'Toys' that teach

Do learning systems actually help kids learn? Are there any drawbacks to these toys that you see from the standpoint of an educator? Is it possible, for example, that a child's learning challenge might be overlooked?

The systems really do help kids learn, but they should be used as adjuncts to one-on-one, parent-child learning.

The biggest potential problem is in having parents use these systems as sort of educational babysitters: "Mom/Dad is busy right now, so you work with this for awhile." That can result in missing indicators of learning problems. The parental one-on-one involvement is still very important.

My hunch is that kids who are ADHD (Attention Deficit, Hyperactive Disorder) and need instant feedback may be drawn to these toys like they are drawn to Game Boys and video games. ... For preschoolers, there is nothing that replaces the multi-sensory experience necessary for healthy neural development that comes from open-ended, child-initiated interaction with the environment, (e.g., dramatic play, sand, rice table, water play, unit blocks, manipulative toys). Children have the rest of their lives to sit sedentarily with something electronic in their lap. Preschool is a time for interactive play. The key is that it is initiated by the child, not directed by an adult. That is what "free play" is all about.

Limited creativity [may be a drawback], as is self-initiated play. There is a study that shows that kids who can't entertain themselves as preschoolers by playing with "stuff" are far less creative as adults. There is also social value. Those toys are single play — one kid at a time. Sharing, waiting turns, negotiating are all lost.

There is no human interaction and reinforcement, which is important. The toys also won't detect learning problems, since the child will keep pressing the buttons until the right answer comes up.

If the conditions are right and the child is developmentally ready, yes, it could help him or her learn.

As with any product, there are drawbacks. I borrowed a LeapPad from one of my kindergarten students and spent time today playing with it. This particular student is weak with letter recognition skills [and] that is one of the components he has with this LeapPad. If a child is sent to use the LeapPad for 10 minutes or whatever time a parent deems adequate, that does not guarantee learning will automatically take place.

Depending on the child, the value of the time spent will range from totally awesome to totally worthless. It just depends on where the child is on the "ready to learn" scale. Of course, the learning would be enhanced with parent involvement but again, that doesn't even guarantee 100-percent success with learning.

I think they help in the learning process in that children learn to associate words, sounds, pictures, etc.

[A drawback may be that] they give the parent an overestimation of what the child is actually learning and retaining. It is very easy to overlook learning problems because the program is doing most of the actual "work."

No, I think that these learning systems are good resources to use to reinforce what the child has already learned.

I don't see that these have many drawbacks. There is "no" one perfect learning system out there. If there is not an adult observing the child then, yes, learning challenges might be overlooked.

If they're engaged and they like it, then I think it's a good learning tool.

You might not find out about things like dyslexia, but there's no such thing as a perfect educational tool that will meet everybody's needs. My problem with computerized toys in general is that kids need to be out creating or doing things or socializing, and this keeps them from doing that.

They do help kids learn. What they do is combine a multi-sensory approach. They have the auditory processing (noise, sound), lots of colorful visuals, and the kids also kinesthetically get to touch them. It's a rounded way of grabbing their senses and that's how we all learn: by having an experience by realizing all those senses. Say if it is with the alphabet, or number recognition, or word recognition or comprehension. Some of the systems have stories and they ask comprehension questions, so that's a fun way to learn vs. just sitting and reading a book, or using flash cards. Kids like technology today; they're really into that kind of thing.

Usually these systems are supplemental. I wouldn't suggest that such systems [should] be their only mode of learning. But it is a fun way for them to do drills, and if they have a learning disability, these systems usually keep their attention.

They are motivational because learning is more interesting and interactive than simply studying text. Reading is truly enjoyable with the sounds and positive feedback, especially for preschoolers.

But toys should never be expected to take the place of systematic learning, and certainly should be accompanied by all the necessary assessments for developmental and intellectual learning. The repetitious learning activities of such toys can help to reinforce learning. However, the actual skill should first be introduced and presented in a more traditional setting.

In a sense they help, having a visual of the word and then the audio of hearing it. It can help earlier learners and ESL (English as a Second Language) children begin to remember sounds associated with letters. Children love video games and this can be conceived as a sort of game to be played and can attract younger children.

Some drawbacks to these types of toys are [that non-English speaking kids] often need to hear words to understand them. An electronic/computerized voice is often not as clear and when repeated, it sounds exactly the same. Also, wait time is a big problem; you are supposed to, as an educator, give more than enough time and even context clues to help students understand. Finally, any questions a user might have can not be answered by this inanimate object.

My own children were of the "Speak and Spell" and "Teddy Ruxspin" speaking toys generation and are now in high school. Both these toys got quite a workout by my two. As I walk the lanes in Toys R Us and KB Toys nowadays, I notice a huge jump in the complexity of the computer-enhanced learning environment/interactive toys.

I have a friend who purchased a similar product for her daughter (age 3). The child seems to enjoy using the system, but has had trouble understanding the concept that the book needs to match the cartridge. I think any time a child interacts with his or her environment, learning will occur. These particular products have the "bells and whistles" that can hold the attention of children who would rather be stimulated through some form of video entertainment.

The biggest drawback to these multi-media devices is the loss of the need for an imagination. Printed books with limited illustrations will continue to lose ground to talking picture books, perhaps limiting the development of creative abilities.

I think these tools help children to learn to a certain extent, depending on what you want children to learn. I don't think parents look at these learning toys as a replacement for learning. Rather, I think parents consider such toys as an addition to the learning process. As far as I know, our school doesn't use any of these learning toys.

What is your personal opinion, as an educator, of books that "read" to kids?

They enhance learning and instruction. And they supplement and help the teaching process.

They are great for reinforcement, but we don't want to substitute for a parent reading to the child because that one-on-one involvement allows the parent to see where the child needs extra help, can make the experience more interactive and allow questions, like "What do you think is going to happen next?"

It is nice to have them around because it keeps the children occupied when one is trying to help other children.

There is nothing that replaces a warm lap. There is a huge emotional component that is missing. I did a bunch of literacy research years back. The No. 1 component of literacy in elementary school was being read to in preschool. The emotional component of curling up with a loved one and reading can't be overstated.

I can see both sides of this argument. I am a kindergarten teacher and at first, my students can not read. However, they need exposure to print. They need to hear the context in which words are used. They should be able to listen to a story and at least answer questions about the story if they cannot read. If I had my way, I'd wish that every child would have a parent or learning system read a book a night.

I like books that read to kids. We do have a listening center to use in my classroom. It is a great way to expose children to new vocabulary.

I think they are great with the beginning or struggling reader, but not by themselves. ... None of it is bad, though, when it's paired with other opportunities. I'm big on paper and pencil. It's all part of the reading process.

These are really good. Again, it's the auditory coming with the visual — a multi-sensory approach. That's another method of teaching. Not all kids learn by phonics, not all kids learn by sight recognition, not all kids learn in one way. ... The ideal is for the parent and child to sit together and work with these learning toys, but it isn't a terrible thing if the child works on it alone.

All reading is good reading. Develop an interest young and it will grow. Word recognition is the beginning....

Our school depends on paper and pencils, printed books and great, caring teachers. Maybe that's why our students are ranked in the top of our district.

The online subscriptions to sites such as World Book Online would seem to have more value [than these products] ... Part of me sees overuse of this type of program, though, as just another way to set the child in front of a [computer] screen and hope that something else will do the teaching and interacting so that the parent can do something "more important."