Please or to access all these features

Behaviour/development

Talk to others about child development and behaviour stages here. You can find more information on our development calendar.

Any mums here who signed with their babies? I need your input.

105 replies

asmallpoll · 02/02/2006 19:34

Hello.

I have been teaching signing to hearing babies for a little while now.

After a really good start I have found that my numbers have started to dwindle quite alot despite lots of promotion and demonstrations at various meetings and groups.

I found out today that there is a group of mums who frequent the local social circle who have been criticising signing in general saying amongst other things that it delays all speaking in babies and is only for special needs children and no others I live in a semi rural area and word travel fast

What I would like to find out here is what your opinion of baby signing, with hearing children, is? I'm sure there will be a mixture of comments and I would like to show them to mums who come to talks in the future.

I really don?t want to give reams and reams of information from experts which is why it would be interested to hear from you.

All of your opinions would be gratefully received be they positive or negative.

Thank you.

OP posts:
getbakainyourjimjams · 02/02/2006 20:25

asmallpoll- have we talked before? Are you in the SW doing stuff with sure start? I wanted to come to your course if so, but the times were all wrong. I'd still like to take ds3 though so if you have something runing now please let me know the times

starlover · 02/02/2006 20:27

look at i tlike this asmallpoll..... we all love it!

apart from one person whose only reason for disliking it is that she thinks it's a waste of time...
not really constructive critisism is it? and nothing really to do with your problem per se...

not sure how you can change attitudes, though it may be an idea to find out about some of the research done on it and quote this in a little leaflet about signing (saying that it HELPS develop speech etc etc)

jamiesam · 02/02/2006 20:53

Hi asmallpoll

I did tinytalk babysigning with ds2. Ds1 had been quite slow to talk (all completely normal now at 4 and a bit) and as communication (or lack of it) had been frustrating for both of us really, I was keen to do babysigning with ds2. Ds2 was even slower to speak than ds1 but I had sort of expected that and never put it down to babysigning. He's just recently come on leaps and bounds speechwise (2 1/2 now) - he just wanted to do it at his own pace and nobody was going to rush him. He's always found a way to make us understand what he wanted, with or without signing, but with signing I think meant a few less tears of frustration.

Doing babysigning was to some extent 'just another thing to do with the boys', as I took them both along and there was lots of singing and free play and chat, as well as signing. I really enjoyed it and we wouldn't have learnt so much without ds1, he was great at it! I would definitely go again if I had another baby

I hope you have lots of luck with your classes, I'd never hesitate to recommend signing as both fun and functional!

Congrats on starting controversial thread by the way - sadly you did ask for +ve and -ve opinions and haven't you just got them!!!

meggmoo · 02/02/2006 20:57

I think Sl's idea is a good one I'm sure you'll find lots of stuff online about the positives and testimonials.

Where we live the SALT's highly recommend signing. Is it worth chatting to your local one?

poppiesinaline · 02/02/2006 21:00

asmallpoll - sorry to hear your numbers have fallen. I am doing signing with my 3rd baby (didn't know about it until recently) and I think it is fab. He is nearly 10 months and has just started signing back to me. He can tell me when he wants milk, or a drink or when he has finished his meal. I am hoping it will stop all the 'frustration' for him. I wish I could have had this communication with my other two. Could your numbers be dropping also, because there is so much info out there now about baby signing - for example, I used a DVD, I don't have time to go to classes and I know someone else mentioned a book.

WellieMum · 02/02/2006 21:01

Another vote for signing.

I've done a bit of BSL signing with dd (now aged 17 months). It didn't really take over as she started talking very early and seems to prefer to speak rather than sign, but she's found it very useful for some words eg "aeroplane" which she finds hard to say but easy to sign. On the other hand she's never bothered to sign "ball" as it's so easy to say.

So in our experience it wasn't about speaking and signing competing with each other, rather that they're 2 complementary ways of communicating.

No doubt there's an element of fashion in some people's motivation, but I think it's a lovely thing to do.

meggmoo · 02/02/2006 21:06

something to print off
here

FrannyandZooey · 02/02/2006 21:12

Oh I am another who would definitely recommend it. I didn't do a course, just watched the Joseph Garcia video and was hooked. We mixed and matched from the BSL and American signs - just picked the one that seemed simplest for a baby to perform or easiest to remember, or made our own up when appropriate. I loved it, it was so exciting when ds started signing back and making up his own signs. We had a ball with it.

I have fairly strong suspicions that initially his speech was delayed because of it, after all, why have the hassle of learning to speak when mum understands what you are signing? However he quickly caught up with (and sorry to boast but overtook) his peers and now aged nearly 3, his speech is fantastic. The other 2 mothers I know in RK and on here who did it, also have children whose speech is now very advanced. I would do it again in a flash - the look of concentration on his little face when he learnt to sign 'more' - I have photos and will never forget his chubby little fingers forming the shapes

FrannyandZooey · 02/02/2006 21:14

sorry meant to type 'mothers I know in RL' (real life) of course

beansprout · 02/02/2006 21:28

I sign a bit at work and have used it with ds, who, tbh, isn't really up for it so far (15m ). It's a very obvious way of communicating with a baby. We are communicating with them non-verbally from the moment they are born and so signing is just a natural extension of that. To say it is "up itself" is just ridiculous.

hana · 02/02/2006 21:38

haven't signed with dd2 who is 13 months
but I know and she can tell me when she wants a drink, when she is tired, when she wants to read a book, when she wants her nappy changed......I could go on.
I think you can read your child fairly welll without participating in a signing class, but good for those who subscribe to it, to each their own eh?
didn't do signing with dd1 either and her speech and vocab range was excellent from well before 2
some people go swimming
some do music classes
some do baby yoga
etc etc
but I hope you get more signed up to your class, it's all good for you at the end of the day!

Cristina7 · 02/02/2006 21:43

We used signing with our deaf DS from the age of 8 months. His first spoken words came at 14-15 months. Not bad for a hearing baby, let alone a deaf one. So signing definitely didn't hinder his communication. Within the deaf community there's still controversy about whther signing is a good idea or not for people who want their children to be completely oral, but I wouldn't have thought this has any bearing on hearing children. Why would it delay communication? If you can say the words then it's surely easier and quicker to say the words rather than stop doing whatever you were doing, get the other person's attention, look the person in the face, and sign.

getbakainyourjimjams · 02/02/2006 21:49

Wow that is impressive christina. I suppose within the deaf community its more of an issue, as stand alone BSL has a different sentence structure to English. Using something like Makaton though which is used to support speech is less likely to be an issue. I think during that time when there is a lag between understanding and speech using sign can increase expresssive vocab by a huge amount (at least that is true for children with DS - would imagine it would be true for NT children as well, but for a shorter time). Teaching sign will presumably increase joint attention (its much harder to achieve joint attention when signing), something that will only increase speech aquistition.

blueshoes · 02/02/2006 22:13

Tried signing with dd after having been inspired by a book (American). But gave up because dd 10+ months was not taking it on. She just wasn't interested. I thought people did it because it was supposed to facilitate, rather than hinder, speech. As it is, dd's speech is slow to come in. However, she is very good at getting me to do what she wants through pointing and whinging! I probably won't do it for subsequent children unless they get on quite quickly. Otherwise, I would prefer to spend my time in other activities with my child.

Cristina7 · 02/02/2006 22:31

Blueshoes - it took us a few months with both DS (deaf) and DD (hearing) before they started signing back. DD is now 11 months old and has just started signing back last Monday. Of course you adapt your communication to your child, I got on perfectly well with DS and had no idea he was deaf for the first 8 months because we were getting on so well and I could intuitively understand everything about him.

TBH I used to feel mildly irritated that signing has become a fashion as I wouldn't want people to think that knowing a few disparate signs is all it takes to communicate with deaf people. BSL is a language in its own right, not just a bunch of signs for cat, mouse, milk etc. I don't feel so strongly about it now, I got used to the thought and I know that next year or the year after something else will be the "in" thing.

rarrie · 02/02/2006 22:35

Okay, my personal experience is that baby signing has allowed me to communicate with my child in a way that she could never have done verbally. At a year, she was able to sign really complex things like 'washing machine' (she has an obsession for them), 'chickens', 'light' and 'pain'. Some examples of some of the things she was able to sign to me in the days before she was physically able to say the words:

Driving home one night from ILs. She cried. Tried everything to pacify her. Nothing worked. Stopped the car, pulled over asked her what the problem wass. She signed light. Put the light on, she stopped crying. Turned it off (a bit later), she started crying again and so on. Ended up buying a little push button light as we worked out she didn't like the dark! She was just over a year.

Many a night if she work up crying, we'd go in and ask her what the problem was. When she was teething, she'd sign pain, so we'd get the teethas. Give her some, she'd go back to sleep no problem. Other nights, she'd sign nappy or food. Either way, no guess work involved.

At 12 months, my DD could not just sign book, but could even request the specific book she wanted (book + pigs or book + aeroplane!)

According to my book "Children's communications skills" (written for professionals, not parents!) it says that a child typically uses between 50 and 200 words at the age of 2. My DD was using 140 signs and words at the age of 14 months! That means she was able to communicate (although not verbally) on the same level as a typical child almost a year older than her! Now she is two and she has been involved in research for the baby lab in Oxford. When I last took her in, I had to complete an inventory of all the words she uses (according to their criteria) and she had over 500 words at 22 months! (Which, according to my book is typical for a child aged 30 months!).

I am not saying that she would not have been an early talker anyway, but a couple of effects that I noticed, was that as my DD learnt to sign to me more, the more she wanted to "talk", sign and read books. She quickly learnt to ask what the sign was for new words and I found that as she asked what words were, so I would say them more and she would sign them more - simply the words were repeated more / she heard them more and we engaged in communication more. (This is the reason why the national organisation for SLTS think signing may seem to help children's development, not that it physically helps, but that it encourages the carers to slow down what they say and focus what they say to the child).

Most of her early spoken words were her signs, it seemed she started signing, and then it was the signed words that she spoke first. Once those had been mastered, she then went on to use other words.

The best thing about signing is that I was able to get a glimpse into her life in a way that I could never have done without the signs. As I say, she quickly learnt signs for unusual words like washing machines, and would ask to go and see the washing machine... or the chickens at my ILs house... I quickly knew her favourite books, the ones she always asked for. She'd point out things in the street that she found interesting like ladybirds and aeroplanes, words that a 14 month old child would struggle to actually say. To me, knowing my child at that level and really being able to engage in conversation with my child was really worth it...

I think it is the personal stories like these that convince people rather than the facts as it were... most people I know were sceptical when I started, now my family and friends have seen it, most of them would agree that child geniuses aside, the overwhelming majority of children would not be able to say verbally many of the words that my child was able to sign at 12 - 14 months. Quite simply, it does allow your child to communicate at a much deeper level at that age, which IMO, can only be a good thing!!

Oh, and another thing, avoiding the tantrums caused by not communicating has been a blessing.
I HTH!!

ntt · 02/02/2006 22:41

Hey Bundle - if you have any duplicate books, I'll love them too! I'll CAT you!

NottsMum · 02/02/2006 22:59

I did babysigning with DD1 before it was all the rage and it was great to be able to communicate with her when she was unable to speak. She first signed "milk" at 7 months and her most used signs were "more" and "all done" invaluable in all sorts of ways be it a meal time or at play. Signing meant that it really cut down on frustration and she LOVED being able to point out things around her and sign them.

DD2, now 16 months, started signing slightly earlier that DD1. This week she started signing "please" when asking for something. It makes me so proud .

NottsMum · 02/02/2006 23:04

I should have added that DD1's speech was most definitely not put back by her signing, as soon as she could say the word she would drop the sign. She is now a total chatterbox (age 4.5)

DD1 (16 months) currently says 7 words (but not all are clear to anyone but us)We're certainly not concerned about her speech.

NottsMum · 02/02/2006 23:04

That should have read DD2 age 16 months. Doh!

blueshoes · 03/02/2006 09:46

Hi everyone, I am the one who gave up signing with my slow-to-speak dd. Cristina7, I am not discounting the fact that I was looking for results too soon! Agree that baby signing is no way akin to be able to speaking in sign language.

Rarrie, I am most amazed by your signing experience with your dd. I just wonder whether the ability to sign is a developmental thing as much as the ability to speak. My dd's cousin was doing all the things you described of your dd's language at the same age as your dd, but without the boost of signing, much to my chagrin at dd's non-existent acquisition of verbal or signing vocabulary.

It took my dd close to 2 years before she started using single words. One of the reasons I got put off signing a bit was because it built up the hope in me that my dd would start to communicate earlier, which my dd did not realise on the signing or verbal level. I did not want to feel disappointed in her. Just wanted to enjoy her and be patient with her to acquire speech without pushing her. So my philosophy is if it works, great. But if not, there is nothing wrong with my dd if she is more comfortable with her primitive version of pointing/gestures until she is ready to take off on the speech front.

JakB · 03/02/2006 09:50

I signed with my son from 6 months and he used his first sign ('where') at 10 months or so. I was particularly keen for him to pick up Makaton as his sister has autism and learning difficulties and we were trying to teach her signing at the time. He picked up about 30 or so signs by 12 months and used these and a few words from 12 months onwards. He started to drop signs from about 18-20 months as his speech developed but he still signs 'sorry'. I think it helped his communication and helped him feel part of his sister's agenda, which was great.

Hausfrau · 03/02/2006 10:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

asmallpoll · 03/02/2006 10:18

This is getting interesting.

OP posts:
Cristina7 · 03/02/2006 10:31

Hausfrau - i'm v impressed you have level 2 BSL. I agree that learning a bit shows willing as long as the knowledge of a few signs doesn't bring on a patronising attitude (plenty around towards deaf people). A mum I know told me her son knows a few signs and how great it is to use them with DS. My DS was about 4 at the time and a real chatterbox, in spoken, oral language. He can remember a few signs but only a handful. I felt annoyed that she thought a few signs for car and bicycle is all the communication my DS was capable of. There've been other occasions too. That's why I always make the point about BSL being a full language and baby signs are just a tiny, tiny glimpse into the deaf world. In a similar way I used to get annoyed if people commented that my English is better than their Romanian. How is that a compliment when their Romanian is zero? I don't mind this anymore, I accept others are clumsy with words but mean well.