No, an iPad App Can't Teach Your 2-Year-Old to Read
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder pushes back against parents and marketers who claim apps can teach toddlers to read.
Key Takeaways
- Two-year-olds can't read - Developmentally, toddlers aren't ready for reading instruction regardless of the medium
- Apps exploit parental anxiety - EdTech companies market to parents' fears about their children falling behind
- Human instruction is irreplaceable - When children are developmentally ready, they need human teachers, not screens
Transcript
Can a $500 a month iPad app teach your two-year-old to read?
Of course not, but that didn't stop this company from launching with that promise, only to quickly realize, okay, no, we can't actually teach two-year-olds to read with any reliability.
Two-year-olds vary too much, and really most kids are not ready to learn to read at two years old.
But that did not stop lots and lots of people from lining up to pay 500 a month for an ipad app and i just have to kind of shake my head at this and wonder what is the psychology behind putting a device in your kid's hand at an even younger age and thinking you know what would be great for my kid is more screen time you know what would be a great way for me to teach my kid to read is for me to not have to look them in the eye and talk to them and instead for them to be looking at a screen and like here's the thing i'm sure your kid can learn to read while looking at an ipad like i'm sure They will eventually get it.
I don't think they'll get it any faster because it's on an iPad, and they certainly won't get it any faster because you're paying $500 a month.
I think that's just an intelligence test that parents are failing.
I think the key ingredient in teaching a kid to read is teaching them.
and especially teaching them phonics.
And some people can learn to read without phonics, but especially if you're taught phonics, you can learn to read at a very early age.
I was personally taught by my mom with little bread bag tags like that with the letters and sounds written on them.
You don't need any fancy technology to learn to read.
And there's no evidence that using fancy technology makes things any faster.
We have to wonder like, what's the absolute rush here?
Like even if it does make it faster, which it doesn't, would it be worth sticking an iPad into kids hands and removing yet another source of human interaction from their lives.
Like I just think the promise and the psychology that we're getting from these people who claim to be disrupting or reinventing education, like people who also demonstrably hate teachers, who are angry at teachers for holding them back all those years and like look back on their own childhood with bitterness that like, oh, if only I'd been able to go at my own pace.
They're bringing that with them into their development work and into their companies saying to themselves, you know what would be great is if more kids could learn alone on computers.
Wouldn't that be great if we could take more kids out of their interaction with their peers, out of their class, or maybe they're in a class, but they're like focused on a computer alone and moving at their own pace.
Like I think as a profession, we need to say, education is not moving at your own pace on a computer.
That is not what education is.
Now, certainly you can read a book, you can study a subject independently if you want to, but that is not what it means to get an education.
I think education is a human process that needs to remain a human process.
And again, if you want to do independent study on your own, if you want to research a topic, learn a topic, read a book, absolutely go for it.
But let's not pretend that that is any substitute for human interaction.
And when we're talking about teaching very young children to read, it's certainly not better.
Let me know what you think.