Study Raises Questions About Baby Einstein

With a bend towards art and natural curiosity, the creator of Baby Einstein has spent the better part of the last two weeks defending herself and the idea of Baby Einstein as a recent study disputed the claims that children who watch the videos develop intellectually at a faster rate or to a deeper degree than kids who do not. While the intent of the videos is up for debate, with the creator, Julie Clark, saying increasing how smart a child was, was never the intent, she did wake up to find her mailbox vandalized and spray-painted with 'dumb baby' on the side of it.

While the claim of Baby Einstein was never as an educational tool, parents gobbled up Baby Einstein believing that the videos would aid in the development of their child. That controversy increased when a University of Washington study suggested that videos like Baby Einstein hinder the vocabulary development of an infant. The point of contention between the study and the Baby Einstein creator, Julie Clark is whether the videos as a standalone product will make children smarter. Clark insists that the videos when accompanied by the presence of a parent and communication in the midst of watching the videos will broaden the scope and depth of the child and create an environment of learning that is better than one where toys is more common. The University of Washington study was published in the Journal of Pediatrics. Researchers found that a those children who watched an hour of video per day saw a decrease of 17 percent in language assessments done on kids between 8 and 16 months. They found that kids who watched the videos knew six to eight fewer words out of a list of 90 than children who did not. At the same time, they could not assert that the videos were the definitive reason why. For children aged 17 to 24 months who also watched the videos did not experience a difference the development of their vocabulary. This lack of conclusive detail lies at the root of the problem with the study as well as the furor surrounding Baby Einstein.

Researchers stipulate that further testing should be undertaken to look at the learning capacity of the parents and whether their development in some way has an impact on that of the child. Parents who have lesser education may use the educational toys as a second babysitter for the kids. Without reinforcement from the parents, there is more room for the child to lose principles and learning opportunities those videos like Baby Einstein present.

The baby-brain industry is ripe at sales of over $20 billion annually. With one thousand kids participating in the study, researchers looked at how often infants watch educational DVDs, educational television shows, and non-educational programming. The study purported that the videos were a poor substitute for human interaction. Which no one argues against. The question becomes, are DVDs the best available substitute? According to the general manager of the Baby Einstein Division at Walt Disney who bought the company from Julie Clark, the Baby Einstein videos are about discovery and fostering interaction between parents and their children that will create new ways for children to communicate.

The primary difference between educational videos and educational programming like that of Sesame Street is about learning objectives. On any given weekday, children tune into to Elmo, Big Bird and Ernie talking about either the letter or the number of the day. From a practical standpoint, every segment of the show is built around reinforcing either the letter or the number of the day. If E is the letter of the day, as it was today, August 21, 2007, then they would build the show continually pushing E throughout the program. Cookie monster ate the letter E, after thinking of words like eat and elephant that start with the letter E. At the same time, Count, will have the child ready to count to his heart's content, or at least until they reach the number of the day together. It is this learning objective that separates educational videos and educational programming; at least in the eyes of the researchers from the University of Washington who conducted the study.