Early academics - contrary to the fast-track mentality of preschools, toy companies, tutoring programs and Tiger moms everywhere - might actually hamper learning. Despite the heavy emphasis on the ABCs and 1-2-3s, there are hints young children benefit more from less structured, less academic learning environments where they are free to explore, create and basically solve problems. Benefits range from self-control, working memory, curiosity and creativity if not outright academic achievement.
Consider a 2007 study of at-risk children published in Science that directly linked a play-based program, Tool of the Mind, to improved executive function (e.g, self-control, working memory), skills critical to future academic achievement and perhaps even more important general life success. Research directly comparing a play versus academic curriculum is difficult to pull off for a variety of logistical and methodological reasons so the evidence on that front remains all too limited or mixed for easy conclusions.
Does traditional teaching hamper curiosity? In a 2011 study in Cognition, researcher Elizabeth Bonawitz and colleagues at MIT took on this very question. They had an experimenter show kids a toy with four tubes. With one group of kids, the experimenter acted as if she'd stumbled upon the toy by accident and didn't know a thing about it saying "I just found this toy!" After pulling a tube, the toy squeaked and the experimented acted surprised. For the other group of kids, the experimenter brought out the toy as if part of a lesson plan and taught them how to make it squeak minus any spontaneity or surprise. Then the kids in both groups were left with the toy. The good news, all of the kids pulled the first tube but the bad news, the kids in the last group played with the toy for less time and discovered less about the toy. The direct teaching approach limited attempts to learn more about the toy and its hidden features. Hence, here's a lesson in how to make kids less interested and engaged.
Does traditional teaching make kids less creative too? UC Berkeley neuropsychologist Alison Gopnik and colleagues wondered if traditional teaching would also make kids seek fewer creative solutions and ran a study similar to the one above. This time the experimenter showed 4-year olds a toy that played music and demonstrated a series of actions that either made the toy play or remain silent. She ran through the same sequences for all kids but for one group she played teacher and for the other, clueless observer ("I wonder how this works?"). When she played stupid kids found the better, shorter ways to get the toy to play. In contrast, kids in the first group imitated "the teacher" and were less likely to discover the faster solutions. Not only did direct teaching hamper curiosity but also creative new solutions.
And we're not just talking sapped creative juices here. This emerging research implicates critical thinking, discovery, curiosity and creativity, in other words, the pursuit of science. Gopnik, author of The Scientist in The Crib, sees kids engaged in play as mini-scientists gathering data, testing hypotheses and making causal inferences. She argues play-oriented, non-direct learning not only mimics science but promotes scientific thinking.
Go ahead donate or recycle those flash-cards but this doesn't necessitate discarding all the traditional teaching just yet.
True direct teaching provides fast information and facts. As any third-grade parent knows, there comes a time when kids simply must commit the multiplication table to memory. Curiosity coupled with a healthy number sense and plentiful play with blocks, balloons, cheerios or whatever simply cannot replace knowing 7x8. There is a time and place for teacher-directed learning even rote memorization.
The debate over traditional teaching versus play or open-ended discovery hardly ends in preschool or even childhood for that matter. The terminology or context may change but plenty of college administrators and employers worry about the lack of curiosity and critical thinking skills among college graduates today. Young adults are going to need all the intellectual curiosity and fortitude they can muster if knowledge is but a click away and getting a job means either inventing one or otherwise putting that knowledge to use in a creative manner. Preschool, in comparison, begin to look like mere child's play.
For more about early academics see my previous post, Debunking Head Start and Early Childhood Interventions.
This post is part of the first ever Evidence-Based Parenting Blog Carnival hosted this month by Alice Callahan on her blog Science of Mom . We've gathered up a collection of posts on preschool from a diverse group of bloggers who all, gasp, write about parenting from a scientific perspective. Be sure to check Alice's blog for an eloquent case for evidence-based parenting in addition to a brief summary of the other posts. We're going to make this a regular event, perhaps monthly and are gearing for another carnival the beginning of May. I'll let you know the topic soon.
Here's a list of the carnival posts:
The Early Education Racket (Melinda Wenner Moyer)
Preschool Should Be Less School and More Play? (Momma Data)
Preschool at Home? Let the Children Play! (School of Smock)
Mixed-Age Preschool: Benefits and Challenges (Science of Mom)
Picking a Preschool (Momma, PhD)
On parenting (and teaching) in the name of science (Jeanne Garbarino)Universal Prekindergarten: Evidence from the Field (Six Forty Nine)
What Can We Learn from a Single Preschool Study? (Red Wine and Apple Sauce)
Preschool, Shmeeschool (Fearless Formula Feeder)