Linda C. Mayes

Of the childhood development books I've read, this is at once the most promising and the most disappointing. Why promising? Because the authors have a veritable lab of children whom parents turn over to them for study. If true that with observation and rational analysis facts can be learned, these researchers should be able to present clearly reasonsed and practically supported information and further theory.

Sometimes, they do.

Why disappointing? Here are some examples: "And a child will learn to write letters, even rudimentary ones, if he has been exposed to letters", in other words, it has been theorized and observed that this is a common human experience. Then, the authors immediately follow with "(i)t is not always possible, however, to accelerate a child's fine motor skills with a stimulating environment because a little body needs first to become physically capable of each task." What does "it is not always possible" mean? When and where? And if we learn through repetition, when and where (and why, if known) is this not applicable? Another example: The authors agree with the accepted theory that children experience (i.e. learn) much of their world orally, yet explain infants' constant mouthing of hands as "obviously a preparation for feeding herself." Obviously? Entirely and only?

Common complaint: Give me just a little data!!!! I realize this book is for the lay parent, but lay does not equal incapable of rationality.… (plus d'informations)