true. Many interactive children's books exist for e-readers such as the iPad, Kindle and Nook. And you can get them to read themselves. Heck, you can even do that on a PC. I've always been reluctant to use them for infants because I'm paranoid that the kid will grow up imitating the robotic voice.

FOr oldtimers out there, here's a blast from the past, circa 1980.

Nspendlove - really? She was kidding! Good Lord, get over yourself.

jaymanmsu wrote:Oh, come on, you know the wasted part was a joke. But anyone who thinks their kid is going to get smarter by having their kid watch videos is in for a disappointment.

Given the price for most baby-related DVDs, flashcards, and books, this one looks like a good deal.

Except for Signing Time and Baby signing Time. My 2.5 year old daughter has a larger vocabulary than most 5 year old kids. She can sign and speak. She does the flash cards all by herself too.

Go get yourself a shower though.

pmalmgren wrote:I love that this bundle includes a signing DVD. won't be able to get this bundle today though :-( blah! Bills! Boo! I hope to see this set again!

I wish more parents taught basic signs to their kids. My son didn't talk until he was 2 1/2, and we taught him to sign so we could communicate with him. It was amazing to be able to have him tell us his basic needs rather than throw a tantrum because we couldn't understand him. He speaks very well now.

We also taught his sister to sign, but she started talking right on schedule. We are now working on teaching our 8mo old to sign as well. He's got 'milk' down pretty well.

I let my kids watch educational shows/DVDs. I don't see a problem with a little TV every now and then. I don't know many 3 year olds that can name over 10 dinosaur species, tell you the difference between omnivore/carnivoere/herbivore. He's also the first to correct me on mispronouncing a dinosaur name. Thanks to Dinosaur Train.

He also can spell and read simple words thanks to Super Why. Moderation is the key, as with everything.

What do you mean!? Have you counted up the number of Books, DVDs, CDs, Flashcards and guides? Oh My Failing Grades!... this is like a whole preschool program in a box! This is a HUGE deal at $69! My kid is worth it. School lunches cost more than this. Oh, and by the way, I did a little more research. This company (Brainy Baby) is being modest. They actually have a University Study that shows how effective the long term learning was with their program. But what impressed me, was the the fact that this program has been around since the mid-90's and it has received rave reviews everywhere I researched. Even my neighbors knew about it. Don't know how I missed it, but I am buying a couple of boxes (one for my family and one for a gift). 5 stars in my book! Thanks, Woot, great find!!!!

sdc100 wrote:I'm considering this for my niece but $69 seems kinda steep for some picture books and children DVDs. A similar classical music collection can probably be found for $3.99. To the company's credit, they only claim that the CD will expose the child to classical music. Less scrupulous companies will cite the discredited Mozart Effect (where classical music supposedly alters an infant's developing brain). At best, any increase in IQ is temporary, and the change is not anatomical. Even the original researchers, Rauscher et al, claim that their original work has been misrepresented. Regardless of IQ, exposing the child to all types of music is a good thing. Well, with the exception of Gangsta Rap...

FYI, the company was selling the collection for only $31.96 last Christmas.

I read the Brainy Baby Parent Guide and they seem to have the right idea. They promote balance and to use their products as a learning tool supplement, just as you would any other educational product. Their Guide actually says "turn off the TV and go out and play". Nice balance and healthy approach to learning. They have my vote. Their University study proving effectiveness was also impressive.

rokelton1 wrote:Anytime I see flashcards designed to "teach" young children I am very very cautious. If you look into best practice with young children you will learn that they learn best from play and that while they may be able to demonstrate memorization of flash cards, it's not the appropriate type of learning or developing that their brains should be doing. I can completely relate with parents' desire to make sure that their children are learning but babies are supposed to be learning to explore their worlds and interact with the people around them, not memorize flash cards.

sandymomof7 wrote:What do you mean!? Have you counted up the number of Books, DVDs, CDs, Flashcards and guides? Oh My Failing Grades!... this is like a whole preschool program in a box! This is a HUGE deal at $69! My kid is worth it. School lunches cost more than this. Oh, and by the way, I did a little more research. This company (Brainy Baby) is being modest. They actually have a University Study that shows how effective the long term learning was with their program. But what impressed me, was the the fact that this program has been around since the mid-90's and it has received rave reviews everywhere I researched. Even my neighbors knew about it. Don't know how I missed it, but I am buying a couple of boxes (one for my family and one for a gift). 5 stars in my book! Thanks, Woot, great find!!!!

But think about what you're actually getting. A bunch of 16 page books (worth about $3 each), simple flash cards and DVDs. The material is worth no more than about $9 for each kit. Neither the contents of the books, cards or DVDs are anything special. I can easily accomplish the same things on my own and indeed I have. All I need is a color inkjet printer, the Internet and PBS.

There is simply no Peer-Reviewed study showing that these kits are any more effective than going on your own. That "university study" is sponsored by the company. It merely shows that these kits are helpful. But they don't show that it's any more helpful than watching PBS with parental interaction. That's not very convincing to me. A proper study would control for parental involvement, which is more important than the books/DVDs. I'm a Medical Research Analyst and design studies for a living. Their study was POORLY controlled and clearly designed to sell the program. It would never have made it past my desk.

I have already posted this, but you need to calm down a bit. I don't think you can compare Your Baby Can Read to Brainy Baby. I mean, just because Toyota recalls millions of defective cars because they can kill you, doesn't mean my Ford has the same problem. Isn't that like throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Look, I'm not going to buy junk products either, but do the research.. I did. Brainy Baby is not making any wild claims and when I did the research, I found they are the only ones with a peer-reviewed University Study, not to mention thay have been around since 1995 with this product.

You don't stay in business without having a product that people like and a product that works. Just looks at the blogs and the reviews on Amazon. I'm buying it. You don't want to make statements that could cause people to miss a big opportunity for their family.

To your point of "buying a bunch of books and reading to your kids", aaah..that's what this box is all about. A bunch of books that you read to your kid and a DVD that you can both watch and enjoy. What's the problem??

kbluspiro wrote:Babies and toddlers should not be watching DVDs! You know that other baby learning system, "Your Baby Can Read"? They just got ordered to stop using that name and fined by the FTC for making false advertising claims. Buy a bunch of books and read them to your kids- that will be much more valuable to them.

sandymomof7 wrote:Brainy Baby is not making any wild claims and when I did the research, I found they are the only ones with a peer-reviewed University Study, not to mention thay have been around since 1995 with this product.

Oh really? Give me the peer-reviewed journal this study was published in and I'll run an analysis on it. Please provide the exact citation and I'll have my assistant pull the study on Monday.

Since you did some research on it, how were the populations controlled to prove that what they claim was true? Did they compare their group with parents who used other programs? How about parents who watched PBS and read to their children? HOw did they prove that it wasn't the mere parental involvement and interaction that led to the improvement, and not their CDs, DVDs, and books? Many studies have already shown that parental involvement and stimulation lead to future success so these claims are nothing new.

One of the first things I teach to my students in Research Methods is: CONTROLS, CONTROLS, CONTROLS. What controls were used?

Hey, where are you getting your info? I have a research Analyst background too, and I found their Peer Review in JOCAM (Journal of Children and Media). It doesn't get more peer reviewed than that. I also found a peer review from New Zealand with the same results. Would you like the link? Nothing in the report says that the study was company sponsored, so how could you make those claims unless you just took someone elses word? Seems to me that if you were researching, you would go to the source and not just what may pop up in a Google search.

I guess the real focus here should be do these products work. I say YES and that is first hand experience for me and many, many friends. The University Study only validates what I already know as a mom.

And regarding the "value" of the kit, I would think as busy parents our time would be more valuable that sitting in front of a computer designing and preparing a complete preschool academic program! Really? This kit is a GREAT value and worth every penny, especially for the quality and convenience.

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight, but why so down on this product or this company? It just seems like you are against everything and it REALLY is a GREAT product! Why mislead people when you are not accurate in your facts?

sdc100 wrote:But think about what you're actually getting. A bunch of 16 page books (worth about $3 each), simple flash cards and DVDs. The material is worth no more than about $9 for each kit. Neither the contents of the books, cards or DVDs are anything special. I can easily accomplish the same things on my own and indeed I have. All I need is a color inkjet printer, the Internet and PBS.

There is simply no Peer-Reviewed study showing that these kits are any more effective than using your own. That "university study" is not peer-reviewed AND sponsored by the company. It mere;y shows that these kits are helpful. But they don't show that it's any more helpful than watching PBS with parental interaction. That's not very convincing to me. And I'm a Medical Research Analyst.

Well, to my earlier point... why make random comments and mislead people when you have not read the study? You SHOULD have had your assistant do the work and read the study before you commented.

The study was performed by the top women in the world for Children's Media Studies and yes it was a CONTROLLED study. Dr. Elizabeth Vanderwater was the lead scientist. It was a small study, but very controlled and very impressive. I read elsewhere that the study was recreated on a larger scale with similar results.

The study cites that there was no other media intervention during the control period. The results also tested very positive (about 22 times learning increase) in children under the age of 18 months. Please have your assistant pull the study in JOCAM and review for yourself.

Again, we can debate study findings all day. What is relevant is the effectiveness of this product in my own family. I no longer use the initials PhD after my name. I have upgraded to the initials MOM and what I think and believe is greater than any science, because I see the leaning results first hand.

Let's just please be accurate with our comments before we mislead innocent parents with our opinions and not the facts.

sdc100 wrote:Oh really? Give me the peer-reviewed journal this study was published in and I'll run an analysis on it. Please provide the exact citation and I'll have my assistant pull the study on Monday.

Since you did some research on it, how were the populations controlled to prove that what they claim was true? Did they compare their group with parents who used other programs? How about parents who watched PBS and read to their children? HOw did they prove that it wasn't the mere parental involvement and interaction that led to the improvement, and not their CDs, DVDs, and books? Many studies have already shown that parental involvement and stimulation lead to future success so these claims are nothing new.

One of the first things I teach to my students in Research Methods is: CONTROLS, CONTROLS, CONTROLS. What controls were used?

sandymomof7 wrote:Hey, where are you getting your info? I have a research Analyst background too, and I found their Peer Review in JOCAM (Journal of Children and Media). It doesn't get more peer reviewed than that. I also found a peer review from New Zealand with the same results.

Read my words carefully. I wrote "no Peer-Reviewed study showing that these kits are any more effective than using your own." And in my next post, I listed my criticisms. for example, was it controlled against parents who did NOT use their program, but DID use PBS? Nope. Hence, NO PEER-REVIEWED STUDY EXISTS PROVING THAT BRAINY BABY IS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA-INTENSIVE, PARENTAL INVOLVED PROGRAM -- including ones that you can do on your own.

The JOCAM study did NOT do that. I never said that JOCAM is not a peer-reviewed journal. But it was NOT well-designed to show that Brainy Baby is any more effective than not using it. And if you read my original post carefully, you'd see that that was my criticism. I NEVER said that Brainy Baby was not helpful. Indeed, if you had bother to read my previous posts, you'd see that I said that exposure to educational programming and especially PARENTAL INTERACTION was very helpful.

Finally, you mispresented the JOCAM article and probably relied on a Brainy Baby Press Release. It seems that you never went to source material. I will list these misrepresentation in a later post.

Oh my goodness... whatever. Obviously a sacred cow. No need to defend your intellect. You win. Keep your throne.

For the record, I never even saw the Brainy Press Release. I read the JOCAM study. It's a good study and the products are proven effective. How can you say I misrepresented the JOCAM article, when you haven't read it yourself? You attacked and discredited the Brainy study without due dillengence.

Why split hairs and confuse people in the name of making sure your reputation is not tarnished?

Not worth it. Believe and live whatever reality you want. Just please spread love and peace. None of this is worth it. I just want other children to have the same benefit and opportunity that I have given my kids.

Have a good weekend (really). We can agree to disagree. Let the people out there make up their own minds.

sdc100 wrote:Read my words carefully. I wrote "no Peer-Reviewed study showing that these kits are any more effective than using your own." And in my next post, I listed my criticisms. for example, was it controlled against parents who did NOT use their program, but DID use PBS? Nope. Hence, NO PEER-REVIEWED STUDY EXISTS PROVING THAT BRAINY BABY IS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA-INTENSIVE, PARENTAL INVOLVED PROGRAM -- including ones that you can do on your own.

The JOCAM study did NOT do that. I never said that JOCAM is not a peer-reviewed journal. But it was NOT well-designed to show that Brainy Baby is any more effective than not using it. And if you read my original post carefully, you'd see that that was my criticism. I NEVER said that Brainy Baby was not helpful. Indeed, if you had bother to read my previous posts, you'd see that I said that exposure to educational programming and especially PARENTAL INTERACTION was very helpful.

Finally, you mispresented the JOCAM article and probably relied on a Brainy Baby Press Release. It seems that you never went to source material. I will list these misrepresentation in a later post.

My goodness, you guys are just ruthless! The box is 80% BOOKS and FLASHCARDS and PAPER goods. What's the problem? You get a great deal on a box of preschools books, get to read to your kid and if you don't like using the DVDs, then don't use them or give them as gifts.

How is this crap? Wow.. what a touchy crowd! People, just buy it if you like it or pass. Are all the comments necessary, especially when none of you have purchased the box to see what is in it?

Nothing in or on the box says my kid will be the next genius. It a collection of books, cards and DVDs to enjoy with your child. How is this a bad thing, especially when I see so many positive comments on the web?

Maybe our opinion has become a bit jaded with some of the media stories we have seen lately?

C'mon, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. I bought the set and I give it 5 stars. Didn't see any crap packed in the box.

wolfedc wrote:As an educator I hate that companies are still allowed to market this crap. Get lots of books and read to your child. Our 18 month old has never seen a television she loves books, interacting with people, and is way ahead in her benchmarks.


The best way you can help your baby or toddler learn and develop a healthy brain is to unplug the TV and other media screens, and play with them, says the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) whose new policy reiterates, in the light of newer data, their previous recommendation that parents and carers keep children under 2 years of age as "screen-free" as possible.

sandymomof7 wrote:Hey, where are you getting your info? I have a research Analyst background too, and I found their Peer Review in JOCAM (Journal of Children and Media). It doesn't get more peer reviewed than that. I also found a peer review from New Zealand with the same results.

You've misrepresented the study published in The Journal of Children and Media, (JOCAM), Fall 2010 (Vol.4, Issue 4) and seemed to have relied mostly on a Brainy Baby press release.

If you want to skip all the minutae, just go to point #10. But since you claim to be in research, you'll probably want to read it all.

Criticisms:
1) The study looked only at the Shapes & Colors DVD -- not this entire system, or any other Brainy Baby DVD. You can NOT extrapolate the results on this single DVD onto any other DVD. Indeed, the processing of shapes and colors is distinctly different from the way babies process language and math. You were implying that studies show their whole approach is effective, never once pointing out that the JOCAM study only looked at one DVD.

2) The JOCAM study did NOT use Brainy Baby's program or approach to learning, merely their DVD as a source of stimuli. Yet you were praising the entire program on the basis of the study. That is academic dishonesty.

3) The authors even explicitly criticized Brainy Baby for being unproven. "Virtually all companies creating media and technology for the infant and toddler market claim or imply that their products are educational. Clearly, these products have hit a chord with parents, as the popularity of both Brainy Baby and Baby Einstein videos will attest. Yet, none of these companies has actually empirically evaluated the efficacy of their
products..." (p 452)

In other words, prior to this study, Brainy Baby was making unproven claims. What does that say to you about the company?

4) The study was clearly not designed to answer the question I raised (whether Brainy Baby is any better than simply watching PBS and interacting with the child), and did not show Brainy Baby's value. Nor does it prove anything you implied. Here is how the authors describe their controls: "The experimental group video included the novel word and shape crescent; the control group video did not."[b] (p 451)

Since you claim to have a research background, don't you find it problematic that they didn't control for parental interaction -- or other sources of "novel word and shape crescent"? For example, what if I merely used homemade photos of shapes and mouthed the words? Sorry, but the simple control they used merely showed that exposing an infant to shapes and words help them learn shapes and words! In no way does it show that the Brainy Baby system is especially effective.

5) In fact, the authors cited Linebarger and Walker, whose 2005 study supports my claims that PBS programming may be all that is necessary. [b]"They found that at 30 months of age, cumulative hours of watching Dora the Explorer, Blue’s Clues, Arthur, Clifford, or Dragon Tales prior to and at 30 months of age was associated with larger vocabularies and higher expressive language use scores." (p 453)

So if that's true, why should I spend money on Brainy Baby? Which was my original point! PBS is free. Why shouldn't I simply donate that $69 to my local PBS station, which has the potential to help thousands of other children, including poorer ones -- not to mention people of all ages with their Science, Nature and History programs? Indeed, since I was raised on PBS, I've been a PBS donor since college.

6) Furthermore, the authors write that of prior studies, "All consistently find that infants and toddlers learn better from
real-life experience than from video—this has been termed the video deficit effect." (p 453) In other words, why shouldn't I simply show my infant a blue cardboard square than play this video? It takes me about a minute to make a blue square.

7) The authors do point out prior research showing that 22 month olds may be confused by certain TV programs because there is too much stimuli, i.e. music, colors, shapes, etc, instead of focusing one on subject. However, the prior researchers did not use programs that were focused. And parental involvement is important to focusing.

8) The authors clearly admitted the deficits in their study in the "Future Research" section, and they contradict your generalization. They write that "examining the generalizability of the findings beyond the exact representations that were shown on the video (for example, other versions of a shape) will be an important area of future study." (p 461) In other words, their present results can NOT be generalized into learning math, vocabulary, music, etc. They even admit that you can NOT assume that the videos would work for "other versions of a shape." Yet you implied that this study shows the effective of Brainy Baby.

9) And the authors admitted that they did NOT control for parental interaction, which was one of my points. Under the section, "Limitations," they wrote, "We were unable to establish the role of the parent in aiding the transfer of learning from
2-D to 3-D context from the present study... That is, the content may prompt enhanced parental engagement around new materials. This remains an important question to be examined in future research." In other words, it doesn't show that parental interaction using some other media, without Brainy Baby, isn't just as effective.

10) Finally, here is the smoking gun showing your misrepresentation. Under the heading, "The Present Study," the authors write, "The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether toddlers can map a novel label and
point to a novel shape—the crescent—after repeated exposure to a video designed to teach
this shape." (p 456)

This is VERY focused study, designed only to show that video representation of a crescent shape can be mapped to the real word (outside of the video). This study does...
- NOT show that the entire Shapes & Colors program is effective since neither the flashcards nor books were used
- NOT show that the entire system in this Woot is effective
- NOT show that the entire Brainy Baby approach is effective. Indeed, the authors explicitly said that the videos and Brainy Baby's approach were unproven (see #3).
- NOT show that Brainy Baby is any better than FREE approaches like watching select PBS programs with your child, otherwise exposing him/her to shapes, letters, music, etc. Other studies have already shown that some PBS programs do increase a toddler's vocabulary,

One of the exercises I give to my Research Methods students is to have them analyze whether they can tersely summarize what a study proves. And spot what claims the study doesn't prove from a list of multiple choices. You've failed, whether through ignorance, unfamilarity or dishonesty. You claim to be in research, yet you:
a) did not understand or critically analyze what I actually wrote, which is that this system is not worth $69 since the goals can be accomplished easily without it.
b) seemed unfamiliar with the source article. Embarrassingly, you even claimed that Brainy Baby was modest in their claims when the authors said that Brainy Baby was unproven.
c) inappropriately extrapolated, generalized, and misrepresented the actual study and results. This is academic misconduct. I don't know what aspect of academic research you do but I certainly hope it's not in design or analysis.

Your opinion may differ but I certainly don't think it's worth $69 to teach my child to recognize a crescent. I'll stick to PBS and personal parental-child interaction, thank you. Since I'll be busy interacting in other active Woot forums, I will likely not be reading this thread. If you want to contact me with an ACADEMIC rebuttal (since we're both in research, right?), either send a private message or go to an active daily Woot.

No, I will not be contacting you. I will leave you and your intellect to each other for company. There is no need to discuss. You are obviously superior in every way, so I am not going to get stressed over silly things like this.

Unfortunately, you MISS THE ENTIRE POINT! Do you have kids? If this product works, then people should buy it. If you believe it does not, then don't buy it. Keep it simple. You are way over-complicating this!

Relax and enjoy life (and your kids, if you have any).

I can only tell you that the products work wonderfully and regardless of the Study, my kids have learned ABCs, Shapes & Colors and every other academic subject with the teaching methods used in Brainy Baby. None of us need an detailed anaylsis and college thesis on the Study to tell me if it works or not.

Really, get out of defense mode and chill. I think everyone has heard enough.

People.. moms... just buy it if you like it. It works for me, but let your intuition guide you.

Have a good night and I still love you.

sdc100 wrote:You've misrepresented the study published in The Journal of Children and Media, (JOCAM), Fall 2010 (Vol.4, Issue 4) and seemed to have relied mostly on a Brainy Baby press release.

If you want to skip all the minutae, just go to point #10. But since you claim to be in research, you'll probably want to read it all.

Criticisms:
1) The study looked only at the Shapes & Colors DVD -- not this entire system, or any other Brainy Baby DVD. You can NOT extrapolate the results on this single DVD onto any other DVD. Indeed, the processing of shapes and colors is distinctly different from the way babies process language and math. You were implying that studies show their whole approach is effective, never once pointing out that the JOCAM study only looked at one DVD.

2) The JOCAM study did NOT use Brainy Baby's program or approach to learning, merely their DVD as a source of stimuli. Yet you were praising the entire program on the basis of the study. That is academic dishonesty.

3) The authors even explicitly criticized Brainy Baby for being unproven. "Virtually all companies creating media and technology for the infant and toddler market claim or imply that their products are educational. Clearly, these products have hit a chord with parents, as the popularity of both Brainy Baby and Baby Einstein videos will attest. Yet, none of these companies has actually empirically evaluated the efficacy of their
products..." (p 452)

In other words, prior to this study, Brainy Baby was making unproven claims. What does that say to you about the company?

4) The study was clearly not designed to answer the question I raised (whether Brainy Baby is any better than simply watching PBS and interacting with the child), and did not show Brainy Baby's value. Nor does it prove anything you implied. Here is how the authors describe their controls: "The experimental group video included the novel word and shape crescent; the control group video did not."[b] (p 451)

Since you claim to have a research background, don't you find it problematic that they didn't control for parental interaction -- or other sources of "novel word and shape crescent"? For example, what if I merely used homemade photos of shapes and mouthed the words? Sorry, but the simple control they used merely showed that exposing an infant to shapes and words help them learn shapes and words! In no way does it show that the Brainy Baby system is especially effective.

5) In fact, the authors cited Linebarger and Walker, whose 2005 study supports my claims that PBS programming may be all that is necessary. [b]"They found that at 30 months of age, cumulative hours of watching Dora the Explorer, Blue’s Clues, Arthur, Clifford, or Dragon Tales prior to and at 30 months of age was associated with larger vocabularies and higher expressive language use scores." (p 453)

So if that's true, why should I spend money on Brainy Baby? Which was my original point! PBS is free. Why shouldn't I simply donate that $69 to my local PBS station, which has the potential to help thousands of other children, including poorer ones -- not to mention people of all ages with their Science, Nature and History programs? Indeed, since I was raised on PBS, I've been a PBS donor since college.

6) Furthermore, the authors write that of prior studies, "All consistently find that infants and toddlers learn better from
real-life experience than from video—this has been termed the video deficit effect." (p 453) In other words, why shouldn't I simply show my infant a blue cardboard square than play this video? It takes me about a minute to make a blue square.

7) The authors do point out prior research showing that 22 month olds may be confused by certain TV programs because there is too much stimuli, i.e. music, colors, shapes, etc, instead of focusing one on subject. However, the prior researchers did not use programs that were focused. And parental involvement is important to focusing.

8) The authors clearly admitted the deficits in their study in the "Future Research" section, and they contradict your generalization. They write that "examining the generalizability of the findings beyond the exact representations that were shown on the video (for example, other versions of a shape) will be an important area of future study." (p 461) In other words, their present results can NOT be generalized into learning math, vocabulary, music, etc. They even admit that you can NOT assume that the videos would work for "other versions of a shape." Yet you implied that this study shows the effective of Brainy Baby.

9) And the authors admitted that they did NOT control for parental interaction, which was one of my points. Under the section, "Limitations," they wrote, "We were unable to establish the role of the parent in aiding the transfer of learning from
2-D to 3-D context from the present study... That is, the content may prompt enhanced parental engagement around new materials. This remains an important question to be examined in future research." In other words, it doesn't show that parental interaction using some other media, without Brainy Baby, isn't just as effective.

10) Finally, here is the smoking gun showing your misrepresentation. Under the heading, "The Present Study," the authors write, "The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether toddlers can map a novel label and
point to a novel shape—the crescent—after repeated exposure to a video designed to teach
this shape." (p 456)

This is VERY focused study, designed only to show that video representation of a crescent shape can be mapped to the real word (outside of the video). This study does...
- NOT show that the entire Shapes & Colors program is effective since neither the flashcards nor books were used
- NOT show that the entire system in this Woot is effective
- NOT show that the entire Brainy Baby approach is effective. Indeed, the authors explicitly said that the videos and Brainy Baby's approach were unproven (see #3).
- NOT show that Brainy Baby is any better than FREE approaches like watching select PBS programs with your child, otherwise exposing him/her to shapes, letters, music, etc. Other studies have already shown that some PBS programs do increase a toddler's vocabulary,

One of the exercises I give to my Research Methods students is to have them analyze whether they can tersely summarize what a study proves. And spot what claims the study doesn't prove from a list of multiple choices. You've failed, whether through ignorance, unfamilarity or dishonesty. You claim to be in research, yet you:
a) did not understand or critically analyze what I actually wrote, which is that this system is not worth $69 since the goals can be accomplished easily without it.
b) seemed unfamiliar with the source article. Embarrassingly, you even claimed that Brainy Baby was modest in their claims when the authors said that Brainy Baby was unproven.
c) inappropriately extrapolated, generalized, and misrepresented the actual study and results. This is academic misconduct. I don't know what aspect of academic research you do but I certainly hope it's not in design or analysis.

Your opinion may differ but I certainly don't think it's worth $69 to teach my child to recognize a crescent. I'll stick to PBS and personal parental-child interaction, thank you. Since I'll be busy interacting in other active Woot forums, I will likely not be reading this thread. If you want to contact me with an ACADEMIC rebuttal (since we're both in research, right?), either send a private message or go to an active daily Woot.