Baby sign success/failure?

[lucyann23]

Hello,

My name is Lucy, I'm a final year English Language student at Newcastle University.

I'm writing my final essay on Baby Sign (or other programs like it such as 'Your Baby can Read') and was wondering if any mums have done or are doing any of these programs that claim to improve your child's intelligence/ability to read/language development?

If so, has it been successful? Unsuccessful? What are your general feelings about things like this? And anything thing else you might have to say!

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks!

I didn't sign with my baby with any intention if improving her intelligence. It did help with communication as she was able to sign long before she could talk. Now, at 18 mo, she appears to be dropping a sign as soon as she can say the word.

I didn't go to classes as I knew makaton already and don't really think that songs are a good way to learn signs. Much better to do it in context. You have to sign a lot for it to be effective and for the baby to learn.

I signed with my son (just a few) in the hope of helping his communication and reducing his frustration but he didn't do any of the signs to me until he spoke and did the two together (aged 2). Grr!

My daughter is 10 months and I'm signing a bit with her. She definitely recognises "milk" but hasn't done anything back to me. I'm probably not very consistent though and should do more. I do know a few children for whom it's been very successful. I don't think it improves intelligence though - it's just a way they can communicate earlier than they can talk.

My DD was taught basic signs (milk, food, sleep, nappy) at her nursery from 6 months and she picked them all up really well and was able to communicate these basic needs to me long before she could speak the words (I think from around 9 months consistently), so I would say I found it really helpful and I'm sure it stopped lots of frustrations for her in getting her needs met quickly.

I have no idea how it has affected her intelligence/language however, as while she does seem ahead of publicised averages in many areas for an 18 month old (particularly language) I have no way of knowing if that is just her natural ability or if it was influenced by the early signing.

Either way I would definitely advocate teaching the basics, they are helpful to both parent and child imo.

my dd 18 months has learnt to say 'yes' 'more' and 'tortoise' (we have pet tortoises!) its helped immensely with her frustrations

I haven't done any of these classes and my 18mo had over 100 words and was starting to put words together not long after. I think other things are more useful in early language development, like reading books and talking at home without having too many expectations.

I'm not saying classes are bad, but the things I do go to are more for me, to talk to other mums, get out of the house etc.

Baby signing is brilliant. I have nearly finished a 6 week intensive course (ie more aimed at teaching the parents - I don't actually take DS with me) and it's made the world of difference.

He's nearly 18m, and hasn't been very verbal - he was always getting frustrated and screeching. He's already using certain signs though, and is less impatient.

Those courses like Your Baby Can Read, though, are TOTALLY different and IMO are aimed at money making and pray on parents' paranoia, and are utter shit. IMO. :o

My sons learned some signs and not-quite-verbal noises as small boys. It really helped to be able to communicate with them and they are both early readers and talkers (esp DS2). But I would say this is a sign of verbal ability rather than because of the signing we did. We didn't do Makaton or anything, just things that came naturally - my mum and I both gesticulate a lot so I probably just did what I normally did - say "hat" while touching head etc.

I think some kids just want to communicate early and so they do - they find a way whether through words or noises or actions. We have a very strong chatty gene.... can you tell by my verbal diahhoreaahghsl in this case?

DS only managed to learn a few signs (we really didn't try hard enough) but he used those signs very often and in the right situations since he was about 15 m old.

The were "give me more", "I want milk", "don't touch" (he was always signing that to me when I started tidying up his toys ) and a special sign he created when he wanted to go to bed.

They were not many, but this basic "talking" was enough for us to understand what he wanted at such early age.

DS was an early reader and is great in maths, but I don't think it was the baby signing, but growing in an environment where 4 languages were spoken.

Specialmagiclady - that's a good point about using gestures to make words easy to understand, I do that alot without thinking of it as signing.

NB. Any comments posted on this thread will form part of research data for my final university essay. All names/usernames will remain anonymous. Data collected from this thread will be able to be read by the essay markers at Newcastle University. If you wish to opt out of the thread, please feel free to delete your comment at any time.

The aim of collecting the data is to gage the response from parents who have used baby sign with their own infants and compare this with academic work to assess the validity of the claims made by baby sign proponents.

Thank you for all your comments.

We use baby sign with our 19mo, and it's helped her enormously with her communication.

But as a PP has said, I did not use it with the intention of increasing her intelligence or getting her a 'head start' in relation to her peers.

We introduced useful signs to help her communicate with us. At 19mo, she now uses a combination of signs and words to get her point across. She appears to be doing fairly well with her speech in comparision to most of her peers, but I have no idea whether this is down to doing baby sign or not. I suspect not.

Another point that is worth raising is that it is possible to introduce baby sign without buying in to anything at all. I was lead by DD as to which signs we introduced, and simply looked online for the sign. As a result, we do have a bit of a weird combo of Makaton/BSL/ASL...but the point was to help DD, so it doesn't matter what sign she uses as long as we understand her.

I might have gone to a Baby Sign class for the social aspect, had there been one nearby...but that's all.

The "My Baby Can Read" thing is entirely different, and aimed at getting your child 'ahead' and developing skills they do not require until they are at school. I wouldn't put it in the same category as baby signing at all.

As everyone else has said, I did baby signing with DS and DD because it was a fun class to do and might possibly help with communication rather than to increase intelligence or anything ridiculous like that. To compare it to "Teach my baby to read" is not comparing like with like.

The class I go to is fabulous and I've met some lovely people there. We both enjoy the singing, we both enjoy the social aspect and if they learned any signs it was a bonus.

DS loved signing. It really helped him to communicate before he could talk properly. He started off signing, then would sign and talk at the same time and then dropped the signing once he was sure of the sound he was making. He had lots of signs and still uses them sometimes.

DD was completely different. She has never really signed apart from "more", but she is extremely verbal and talked very early. I guess she never really felt the need for the signs. But she loves the class so we keep going.

I'm not one of these people who think it is essential or even important for babies to do. I think if you go into it thinking you are going to change your child or it will do x, y, or z then you may be disappointed. It is a fun activity to do with your baby and if you find the right class then you might meet some great friends. Just like most other baby classes e.g. yoga, swimming etc.

The other thing I've noticed is that DS is extremely good at communicating with children who don't have much English for whatever reason (EAL, pre-verbal, delayed speech). I don't know whether this is due to signing but it might be. Perhaps it is because he knows it is easy to communicate without words. Or it could be just him.

(Sorry for the essay)

I've just googled My baby can read. I can't understand what value reading has to a baby. Swimming, yes, communicating with mum and dad yes. Reading, no.

Don't get me wrong, I read early (2) and at 18 I was probably very bright, but it didn't stop me squandering that talent in my 20s. I also had terrible comprehension! There's no point in learning to read beyond the range of books available for your age group!

I am a Speech and Language Therapist and have a 15 month old son. I deliberately avoided Baby Sign classes (too much like work!) but it's an occupational hazard that I use a lot of natural gesture in my every day communication and I found that as he started to move from the prelinguistic stage to using sounds and words with meaning that I automatically started to use some basic signs with him.

His first word was "boo" for boob which was at about 11 months (though not consistent until 12). He was approximating the sign for this word earlier than this.

Here is a list of his current words expressively in speech, sign or speech and sign and in order of acquisition:

boo (11 months) speech and sign - "boo"
no (12 months) sign first, but usually uses speech. Will sometimes now wag finger for effect as well as using a conventional sign.
ball (12 months) speech first, then sign - "baw"
car (12 months) speech "ka" - sign at 14 months
drink (12 months) speech "dik"
light (12 months) sign only
finished (12 months) sign only (now says "dah" as in gone when he signs)
fish (13 months) sign first, then speech "bish"
mama (13 months) speech
dada (13 months) speech
baba (13 months) speech (used in context of "give it to me" e.g. "baba?" with outreached arm and looking at something he wants, or as a comment, e.g. looking at a picture of a baby and saying "baba")
look (13 months) speech/point "look"
bye bye (13 months) - combined speech with wave - bah bah
duck - (13 months) "duk" - started using sign today (15 months today)
this/what's this/that - (13 months) sound plus point e.g. dis? wadis? dat?
aeroplane - (13 months) - sign only has recently added sound "ush" even though we model plane and "nyaow"
train - (14 months) - started in speech as "car" plus train sign. Moved to "t t t t" with sign and is now "ch ch ch ch" and sometimes "choo"
book - (14 months) - initially word, now also using sign "book" or "bookabookabook" which means read me the book vs look at the book
tractor - (14 months) - speech with car sign - "dak" and sometimes "dakdak"
flower - (14 months) sign only
snake - (14 months) - sign and now using "sssss" as sound
crocodile - (14 months) - initially sign, now saying "nap" sometimes with sign, sometimes without
monkey - (14 months) speech first "bunk"/"book" with nasalised vowel, has recently added sign
butterfly - (14 months) - says "butt" and flaps one hand with handshape for butterfly
star - (14 months) says "car" but signs "star"
spider - (14 months) sign
lion (14 months) sign, has now added kkkkkkk as symbolic noise
bee (14 months) symbolic noise "bzzzzz" now using sign in conjunction with it

It is thought that children develop gesture and speech as separate linguistic systems prior to combining words e.g. mama there, dada juice, mama book etc. They can be used interchangeably depending on need so although conventional wisdom is that signs will be "dropped" when a word is acquired that is only true if the word is easily accessible and all the meanings associated with that word that the child wants to convey can be adequately conveyed through speech alone.

So my son still sees utility in signing because it increases his communicative repertoire e.g. he can say "car" and point to convey "car there" and may, in time, go on to say mama but sign book to show that he wants me to read a book. Many children will combine meanings using speech and gesture before they do so in words (without ever having been exposed to sign).

I don't believe that signing will confer any great advantages on my son or, indeed, that his language is "advanced" because we have used it. The RCSLT (my professional body) say there is no evidence for us to recommend it and I can see why. On the other hand, the fact he is using signs is a great source of fun and interest to me (especially as I am interested in these things anyway). I love the fact that he can communicate his thoughts in a way he might not otherwise be able to so I can "see" his thinking. Eg when we were outside a soft play last week, my sister said to him "let's go inside and
see the children playing" and he looked up into the sky and did the sign for aeroplane. If we didn't share a conventional sign for aeroplane, I wouldn't know he had "heard" her sentence in this way but I don't think that he wouldn't have thought exactly the same thing if he had never done signing. I just wouldn't know it!

I think baby signing is useful in developing parents enthusiasm for their children's early attempts at communication and developing an understanding that children can understand more than they can say but may (as in the example above) understand in a different way to what we expect! I expect it can help parents pick up on cues and follow a child's lead in communication e.g. when my son is signing "butterfly" when we read a book where they are just in the background it reminds me to follow his lead and say the word, which is something that is good for language development (conversational copresence). Arguably, however, if we paid as much attention to a point or where a child was looking it would have the same effect. Though I can't help but wonder if the fact you have "done" baby sign adds a novelty value which really reinforces this type of commenting (as well as validating it as a point is a point is a point but different signs show that your child really is learning). This "window" into a baby's learning is good fun and I have found it to be a bonding experience.

Hope this helps! There is a good section on gesture development in Eva Clark's First Language Acquisition which is quite a new book. I think she's Eva!

Oh yeah, and I would have NO interest in programmes like "Teach Your Baby to Read" which is theoretically highly suspect and a load of cobblers. But that's for another day's discussion!

I grew up on 'Teach your baby to read' - my mum gave me the giant orange words when ds was born! Which were a bit mouldy so I chucked them.

I did baby sign because it was nearby and fun, I didn't yet know if ds would have a similar hearing loss to mine (he doesn't), and his auntie and I and some friends sign a fair bit - I don't really sign at home though. Then he loved it and it was actually useful for me as I'm very bad at the coordination to learn signs and it ended up being educational for me!

I don't know if it got ds communicating any earlier, as he didn't speak or sign (other than 'dada' and pointing, er, pointedly) until 18mo, but then exploded into both speech and sign (over 200 words and 40 signs by 23 months, which I know as I wrote them down, being a bit of a linguistics geek), and nursery and childminder kept going on about how impressive his vocab was and how clearly he spoke.
I suspect that's because he had to enunciate clearly for me to understand him - there was 6 months or so when he signed a lot with his speech, and between the two I could understand him, so I think the signs certainly helped reduce frustration for a few months.

It's a shame they only run classes with very basics up to age 2 or so, as now ds is really into signing songs etc and would love a class with children his age. Still, it helps him bond with his autistic auntie who signs a lot as she says it's less stressful than talking, and is still useful practice for me for doing more signing with deafer friends.

Notcitrus, that's really interesting about your ds's autistic auntie. I am doing my MSc on gesture comprehension in adolescents with autism and language disorders - the theory (which I don't believe will be true for all, but may be true for some) is that individuals on the autistic spectrum may find that when others gesture it impedes their ability to process speech e.g. because it gives them two things to concentrate on at once vs one. But it sounds like this auntie (your sister? your dp's sister?) prefers it as a modality to speech.
If she is your sister, did you sign at home - did she learn it through you/is she also hearing impaired? Just interested!

Auntie isn't actually related, and not deaf - I think she learnt sign at university. She's hugely intelligent in purely intellectual ways, but has the same fears, obsessions and bizarre logic as a toddler - this is really apparent at the moment as ds and dn are 2 and get on really well with her and she's a great babysitter, but I worry that they're not going to get on as well when the kids are bigger. Though she says her autism isn't typical, whatever that means - maybe just that she is intelligent and able to get a degree etc?

I know quite a few people with Aspergers/autism (not to mention HoH/deaf people who often are assumed to because of similar traits like preferring direct and written communication) and several have learnt sign and find it easier - I was told it's more 'sensible' and visual? I'm pretty sure they use it with speech rather than separately as I was wondering whether some were signing as a more socially-acceptable version of hand-flapping gestures.

My sign is pretty poor ( did stage 1 BSL, then a term of s2,had to quit as my hands hurt too much, and I'm crap at following movements at that speed), and very SSE as all the people I sign with nowadays have English as their first language so I lapse into lipreading most of the time.

Your research sounds really interesting - would love to read your thesis!

OP - local babysign group made no claims at all about improving babies' intelligence, only that it could help communication before a child is usefully verbal and would definitely be a lot of fun for parents and kids alike, and that was certainly true! I think I was more upset when ds was too old than he was!

Thank you for all comments so far, any other opinions will be very welcome!

Many thanks