chapter
stringlengths 1.97k
1.53M
| path
stringlengths 47
241
|
|---|---|
Peripersonal Space
Throughout the first few months, infants move their limbs frequently (driven initially by reflexes and later by self-initiation) and as they do, they come into contact with their body and various objects and people around them. While these early movements may not seem important, they are actually a way for infants to begin to learn about themselves and the world around them.
Developing a sense of our body is an essential prerequisite for our interactions with the world. Sensing our body entails knowing where our limbs are in space and time, being aware of how fast or how far our limbs can move, or even knowing how much space our body occupies in our environment. Peripersonal space is defined as the space surrounding the body where we can reach or be reached by external entities, including objects or other individuals. Knowing the limits and extent of our peripersonal space is fundamental for navigating our social and physical world, and for situating and orienting ourselves in everyday activities. [1] [2]
With every touch of their body and surrounding areas, infants are receiving feedback that informs them about their posture, any changes in limb position and about contact with themselves or other surfaces, thereby allowing them to discover knowledge of not only their limbs and their range of motion, but also an understanding of their peripersonal space. These self-generated movements, as infants move their limbs freely, provide a foundation for exploratory behavior and build a basic understanding of body representation and of the world (Hoffmann, 2017). Touches to the body in particular provide information about the limb posture in space, the part of the limb making contact with the body, and the body area being touched (Rochat & Hespos, 1997). [1]
Research that has studied young infants exploring peripersonal space through touch have found that infants produce nearly 200 contacts on their bodies and the surrounding surface area in a 10 minute time period and touch as many as 18 different areas, mainly their upper body and the floor (DiMercurio, Connell, Clark & Corbetta, 2018). Infants also spent about 50% of that time moving their arms in the air, going from one place of contact to another. Figure \(2\) maps the frequency of touches to various areas of the body and surrounding surface area from one infant. The blue dots are contacts performed by the infant’s right hand, the red dots are contacts performed by the infant’s left hand. Such touching is fundamental for developing an early sense of the body and for discovering the boundaries of the peripersonal space in which future developing goal-directed actions will take place. In fact, other research has found that greater arm movement in early infancy is related to larger increases in language and cognitive abilities (Shida-Tokeshi et al., 2018). Together, this research suggests that infants are active explorers of their peripersonal space and that these early self-generated sensorimotor experiences form the critical foundation from which future motor behaviors and knowledge of the world develop. [1]
To support the exploration of peripersonal space, infants need time and space to freely move and explore with their limbs. Caregivers can ensure that infants have ample time lying comfortably on their backs on floors to support limb movement. Young infants also need space without the consistent overcrowding of play objects or frequently being placed in an activity gym device. Additionally, infant swings, car seats and many other devices limit limb movement and therefore restrict exploration of peripersonal space. To freely move their limbs, infants need clothes that allow for full-range reaching (compared to clothes or swaddles that reduce limb movement). Realizing how important it is for infants to explore their peripersonal space, caregivers should be cognizant of the significance of providing the time and space for infants to move their limbs as they learn about their bodies and the surrounding surface areas.
[1] DiMercurio et al., (2018). A naturalistic observation of spontaneous touches to the body and environment in the first 2 months of life. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2613. CC by 4.0
[2] Rabellino et al., (2020). Peripersonal space and bodily self-consciousness: Implications for psychological trauma-related disorders. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 1256. CC by 4.0
[3] Image from Alex Bodini on Unsplash.
[4] Image adapted from DiMercurio et al., (2018). A naturalistic observation of spontaneous touches to the body and environment in the first 2 months of life. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2613. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/06%3A_Motor_Development/6.03%3A_Developing_a_Sense_of_Peripersonal_Space.txt |
Emmi Pikler and Magda Gerber
The research on the importance of peripersonal space supports some of the methods Emmi Pikler and Magda Gerber touted; however, their influence on the field of early childhood education goes much further and continues to inform current practices in infant and toddler care and development, especially motor development.
Pikler was born in 1902 and spent her early childhood in Vienna. She obtained her medical degree in 1927 and became a pediatrician. Later she founded the Pikler Institute in Budapest in 1946, which she headed until 1979. Pikler believed that infants should be put on their backs until they can themselves move into different positions. By being on their back, she argued infants learn about their bodies and how to move their bodies as they reach, bend and touch while playing with various movements (Gonzalez-Mena, 2014). Importantly, an infant’s movements are driven by their own internal motivation to move. Pikler advised caregivers to not place infants on their stomachs until they move themselves into that position (Tardos, 2010). Her observations and years of work with children informed her belief in allowing children the freedom of self-initiated movement. [1]
Although Pikler’s work provides various principles to learn from (Chahin & Tardos, 2017; Gonzalez-Mena, Chahin & Briley, 2005; Tardos, 2010) here are four core principles: [2]
• Deep respect for the child and their individuality, recognizing them as an individual with rights rather than as an object.
• Promotion of the child’s autonomous activity, based on their own initiatives.
• The importance of the bond between the adult caregiver and the child, based on a respectful and affective relationship in quality moments of care.
• Respect for the child’s freedom of movement, for playing and exploring their peripersonal space and surroundings.
Magda Gerber was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1910. Inspired by Pikler, Gerber earned a Master's degree in early childhood education in Budapest and in 1945 she began working with Pikler at the Pikler Institute. Overtime, Pikler became Gerber's mentor and friend. In 1978, Gerber and Thomas Forrest co-founded the non-profit organization Resources for Infant Educarers (RIE) in Los Angeles to further their work with families and child care professionals. At RIE, Gerber taught caregivers to observe infants and toddlers as they played, while a facilitator modeled how and when to intervene. [4]
The basic principles of the RIE approach are (Gerber & Johnson, 1998): [4]
• Basic trust in the child to be an initiator, an explorer, and a self-learner.
• An environment for the child that is physically safe, cognitively challenging and emotionally nurturing.
• Time for uninterrupted play.
• Freedom to explore and interact with other infants.
• Involvement of the child in all care-giving activities to allow the child to be an active participant rather than a passive recipient.
• Sensitive observation of the child in order to understand her needs.
• Consistency and clearly defined limits and expectations to develop discipline.
RIE's mission is to improve the lives of infants and young children through respectful care. Gerber believed that infants and toddlers are whole, competent beings from birth and should be treated as such. Gerber wrote "We not only respect babies, we demonstrate our respect every time we interact with them. Respecting a child means treating even the youngest infant as a unique human being, not as an object" (Gerber, 2002). [4]
As you reflect on the ideas and principles from Pikler and Gerber, consider these questions:
• Do you agree or disagree with their ideas and principles?
• How do their ideas and principles challenge common advice and caregiving practices about supporting infant and toddler motor development?
• In your experience working with infants and toddlers, have you seen their ideas and principles implemented?
• What does respecting an infant and toddler look like?
• What are the benefits and challenges caregivers and group care programs could experience when implementing their ideas and principles?
[1]Emmi Pikler” on Wikipedia is licensed under CC by SA 4.0
[2] Dalledone & Coutinho (2020). As contribuições da abordagem Pikler-Lóczy para a constituição de uma pedagogia para os bebês: Uma análise dos princípios orientadores. Zero-a-seis, 22(41), 47-72. CC by 4.0
[3] Photo by lucia vichi is licensed under CC by SA 4.0
[4]Magda Gerber” on Wikipedia is licensed under CC by SA 4.0
6.05: Motor Development Trends
Trends
The physical bodies of infants and toddlers show common growth trends and these trends relate to motor development. There are two important trends: cephalocaudal and proximodistal. The cephalocaudal trend acknowledges a top-down growth trend. For example, infants may use their upper limbs before their lower limbs. The proximodistal trend, on the other hand, acknowledges growth from the center of the body outwards. For example, infants use their arms before they can use their fingers effectively.
Resources on infant and toddler development sometimes mistakenly reference cephalocaudal and proximodistal trends as principles (i.e., Gonzalez-Mena, 2014). The reason they are trends and not principles is that they only describe what typically happens (a trend) as not all infants show motor development that exactly follows these trends. For example, research has shown that some infants will reach for and interact with objects using their feet before they are able to do so with their hands (Galloway & Thelen, 2004; Heathcock & Galloway, 2009), which does not follow the cephalocaudal trend. Figure# is a picture of an infant using both feet to interact with a book while being read to by a caregiver. [2]
[1] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by NC 4.0.
[2]Cephalocaudal trend” from Wikipedia is licensed under CC by SA 4.0. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/06%3A_Motor_Development/6.04%3A_Pikler_and_Gerber.txt |
Two Types of Motor Development
Motor skills are often broadly divided into gross motor and fine motor skills. Gross motor skills pertain to skills involving large muscle movements, such as independent sitting, crawling or walking. Fine motor skills involve use of smaller muscles, such as grasping, object manipulation, or drawing. [1]
Motor Milestones
Infants and toddlers are constantly learning about the world as they experience it and actively engage with it during the first three years of life. Milestones represent what most children (75% or more) can do by specific ages. This chart represents the new and improved milestone charts provided by the CDC in 2022 with substantial evidence-based updates. These milestone charts are meant to prompt surveillance and conversation and, if needed, identification and early intervention. The CDC adopts a proactive stance—we should take action early when developmental concerns arise rather than the perspective of waiting to see if a child “catches up”. While children do develop at individual paces, being proactive during these critical early years is essential (Morgan et al., 2021; Noritz et al., 2013). The chart below lists milestones that, if children are not achieving by specific ages, caregivers should encourage parents to communicate with their family’s pediatrician. Most caregivers are not professionally trained to officially assess the developmental abilities of children; however, caregivers have the ability to track developmental progress and are often the first to notice developmental concerns. Here is a table of some of the motor milestones for infants and toddlers.
Motor Milestones
Age
What Most Children Can Do By Each Age [3]
2 months
● Hold their head up when on their tummy.
● Move both arms and both legs.
● Open hands briefly.
4 months
● Hold their head steady without support while being held.
● Hold a toy when placed in their hand.
● Use their arms to swing at toys.
● Bring their hands to their mouth.
● Push up onto their elbows/forearms when on their tummy.
6 months
● Roll from tummy to back.
● Push up with straight arms when on their tummy.
● Lean on their hands for support when sitting.
9 months
● Stand while holding on for support.
● Can get into a sitting position.
● Sit without support.
● Pull up into a standing position.
● Crawl.
12 months
● Pull up to stand.
● Walk, holding on to furniture.
● Drink from a cup without a lid, as you hold it.
● Pick things up between thumb and pointer finger, like small bits of food.
15 months
● Take a few steps independently.
● Use fingers to feed themselves some food.
18 months
● Walk without holding on to anyone or anything.
● Scribble.
● Drink from a cup without a lid and may spill sometimes.
● Feed themselves with their fingers.
● Try to use a spoon.
● Climb on and off a couch or chair without help.
24 months
● Kick a ball.
● Run.
● Walk (not climb) up a few stairs with or without help.
● Eat with a spoon.
30 months
● Use their hands to twist things, like turning door knobs or unscrewing lids.
● Take some clothes off independently, like loose pants or an open jacket.
● Jump off the ground with both feet.
● Turn book pages, one at a time, when you read with them.
36 months
● String items together, like large beads or macaroni.
● Put on some clothes independently, like loose pants or a jacket.
● Use a fork.
Motor Development Concerns
The motor milestones from the CDC are based on data from infants and toddlers in the U.S., which may not accurately represent the motor development of children from other countries (Karasik, Tamis-LeMonda, Adolph & Bornstein, 2015). Figure 6.6.2 is based on research conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group, & de Onis, 2006). It presents windows of achievement for six gross motor development milestones based on infants and toddlers from five countries: Ghana, India, Norway, Oman and the USA. The six milestones in the chart are sitting without support, standing with assistance, hand and knees crawling, walking with assistance, standing alone and walking alone.
Based on the research, there are a few findings worth noting:
• In general, there is a common order in achieving these milestones. First children are able to sit without support, then achieve standing with assistance, followed by walking with assistance which then leads to standing alone and lastly walking alone.
• The one milestone that did not always follow the general order was hand-and-knees crawling. Sometimes children would crawl on their hands and knees before being able to stand with assistance.
• 4.3% of infants did not exhibit hand-and-knees crawling at all—they skipped this milestone and went straight into walking.
• The windows of achievement overlap—Figure \(2\) clearly depicts this. The start of each window of achievement for every milestone does not begin near the end of the previous milestone window, but rather begins near the beginning of the previous milestone window. This overlap acknowledges the wide age variability of infants and toddlers achieving these milestones.
• The length of each milestone window varies across the motor skills. Walking alone and standing alone have the longest achievement window, suggesting that these two abilities have the most variability in age of achievement. For example, some children began walking alone around eight months of age, while others did not achieve this milestone until after seventeen months of age. On the other hand, sitting without support and standing with assistance showed the two most narrow windows of achievement, suggesting that these two abilities have the least variability in age of achievement.
Motor Milestone Chart Limitations
Gross motor milestone charts, while important, do not capture the complex developments that lead up to achieving specific milestones. Take for example the process to be able to sit independently. The ability to maintain balance in the sitting posture gradually emerges between 2 and 9 months of age (Butler et al., 2010). When infants are 5 to 6 months old, they are able to ‘prop sit’ or sit independently for short periods (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2003). At 6 months, hip joint mobility increases, allowing the thighs to rest on the contact surface and the infant is able to sit with their legs in a ring position (Bly, 1994), i.e., symmetrically flexed, abducted with externally rotated hips and flexed knees. Between 8 to 9 months, the trunk and pelvis muscles stabilize the sitting position, allowing the infant to narrow the support base for balanced independent sitting (Harbourne, Lobo, Karst & Galloway, 2013; van der Fits et al., 1999). After being able to sit independently, infants learn to perform a coordinated action between upper limbs, trunk and lower limbs as they are able to use their lower body to balance as they reach with their upper limbs (Rochat & Goubet, 1995). Thus, unlike milestone charts that simply show sitting to occur, sitting without support is a process that takes place over many months and involves a complex interplay between various muscles that prepare for the eventual achievement of sitting. [5]
Another limitation of motor milestones is that they convey the idea that once an infant performs a motor milestone, like walking, that the infant has fully achieved this milestone. The reality is that motor development involves numerous bouts of successes and failures with each milestone ability. An infant that successfully walks once, may fall the very next attempt. Karen Adolph and her colleagues (2012) have documented the number of steps and falls toddlers have as they learn to walk. Toddlers between 12 to 18 months of age take an average of 2,368 steps in just one hour and cover a distance of 701 meters—the length of almost eight football fields! This is just one hour; multiplying these numbers by the total number of hours toddlers are awake is even more eye-opening. In six hours, a toddler could accumulate around 14,000 total steps and cover the distance of 46 football fields! Despite these infants clearly being able to walk, they also continue to fall. In fact, the average toddler fell seventeen times each hour, one toddler even fell sixty-nine times in one hour.
Every day, infants are practicing various motor skills and body positions. For example, Figure \(5\) provides insight into the various motor behaviors and body positions from one 10 month old infant. While the majority of time was spent in a seated position (40.5%), the infant was consistently practicing various other positions, frequently rotating between them.
Gross Motor Development
In the process of gross motor development, the first mobility that infants usually acquire is crawling. There are different types of infant crawling (see Figure \(6\) for a depiction) such as belly crawling and hands-and-knees crawling (Patrick, Noah & Yang, 2012). Belly crawling is the action in which infants move by pulling the body along the ground on the abdomen. Hands-and-knees crawling means moving by lifting the abdomen up on both arms and knees. Some infants experience both belly crawling and hands-and-knees crawling, others experience only hands-and-knees crawling (Kalmar, 2017). Previous studies have explored a relationship between belly crawling and hands-and-knees crawling: infants who formerly belly-crawled showed more proficient hands-and-knees crawling than those who skipped the belly crawling period (Adolph, Vereijken & Denny, 1998). Infants who spend a greater amount of awake time in the prone position (abdomen on ground, such as during tummy time) achieve hands-and-knees crawling at an earlier age (Davis, Moon, Sachs & Ottolini, 1998). [9]
Tummy Time.
Tummy time describes the times when a caregiver places an infant on their stomach while the infant is awake and someone is watching. Tummy time is not only an important way to prevent flat spots on a baby's head, it is also an important part of a baby's normal growth. In fact, tummy time is positively related to overall gross motor development (Buchanan et al., 2021; Carson et al., 2022; Hewitt et al., 2020). Tummy time is especially important for infants who are at risk of motor delays and/or who have a motor-related disability (Uzark et al., 2021; Wentz, 2017). While tummy time is supported by many professionals and well-respected organizations, there are arguments against the necessity of the practice (see Gerber & Johnson, 1998). [1]
Tummy time is important for many reasons:[12]
• Tummy time helps prevent flat spots on the back of an infant’s head.
• Makes neck and shoulder muscles stronger so infants can start to sit up, crawl, and walk.
• Improves infant motor skills.
Infants benefit from 2 to 3 tummy time sessions each day for a short period of time (3 to 5 minutes). As they grow and show enjoyment of tummy time, the length of the sessions can be increased. As infants grow older, more tummy time helps build strength for sitting up, rolling over, crawling, and walking. [12]
Tummy Time Tips: [12]
These suggestions can help make tummy time more enjoyable:
• Spread out a blanket in a clear area of the floor for tummy time.
• Try short tummy time sessions after a diaper change or after an infant wakes from a nap.
• Put a toy or toys within an infant's reach during tummy time to help them learn to play and interact with their surroundings.
• Have an adult be in the infant’s field of view during tummy time to encourage interaction and bonding.
• As an infant gets older, tummy time sessions can last longer, and can take place more often throughout the day.
Gross Motor Development: Postural Affordances
Postures—the particular body and limb configurations used at any moment—mediate motor development in meaningful ways (Rochat & Bullinger, 1994). For example, the acquisition of each new posture provides a unique lens through which infants can view the world as they accrue a range of motor possibilities for moving about and physically interacting with the environment (e.g., Adolph, 2008; Thurman & Corbetta, 2019). [14]
Depending on the motor skill level and posture used, physical interactions with objects can be facilitated or reduced. For example, when sitting, infants’ hands are free allowing them to manually manipulate and explore objects in sophisticated ways ( Lobo & Galloway, 2013; Lobo et al., 2014; Rochat, 1989; Soska & Adolph, 2014; Soska, Adolph & Johnson, 2010). When in a prone position (lying abdomen down), however, infants are limited to using one hand to lift their torso up off the ground, while using the other to reach out for an object, which greatly reduces the range of actions (Rocha & Tudella, 2008). In older infants, crawling and walking positions have different affordances. During crawling, infants are less likely than walking infants to carry objects (Karasik et al., 2012). In comparison, when walking, infants’ hands are free to interact with objects in complex ways and the change of position opens up a new field of view for further exploration. Thus, each posture provides unique affordances on how the body can be used (Adolph, 2008). Consider Figure \(9\) which shows an image of an infant holding an object with one hand while using the other hand for balance. In which ways does the infant’s current crawling posture afford and restrict how the infant can explore the object? If the infant transitioned into a standing or walking position, how would the affordances and restrictions change? [14]
Postures can also alter the stability of the body, the demand of attentional resources, and what can be perceived in the surroundings (Franchak, Kretch & Adolph, 2018; Kretch, Franchak & Adolph, 2014). Certain postures and their relative stability can even influence the use of the limbs and hands. For example, transitioning from sitting to crawling, and from crawling to walking affects the way infants use their arms for reaching and retrieving objects (Corbetta & Bojczyk, 2002; Corbetta & Thelen, 2002). Unstable postures often require more of the infants’ effort for balance such as when the hands are needed to hold onto surfaces during cruising (Berger, Chan & Adolph, 2014), or when the hands may be needed to balance the body when standing is a new motor skill still being learned (Ledebt, 2000). When the hands are used for balance, they are less likely to be used for holding and exploring objects. [14]
Thus, research has shown that postural progression and postural control can influence infants’ experiences with objects, people, and their wider environments. Infants’ expanding repertoire of postural skills as they acquire locomotor skills, affects their manipulatory behaviors and interactive activities with objects in their surroundings. [14]
Gross Motor Development: Environmental Affordances
Think about the physical environment where you live, how does the furniture influence where and how people stand and sit, where eating takes place, the posture and arrangement people are in when socializing, how objects like televisions, windows or fireplaces influence the structure and positioning of furniture which results in how and where people sit and orient in the room, etc. Just as the physical environment is important for considering how adults sit, stand and move about in a space, the physical environment for infants and toddlers affords various physical movement possibilities.
The theory of affordance (Gibson, 1950; 2014) represents an important theoretical framework for considering the environment’s role in supporting and encouraging physical development in infants and toddlers. In this theory, the physical environment is believed to afford or allow the child possibilities and actions. The characteristics and features of the indoor environment can therefore be hypothesized to influence children’s gross motor development. The affordances of the physical environment are what the environment offers the child. For example, a toddler’s classroom’s affordances are the physical size of the classroom, the toys and materials available, the number of peers for potential play partners, and adults who set up the play environment, ensure its overall safety, manage the day-to-day operations, and interact with the children. [17] [18]
Let’s look again at the gross motor windows of achievement for six gross motor milestones chart again (Figure \(12\)). The six milestones in the chart are sitting without support, standing with assistance, hand and knees crawling, walking with assistance, standing alone and walking alone.
For each milestone, how could the physical environment support and encourage the infant or toddler as they progress toward achieving a specific milestone? For example, consider the milestone of standing with assistance, what role could the environment have? As the child is not yet able to stand independently, they are taking advantage of structures in the environment that afford assistance in getting into a standing position and remaining upright. Therefore, structures that allow a child to hold onto and pull up are important, as are structures that can be used for support to remain standing. When an environment includes structures at a low height, it supports a child's progress toward achieving this milestone. If an environment only has high structures built for adults, the motor and movement possibilities for a child are more limited.
Caregivers should consider how both the indoor and outdoors environments afford infants and toddlers the opportunity to practice and challenge their current motor skills safely. As caregivers observe and reflect upon the motor development progress of infants and toddlers they should consider how to modify the environment to continue to support and encourage motor development. For example, for infants practicing standing with support, caregivers should ensure there are structures that can be used to help infants pull themselves up and offer continual support at an appropriate height. Outside, is the play equipment age-appropriate and supportive of gross motor development? Figure \(13\) shows two angles of the same play structure geared for toddlers. Considering the construction of it, what elements are there that can support the developmental progression of toddlers’ gross motor skills? While parts of the structure may be challenging for some toddlers, what elements are built in to support toddlers as their gross motor skills improve?
Fine Motor Development
Fine motor skills involve more exact movements of the feet, toes, hands, and fingers. While fine motor skills are slower to develop (in accordance with the proximodistal trend), remarkable progress is made in fine motor development during the first two years. In just the first few years of life, children go from having no intentional fine motor control to being able to manipulate objects to play and learn, as well as beginning to take care of themselves. [22]
Just as with gross motor milestones, there are complex developments that lead up to achieving specific fine motor milestones. Take for example the fine motor milestone of grasping an object. Reaching to grasp an object, which could be perceived as a relatively simple action, requires a complex compilation of smaller abilities working synchronously together. Successful reaching to a stimulus, whether it is located on the body or in external space, typically involves the coordination of at least two different action systems: reaching and grasping (Jeannerod, 1996). Effective reaching requires individuals not only to extend their hands to the location of an object, but to also open and orient the hand to prepare to grasp the specific object. Developmentally, research indicates that the reaching system develops before grasping (Piaget, 1952; Bruner, 1973), reflecting a proximodistal sequence in the development of grasping (Lockman & Ashmead, 1983). For example, before 4 months, infants develop the ability to extend their hand to the location of an object (Bruner & Koslowski, 1972; Piaget, 1952), but during this period the hand is often fisted when it contacts the object. By 4 months, however, infants begin to open the hand in advance of contacting the object. Likewise, with regard to self-touch, closed hand contacts prevail in the first 2 or 3 months, and open hand contacts begin to increase in frequency between 3 and 5 months (Thomas, Karl & Whishaw, 2015). [23]
Even after infants achieve the ability to reach for and grasp an object, there is still further development in this milestone that occurs. There is an improvement in reaching kinematics as 6 month-old infants develop a straight arm trajectory accompanied by fewer movements (Von Hofsten, 1991). During this phase of reaching development, there are many factors that influence arm trajectory; however, the development of postural control for maintaining stability during reaching is one of the most significant (Bertenthal & Von Hofsten, 1998). Since reaching requires “whole body engagement” (Rochat & Goubet, 1995), its achievement is highly dependent on posture. At about 3 months, when arm extensions are being replaced by goal directed reaches but upright sitting is not mastered, infant reaching is better with external support. As infants generate the ability to sit independently, reaching becomes more coordinated and they can use their body to balance as they reach outward. [24]
Development of Grasping
The development of grasping is an important part of fine motor development. As infants and toddlers develop, they progress through different types of grasps. Children are born with a palmar reflex grasp. It is an involuntary reflexive response present in newborns, but begins to appear around 16 weeks gestation (Sherer, 1993). To elicit the reflex, a caregiver can use their finger to stroke the palm of the infant. The palmar grasp reflex comprises two phases: finger closure and clinging. The infant's fingers undergo flexion to enclose the examiner's finger and the pressure applied to the palm produces traction on the fingers' tendons, leading to the clinging action. The thumb is not involved in this reflex. The palmar grasp reflex disappears typically by six months of age, signifying healthy brain maturation and is replaced by the development of voluntary grasping (Schott & Rossor, 2003). The palmar reflex probably serves to create a basic motor pattern that lays the foundation for obtaining later grasping ability. Additionally, it creates interaction and bonding between the infant and the caregiver. [26]
The palmar reflex grasp is replaced by the ulnar grasp, which is a “clumsy motion in which an infant’s fingers close against the palm” (Berk & Meyers, 2016). The ulnar grasp typically develops around 3 to 4 months of age and increases infants’ ability to explore objects. As infants learn to sit independently, both hands are freed up to explore objects; therefore around 4 to 5 months of age infants are able to transfer objects between their hands. The pincer grasp is when the pointer finger and the thumb squeeze together to grasp an object. Infants are usually able to perform a pincer grasp by the age of 9 to 10 months (Sgandurra et al., 2012). With each change in grasping ability, infants are able to interact with different objects and in new ways. For example, the ulnar grasp only allows for larger objects to be held onto while the pincer grasp permits an infant to pick up smaller objects.
To support infants, caregivers should carefully observe infants’ grasping progression and provide materials that can easily be manipulated based on their current grasping techniques. Active object exploration emerges around 3 to 6 months of age with the onset of reaching and grasping (Lobo & Galloway, 2008; Rochat, 1989; Ruff, 1984). At 6 months of age, infants spend the majority of their time mouthing and grasping objects and this sharply declined with concurrent improvements in complex manual exploratory behaviors such as fingering, transferring, and rotating objects (Belsky & Most, 1981; Ruff, 1984). As a result, caregivers should provide young infants with materials that they can easily grasp onto and that are safe for mouthing. Once infants begin to sit and develop more complex grasping techniques, such as the ulnar grasp, caregivers should provide materials that are more complex in design characteristics, but still light, easy to hold in one hand, easy to transfer between hands and safe for mouthing. [28]
Infant exploratory behaviors are influenced by object properties including size, shape, texture, and weight of objects. Infants change their grasping patterns depending on object size—smaller objects are grasped unimanually and larger objects are grasped bimanually. Research has demonstrated variations in infants’ grasping patterns based on object structure, such as two-handed grasps for larger objects and pincer grips for smaller and softer objects (Newell et al., 1989; Newman et al., 2001). Additionally, 12 to 14 month old infants showed appropriate, anticipatory changes in grasp formation based on object shape and size (Barrett, Traupman & Needham, 2008; Fagard, 2000). Nine to twelve month old infants explored object properties such as shape, size, and texture by rotating, fingering, and transferring objects, whereas they explored properties such as weight, sound, and rigidity by banging and shaking objects (Ruff, 1984). This research suggests that with older infants, caregivers should provide materials that are more complex in design and diverse in characteristics such as size, shape, texture and weight. As older infants use their developing grasping abilities to explore materials, caregivers can continue to observe how they interact with the materials, and provide materials based on what characteristics infants seem most interested in exploring. [28]
Figure \(17\) shows various manipulative objects: A) cardboard tube; B) wood clothes pin; C) metal jar lid; D) plastic bottle lid; E) cork; F) plastic hair curlers; G) wood ring. As you look over the objects, consider which objects would best support the different grasping abilities of infants? For infants using a ulnar grasp, which objects would be best to share with them? For infants using a pincer grasp, which objects would be best to share with them? How might the physical properties of each object change how the infants explore them?
[1] Gonzalez et al., (2019). Do gross and fine motor skills differentially contribute to language outcomes? A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2670. CC by 4.0
[2] Image by krakenimages on Unsplash.
[3] CDC’s Developmental Milestones by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is in the public domain.
[4] Image from the WHO is in the public domain.
[5] Sato & Tudella (2018). Influence of sitting positions and level of trunk control during reaching movements in late preterm and full-term infants. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 6, 185. CC by 4.0
[6] Image from Juan Encalada on Unsplash.
[7] Image from julio andres rosario ortiz on Unsplash
[8] Image adapted from Franchak et al., (2021). A contactless method for measuring full-day, naturalistic motor behavior using wearable inertial sensors. Frontiers in Psychology, 4632. CC by 4.0
[9] Yamamoto et al., (2021). The applied ability in infant crawling and the importance of prone motor experience for subsequent development. Preprint. CC by 4.0
[10] Image from Xiong et al., (2021). Measurement and analysis of human infant crawling for rehabilitation: A narrative review. Frontiers in Neurology, 1747. CC by 4.0
[11] Image adapted from Yamamoto et al., (2021).The applied ability in infant crawling and the importance of prone motor experience for subsequent development. Preprint. CC by 4.0
[12]Babies need tummy time!” from NICHD is in the public domain.
[13] Image from Minnie Zhou is on Unsplash.
[14] Thurman & Corbetta (2019). Changes in posture and interactive behaviors as infants progress from sitting to walking: a longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 822. CC by 4.0
[15] Image by Minnie Zhou on Unsplash.
[16] Image from Jen Theodore on Unsplash.
[17] Sando (2019). The physical indoor environment in ECEC settings: Children’s well-being and physical activity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(4), 506-519. CC by 4.0
[18] Stanton-Chapman & Schmidt (2021). How do the children play? The influence of playground type on children’s play styles. Frontiers in Psychology, 4337. CC by 4.0
[19] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
[20] Image from the WHO is in the public domain.
[21] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
[22]Child Growth and Development” by College of the Canyons, Jennifer Paris, Antoinette Ricardo, and Dawn Rymond is used under CC BY 4.0.
[23] Chinn et al., (2019). Development of infant reaching strategies to tactile targets on the face. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 9. CC by 4.0
[24] Rachwani et al., (2015). The development of trunk control and its relation to reaching in infancy: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 94. CC by 4.0
[25] Image from the CDC is in the public domain.
[26] Anekar & Bordoni (2020). Palmar grasp reflex. StatPearls. CC by 4.0
[27] Images adapted from Unsplash, Pixabay and the CDC all are in the public domain.
[28] Kaur et al., (2015). Atypical object exploration in infants at-risk for autism during the first year of life. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 798. CC by 4.0
[29] Assortment of wooden objects by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
[30] Various manipulative objects by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/06%3A_Motor_Development/6.06%3A_Gross_and_Fine_Motor_Development.txt |
Culture and Childcare Practices
Despite a common sequence of motor skill acquisition, there are individual differences in age for the acquisition of motor skills, highlighting the importance of the physical environment and caregiver practices. Ever since milestone charts attempted to document what “normal” ages to achieve motor milestones are, variation in type and timing of motor development have been reported (Karasik et al., 2015). For example, motor development in non-Western countries was found to differ from Western norms and these differences were related to differences in caregiving practices (Adolph et al., 2010; Cintas, 1995; Karasik et al., 2015). Even within the ‘Western world’, there is cultural variability in the timing of motor milestone attainment (e.g., De Kegel et al., 2013; Steenis et al., 2015; WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group and de Onis, 2006). [1]
Differences in cultural beliefs and caregiving practices lead to differences in when children achieve motor milestones (Oudgenoeg-Paz, Atun-Einy & van Schaik, 2020). For example, there are differences between Dutch and Israeli caregivers in their beliefs about motor development (Van Schaik et al., 2018), such that Israeli caregivers attribute more importance to encouraging motor development in the “right” order and obtaining expert advice. Dutch caregivers, on the other hand, attribute greater importance to letting children follow their own pace in motor development (Van Schaik et al., 2018). Studies show that motor development of Dutch children is delayed compared to children in other western countries, including Israel (Shapira & Harel, 1983; Steenis et al., 2015). [3]
The body of cross-cultural research further supports the perspective that motor development is not a universal process—the social and physical environment has a significant role. For example, practicing standing and sitting, and applying massage or stretching of the limbs is common in African and Caribbean cultures but less common in Western cultures (Adolph et al., 2010; Super & Harkness, 2015). [5]
In Tajikistan and other parts of Central Asia a traditional caregiving practice involves “gahvora” cradling. Children from birth to 20 months of age are bound on their backs in a tightly wrapped swaddle with arms extended along the sides of the torso and legs straightened and tied together for more than 20 hours per day for some children (Karasik et al., 2018). Infants are not unwrapped for feeding because mothers lean over the cradle to breastfeed and they are not removed for toileting because infants urinate through an external catheter and defecate through a hole in the bottom of the cradle. [6]
According to the prevailing view among pediatricians and psychologists, severe movement restriction in infancy could have deleterious effects, especially across the first two years of ife, a critical period in children’s health and development (Cunha, Leite & Almeida, 2015). For example, the extended and abducted position of the legs, especially in the first few months, could lead to hip dysplasia or pigeon-toed gait (Clarke, 2014; Van Sleuwen et al., 2007). Extended time in the supine position could lead to brachycephaly (flattening of the back of the head (Graham et al., 2005; van Vlimmeren et al., 2017). Restricted movement—especially in older infants—could delay development of postural and locomotor skills (Adolph & Robinson, 2015). [6]
As Figure# shows, younger infants spent more hours in a gahvora than older toddlers; however, twenty percent of older infants (12 to 24 month olds) continued to be cradled for more than 15 hours per day. It is important to note that in Tajik families, children are prized and the center of family life. Tajik caregivers responded immediately to vocalizations from their cradled infants by feeding them, rocking them, or singing to them. Mothers, grandmothers, aunts, neighbors, and older siblings were available, interchangeable, and responsive and Tajik children of all ages, including siblings and village children, surrounded the gahvora and interacted with the infant. [5] [6]
One value of a cultural approach is the discovery of new phenomena that challenge widespread assumptions about caregiving practices and the “natural” course of child development. Cultural beliefs, customs, and practices, geography, climate, and village resources compel caregivers to find ways to keep their children healthy and safe. Gahvora cradling is a widespread cultural practice throughout Tajikistan and presumably other parts of Central Asia. Yet, the practice flies in the face of Western norms, theories, and even WHO standards. As caregivers of infants and toddlers, it is essential to be aware of and respect cultural differences in caregiving practices. [6]
[1] Oudgenoeg-Paz, Atun-Einy & van Schaik (2020). Two cultural models on infant motor development: Middle class parents in Israel and the Netherlands. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 119. CC by 4.0
[2] Image from Nathan Dumlao is on Unsplash.
[3] Oudgenoeg-Paz, Atun-Einy & van Schaik (2020). Two cultural models on infant motor development: Middle class parents in Israel and the Netherlands. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 119. CC by 4.0
[4] Image from Annie Spratt on Unsplash.
[5] Oudgenoeg-Paz, Atun-Einy & van Schaik (2020). Two cultural models on infant motor development: Middle class parents in Israel and the Netherlands. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 119. CC by 4.0
[6] Karasik et al., (2018). The ties that bind: Cradling in Tajikistan. PloS One, 13(10), e0204428. CC by 4.0
[7] Cradle Hours and Infant Age from Karasiket al., (2018). The ties that bind: Cradling in Tajikistan. PloS One, 13(10), e0204428. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/06%3A_Motor_Development/6.07%3A_Individual_Differences-_The_Role_of_Cultural_Childcare_Practices.txt |
Mother Development and Other Developmental Domains
While motor development is often presented as an individual chapter separate from other developmental domains (e.g., language, social-emotional, cognition) the reality is that children’s motor abilities are developing alongside these other domains and growth in one domain often influences the other domains. Motor skills are at the core of infants’ and toddlers’ everyday actions and interactions and consequently affect subsequent perceptual, cognitive, and language development (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1993; Gibson, 1988). Piaget (1952) suggested a relation between motor and cognitive development and noted that infants’ own actions and resulting sensorimotor experiences are critical for their learning about the environment and the objects within it. Since Piaget’s original observations, several studies have reported evidence for relations between motor skills and development in seemingly unrelated domains. [1]
Growing evidence suggests that acquiring more advanced control over body position affords infants' opportunities for learning and exploration (Franchak, 2020; Gibson, 1988; Libertus & Hauf, 2017). For example, infants' visual experiences differ according to body position: while prone, infants' field of view is dominated by the ground surface and objects near the body, whereas upright infants have a more expansive view of their surroundings that includes distant objects and faces (Franchak et al., 2011, 2018; Luo & Franchak, 2020; Kretch et al., 2014). Sitting facilitates visual and manual exploration of objects compared with laying prone or supine (Luo & Franchak, 2020; Soska & Adolph, 2014). Upright locomotion (walking) compared with prone locomotion (crawling) allows infants to travel farther, more easily carry objects, and elicits different social responses from caregivers (Adolph & Tamis-LeMonda, 2014; Gibson, 1988; Karasik et al., 2014). Accordingly, learning to sit and walk is linked with downstream improvements in language learning and spatial cognition (He et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2019; Oudgenoeg-Paz et al., 2012, 2015; Soska et al., 2010; Walle, 2016; Walle & Campos, 2014; West et al., 2019). Presumably, these facilitative effects result from infants spending more time sitting, standing, and walking. For example, mastering the ability to sit independently nearly doubled the amount of time that 6 month olds spent sitting (both independent and supported sitting) in daily life compared with 6 month old not yet sitting (Franchak, 2019) and infants who spend more time sitting have increased opportunities to explore objects with both hands. [2]
Developmental Cascades Theory
The developmental cascades hypothesis emphasizes the consequences following achievement of new motor skills as a driving force during development. Developmental cascades refer to the cumulative consequences of advances in one domain (e.g., motor skills) on later behaviors or abilities (Fry & Hale, 1996; Gottlieb, 1991; Masten & Cicchetti, 2010). Gaining a new skill leads to significant and long lasting changes in the child’s everyday experience by altering what kind of information is accessible and how others respond to the child. According to the developmental cascades theory, the onset of a new motor skill may provide infants with access to new learning opportunities associated with that motor skill. For example, being able to sit without support frees the hands for manual exploration of objects and enables learning about object features such as weight, texture, and function (Lederman & Klatzky, 2009; Rochat & Goubet, 1995). Sitting also frees the hands for the production of communicative gestures, which have been found to support language development (Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 2005). Further, sitting changes the infants’ point-of-view, providing novel perceptual experiences and encouraging face-to-face exchanges with their caregivers. And finally, parents react to changes in infants’ abilities and adjust how they respond to the child (e.g., Karasik et al., 2014). [1]
Relationship Between Motor Skills and Language Development
While motor and language development may seem like two very different developmental areas, research has shown, within the first three years of life, that these two areas are strongly related (Schneider & Iverson, 2021). Infants and toddlers who achieve motor milestones earlier show greater language abilities. For example, in a large group of children between 10 to 14 months of age, some will be walking while others will not yet be able to walk. Children who begin to walk earlier have larger receptive and productive vocabularies than those who are not yet able to walk (Carina, Leinweber & Ritterfeld, 2019; He, Walle & Campos, 2015; Walle & Campos, 2014). The onset of independent sitting and walking have both been found to predict later productive vocabulary sizes between 16 and 28 months (Oudgenoeg-Paz, Volman & Leseman, 2012). This relationship between motor development and language development actually begins even earlier. Infants, between 3 to 5 months of age, who can independently sit earlier than others, show greater language abilities as toddlers (Libertus & Violi, 2016). A large study of 62,944 children found that motor skills at 18 months were predictive of subsequent language skills at 36 months of age (Wang, Lekhal, Aarø & Schjølberg, 2014). In addition to gross motor skills, fine motor skills between 12 and 18 months of age have been found to predict expressive language at 36 months in infants at a high genetic risk for ASD (LeBarton & Iverson, 2013). [1]
Why is there a relationship between motor abilities and later language abilities? It is unlikely that the acquisition of walking per se causes infants to develop language, just as it is unlikely that infant language causes the onset of walking. Rather, the onset of walking increases the infant's visual field (Kretch et al., 2014) and permits greater flexibility with which to view the environment (Frank et al., 2013). These physical changes may promote infant following of adult attentional cues, and thereby facilitate language learning. Engaging in joint attention behavior is essential for the development of language (Tomasello, 1988, 1995). Such episodes of joint engagement occur when one individual directs the attention of another to a shared referent, such as an object or event. Multiple studies have found that infant following of adult attentional cues is related to language development (Brooks & Meltzoff, 2005; Morales et al., 1998; Mundy et al., 1995; Smith et al., 1988; Tomasello & Todd, 1983). Likewise, infant initiation of joint engagement, such as pointing, is associated with later language development (Brooks & Meltzoff, 2008; LeBarton et al., 2015). Perhaps not surprisingly, infant joint attention, particularly following adult gaze, also develops markedly following the infant's first birthday (Morales et al., 2000; Morissette et al., 1995), when infants typically begin to walk. [3]
Furthermore, infant walking also has a significant impact on how the infant engages with the caregiver. Walking infants have been observed to be more likely to access objects located further away than crawling infants (Clearfield, 2011; Karasik et al., 2011). Additionally, engaging in mobile bids for the parent's attention, such as carrying an object to the parent, elicits more interactive, and verbally rich responses by the parent and such bids are more frequent by walking than crawling infants (Karasik et al., 2014). Walking infants have also been found to direct the parent's attention to objects using vocalizations and gestures more than crawling infants (Clearfield et al., 2008; Clearfield, 2011; Karasik et al., 2011). These findings indicate that not only may the walking infant be more attuned to follow adult attentional cues, but they also help to generate social contexts in which they themselves elicit parent attention. The onset of walking affords infants new ways to communicate (freeing the hands for gesture and by being able to carry move objects) and share their interests which results in richer language from caregivers (West & Iverson, 2021). [3]
Relationship between Motor Skills and Developmental Delays and Disabilities
As motor development can be tracked early on in infancy and toddlerhood, motor skills can be used as a potential early marker for later outcomes in children at-risk of a delay or disability (Bhat et al., 2012; Flanagan et al., 2012; Lebarton & Iverson, 2013; Libertus et al., 2014). Research has found that delays in motor development are linked to diagnoses such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and developmental language disorders (Leonard & Hill, 2014; West, 2018). Infants at high familial risk for ASD (infants, who have an older sibling with an ASD diagnosis) and who receive an ASD diagnosis later in childhood, show reduced fine motor and grasping skills (Choi, Leech, Tager-Flusberg & Nelson, 2018; Libertus et al., 2014) and delayed development of posture skills (i.e., sitting and standing) (Nickel et al., 2013). More children with a developmental language disorder are late in reaching gross and particularly fine motor milestones, than children without a developmental language disorder (Diepeveen et al, 2018). Motor delays are also commonly reported in children with Down syndrome (Vicari, 2006), Williams syndrome (Masataka, 2001) and in children born preterm (Cameron et al., 2021; Caravale et al., 2005; van Haastert et al., 2006). [1] [4]
[1] Libertus & Violi (2016). Sit to talk: relation between motor skills and language development in infancy. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 475. CC by 4.0
[2] Franchak et al., (2021). A contactless method for measuring full-day, naturalistic motor behavior using wearable inertial sensors. Frontiers in Psychology, 4632. CC by 4.0
[3] Walle (2016). Infant social development across the transition from crawling to walking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 960. CC by 4.0
[2] Libertus & Landa (2014). Scaffolded reaching experiences encourage grasping activity in infants at high risk for autism. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1071. CC by 4.0
6.09: Conclusion
Conclusion of Motor Development
Motor development is an amazing domain to learn about because growth in motor abilities can be easily observed by caregivers and provides unique insight into children’s developing understanding of the world. As motor abilities progress, caregivers have an important role in supporting children by providing materials and creative physical environments that both support and challenge developing skills. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/06%3A_Motor_Development/6.08%3A_Motor_Development-_Relation_with_Other_Areas_of_Development.txt |
Introduction to Sensory and Perceptual Development
Sensory and perceptual development is a crucial aspect of development that often gets overlooked. Our sensory system begins to form in utero and continues to develop through adulthood. It is important to note that genetic, environmental, and stress factors can affect the sensory system. We have the eyes (sight), ears (sound), nose (smell), tongue (taste), touch (skin), and two other less well-known but equally important ones, vestibular (inner ear) and proprioceptive (large muscle groups).
7.02: What is Perception
Perception
Perception refers to the process of taking in, organizing, and interpreting sensory information. Perception is multimodal, with multiple sensory inputs contributing to motor responses (Bertenthal, 1996). An infant's turning his head in response to the visual and auditory cues of the sight of a face and the sound of a voice exemplifies this type of perception, "the fact that the senses provide overlapping information . . . is a cornerstone of perceptual development" (Bahrick, Lickliter, & Flom 2004).[1]
As infants develop increasing motor competence, they use perceptual information to decide which motor actions to take (Adolph & Joh, 2007). For example, they may adjust their crawling or walking in response to the rigidity, slipperiness, or slant of surfaces (Adolph, 1997). Motor movements, including movements of the eyes, arms, legs, and hands, provide most of the perceptual information infants receive (Adolph and Berger 2006). Young children's bodies undergo remarkable changes in the early childhood years. In describing this development, Adolph and Avolio (2000, p.1148) state, "Newborns are extremely top-heavy with large heads and torsos and short, weak legs. As infants grow, their body fat and muscle mass redistribute.[1]
In contrast to newborns, toddlers' bodies have a more cylindrical shape, and they have a larger ratio of muscle mass to body fat, especially in the legs." These changes in weight, size, percentage of body fat, and muscle strength provide perceptual/motor challenges to infants as they practice a variety of actions (Adolph & Berger, 2006). This dramatic physical development occurs within the broad context of overall growth. As infants master each challenge, their perceptual and motor behavior reflects their social environment.[1]
The extent and variety of infant perceptual and motor behavior are remarkable. Infants and toddlers spend a significant part of their days engaged in motor behavior of one type or another. By three and a half months of age, infants have made between three and six million eye movements during their waking hours (Haith, Hazen, & Goodman, 1988). Infants who crawl and walk have spent roughly half of their waking hours involved in motor behavior, approximately five to six hours per day (Adolph & Joh, 2007, p.11). Daily infants who are walking ". . . take more than 9,000 steps and travel the distance of more than 29 football fields. They travel over nearly a dozen different indoor and outdoor surfaces varying in friction, rigidity, and texture. They visit nearly every room in their homes, and they engage in balance and locomotion in the context of varied activities" (Adolph & Berger, 2006, p. 181).
Early research in motor development involved detailed observational studies that documented the progression of infant motor skills and presented an understanding of infant motor behavior as a sequence of universal, biologically programmed steps (Adolph & Berger, 2006; Bertenthal & Boker, 1997; Bushnell & Boudreau, 1993; Pick, 1989). In comparison, current research in motor development often emphasizes action in the context of behavior and development in the perceptual, cognitive, and social domains (Pick, 1989). In particular, contemporary accounts of infant motor development address (1) the strong relationship between perception and action (Bertenthal 1996; Gibson 1988; Thelen 1995), (2) the relationship between actions and the environment (Gibson 1988; Thelen 1995), and (3) the importance of motives in motor behavior, notably social and explorative motives (von Hofsten 2007). How these developing behaviors and abilities play a role in the social/emotional aspects of the child's life and functioning, such as forming early relationships and building an understanding of others, is noteworthy.[1]
The current view suggests that thinking about perceptual/motor development includes infants and toddlers with disabilities or other special needs. Children whose disabilities affect their perceptual or motor development still want to explore and interact with the people and environment around them. Although the perceptual and motor development of children with disabilities or other special needs may follow a pathway that differs from typical developmental trajectories, sensitive and responsive caregivers can provide alternative ways in which to engage children's drive to explore, building on their interests and strengths and supporting their overall physical and psychological health.[1]
For years, researchers, educators, and early childhood professionals have emphasized the interrelatedness of the developmental domains. Current research supports an even greater understanding of the relatedness and dependence of factors, domains, and processes in development (Diamond 2007). The developmental domains are linked with factors such as culture, social relationships, experience, physical health, mental health, and brain functioning (Diamond 2007). In the case of perceptual and motor behavior, Diamond (2007) has observed that perception, motor behavior, and cognition occur in the context of culture, emotion, social relationships, and experience, which influences physical and mental health and overall health brain functioning. Bertenthal (1996) has proposed that perception and motor action are interrelated rather than autonomous processes. They may be best viewed as different components of a system. Common behaviors such as reaching and turning the head for visual tracking illustrate the interrelatedness of infant development's motor, perceptual, cognitive, and social-emotional domains. Even as very young infants, children are highly motivated to explore, gain information, attend, and engage in their physical and social environments (Gibson 1987). As Gibson (1988, pg. 5) explains, We don't simply see, we look. "Research by Berthier (1996, 811) indicates that "infant reaching is not simply a neural program that is triggered by the presence of a goal object, but that infants match the kinematics of their reaches to the task and their goals."
Perception and motor action play a key role in children's experiences and psychological processes (Thelen 1995). They also contribute to human psychological development since, ultimately, "behavior is movement" (Adolph and Berger 2005,p 223), and psychology can be defined as the study of human behavior. It has been proposed that infants' use of social information to guide their motor behavior in physically challenging or unfamiliar situations provides an excellent means to study infant social cognition (Tamis-LeMonda and Adolph 2005).[1]
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Perceptual and Motor Development . Is used with permission. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/07%3A_Sensory_and_Perceptual_Development/7.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Overview of Sensory Development
As infants and children grow, their senses play a vital role in encouraging and stimulating the mind and in helping them observe their surroundings. Two terms are essential to understand when learning about the senses. The first is sensation, or the interaction of information with the sensory receptors. The second is perception or the process of interpreting what is sensed. Someone can sense something without perceiving it. Gradually, infants become more adept at perceiving with their senses, making them more aware of their environment and presenting more affordances or opportunities to interact with objects.[1]
Vision
What can young infants see, hear, and smell? Newborn infants' sensory abilities are significant, but their senses are not yet fully developed. Many of a newborn's innate preferences facilitate interaction with caregivers and other humans. The womb is a dark environment void of visual stimulation. Consequently, vision is the most poorly developed sense at birth. Newborns typically cannot see further than 8 to 16 inches away from their faces, have difficulty keeping a moving object within their gaze, and can detect contrast more than color differences. If you have ever seen a newborn struggle to see, you can appreciate the cognitive efforts being made to take in visual stimulation and build those neural pathways between the eye and the brain.
Although vision is their least developed sense, newborns already prefer faces. When you glance at a person, where do you look? Chances are you look into their eyes. If so, why? It is probably because there is more information there than in other parts of the face. Newborns do not scan objects this way; rather, they tend to look at the chin or another less detailed part of the face. However, by 2 or 3 months, they will seek more detail when visually exploring an object and begin showing preferences for unusual images over familiar ones, for patterns over solids, faces over patterns, and three-dimensional objects over flat images. Newborns have difficulty distinguishing between colors, but within a few months, are able to distinguish between colors as well as adults. Infants can also sense depth as binocular vision develops at about 2 months. By 6 months, the infant can perceive depth in pictures (Sen, Yonas, & Knill, 2001). Infants who have experience crawling and exploring will pay greater attention to visual cues of depth and modify their actions accordingly (Berk, 2007).[1]
Hearing
The infant's sense of hearing is very keen at birth. The ability to hear is evidenced as soon as the 5th month of prenatal development. An infant can distinguish between very similar sounds as early as one month after birth and can differentiate between a familiar and non-familiar voice even earlier. Babies who are just a few days old prefer human voices, they will listen to voices longer than sounds that do not involve speech (Vouloumanos & Werker, 2004), and they seem to prefer their mother's voice over a stranger's voice (Mills & Melhuish, 1974). In an interesting experiment, 3-week-old babies were given pacifiers that played a recording of the infant's mother's voice and of a stranger's voice. When the infants heard their mother's voice, they sucked more strongly at the pacifier (Mills & Melhuish, 1974). Some of this ability will be lost by 7 or 8 months as a child becomes familiar with the sounds of a particular language and less sensitive to sounds that are part of an unfamiliar language.[1]
Pain and Touch
Immediately after birth, a newborn is sensitive to touch and temperature and is also sensitive to pain, responding with crying and cardiovascular responses. Newborns who are circumcised (the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis) without anesthesia experience pain, as demonstrated by increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, decreased oxygen in the blood, and a surge of stress hormones (United States National Library of Medicine, 2016). According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), there are medical benefits and risks to circumcision. They do not recommend routine circumcision; however, they stated that because of the possible benefits (including prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and some STDs), parents should have the option to circumcise their sons if they want to (AAP, 2012)[1]
The sense of touch is acute in infants and is essential to a baby's growth of physical abilities, language and cognitive skills, and socio-emotional competency. Touch impacts not only short-term development during infancy and early childhood but also has long-term effects, suggesting the power of positive, gentle touch from birth. Through touch, infants learn about their world, bond with their caregivers, and communicate their needs and wants. Research emphasizes the great benefits of touch for premature babies, but the presence of such contact has been shown to benefit all children (Stack, D. M. (2010). In an extreme example, some children in Romania were reared in orphanages in which a single care worker may have had as many as 10 infants to care for at one time. These infants were not often helped or given toys with which to play. As a result, many of them were developmentally delayed (Nelson, Fox, & Zeanah, 2014). [1]
Taste and Smell
Not only are infants sensitive to touch, but newborns can also distinguish between sour, bitter, sweet, and salty flavors and show a preference for sweet flavors. They can distinguish between their mother's scent and that of others and prefer the smell of their mothers. A newborn placed on the mother's chest will inch up to the mother's breast, as it is a potent source of the maternal odor. Even on the first day of life, infants orient to their mother's odor and are soothed when crying by their mother's odor (Sullivan et al., 2011).[1]
Other Senses
[1] Psyc 200 Lifespan Psychology. Authored by: Laura Overstreet. CC BY: Attribution
[2] The Brain in the First Two Years. Provided by: Lumen Learning, Lifespan Development CC BY: Attribution
7.04: Perceptual Development
Introduction to Perceptual Development
Infants' perceptual skills are at work during every waking moment. For example, those skills can be observed when an infant gazes into a caregiver's eyes or distinguishes between familiar and unfamiliar people. Infants use perception to distinguish environment features, such as height, depth, and color. "The human infant is recognized today as 'perceptually competent'; determining just how the senses function in infancy helps to specify the perceptual world of babies" (Bornstein 2005, p 284). Infants explore objects differently depending upon object features such as weight, texture, sound, or rigidity (Palmer 1989). Parents and professionals may have observed young children exploring a slope, such as a slide, by touching it with their hands or feet before deciding whether to slide down it. Research by Adolph, Eppler, and Gibson (1993) suggests that learning plays a part in young children's decision-making in physically risky situations, such as navigating slopes, and that exploratory behavior may be a means to this learning. Perception is also strongly related to the social-emotional domain, such as when young children perceive the differences between various facial expressions and come to understand what they may mean.[1]
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Perceptual and Motor Development . Is used with permission.
7.05: Perception and Action
Cycle of Perception and Action
A diagram with an arrow pointing both ways best describes the relationship between perception and action. Perception selects targets for action and helps us correct errors as we execute actions. Broadly speaking, there are 2 kinds of actions: navigation (moving around our environment) and reaching/grabbing.[1]
7.06: Studying Sensory Development
The Study of Sensory Development
There continues to be ongoing discussion and debate as to whether the development of multisensory processes is innate (though undoubtedly also tuned by environmental experiences) or instead develops after the child has several months of experiences with the sensory world (Dionne-Dostie et al. 2015). While objective and quantitative studies in very young children are challenging, a study by (Lewkowicz and Turkewitz 1980) measured 3–4 week-old infants' heart rates. It showed that these children could associate light and sound intensities. More recent results have shown that newborn infants can match numerosity across the senses (Izard et al. 2009) and that 4-month-old infants are sensitive to the spatial congruence of auditory-tactile events (Thomas et al. 2018). However, one constraint of most studies on infants and young children is that they are typically based on child-appropriate behavioral measures, such as preferential looking. Consequently, they provide limited insights into the putative neurobiological mechanisms and maturation of multisensory processes.[1]
[1] Maitre, N.L., Key, A.P., Slaughter, J.C. et al. Neonatal Multisensory Processing in Preterm and Term Infants Predicts Sensory Reactivity and Internalizing Tendencies in Early Childhood. CC BY | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/07%3A_Sensory_and_Perceptual_Development/7.03%3A_Sensory_Development.txt |
Understanding Sensory Processing Differences
Sensory processing and integration are complex neurodevelopmental functions that allow children to regulate, perceive, discriminate, and use sensory input experienced from the environment and their bodies to respond, learn, and adapt daily effectively. Sensory processing disorder (SPD) has been described as a distinct neurodevelopmental disorder in the literature (Schoen et al., 2009; Jorquera-Cabrera et al., 2017; Crasta et al., 2020). It now has been recognized in the most recent version of the diagnostic classification of mental and developmental disorders of infancy and early childhood-revised (DC: 0–5, zero to three). Sensory processing abilities develop naturally and play essential roles in child learning, behavior and emotional regulation, motor development, and task performance. Sensory processing disorder has been defined as the brain's inability to organize sensory input for appropriate use. As stated in the DC: 0–5, zero to three-manual, SPD is diagnosed based on difficulties in detecting, modulating, interpreting, or organizing sensory stimuli to the extent that these deficits impair daily functioning and participation. However, the question of whether deficits in sensory processing represent the symptoms of another disorder, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), developmental coordination disorder (DCD), or SPD is its distinct condition remains (Borkowska and Sklodowska, 2017).[1]
The American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP], 2012 recommended that SPD generally should not be diagnosed citing that there is no universally accepted framework for the SPD diagnosis. Although sensory processing problems were recognized as important to identify and address, the AAP stated that there lacked evidence to solidly demonstrate that children presenting with sensory-based problems have an actual "disorder" of the brain's sensory pathways. They concluded sensory processing deficits were likely associated with other developmental and behavioral disorders. This view, however, does not account for children who present with sensory processing deficits affecting their daily life who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for any other disorder[1].
Experts in the field characterized tSPD as having three main types: [1]
• sensory modulation disorder (SMD): Sensory modulation refers to the ability to notice and react to, regulate, adapt to, and grade responses that are appropriate to the sensory situations experienced in daily life.
• Sensory discrimination disorder (SDD); Sensory discrimination disorder refers to problems with accurately perceiving and interpreting sensory information coming in or experienced from one or more of the sensory systems (Miller et al., 2007; Lane and Reynolds, 2020; Parham and Mailloux, 2020). Discrimination abilities allow for recognizing qualitative and quantitative sensory features and differences among various objects and experiences processed through the sensory systems. People with this type can register sensory stimuli. However, appreciating or detecting the qualities of a given stimulus is a challenge and can occur with one or more sensory systems.
• Sensory-based motor disorder (SBMD), is further divided into subtypes (Miller et al., 2007).
• Sensory over-responsivity (SOR): Atypical behaviors associated with SOR are characterized by intense, exaggerated responses to sensory events that most children do not perceive as negative or obnoxious, often resulting in withdrawal and avoidance behavior.
• Sensory under-responsivity (SUR): Atypical behaviors with SUR include muted or slowed responses to sensory experiences, often with an apparent lack of awareness, lethargy and/or indifference, or diminished responsivity.
• Sensory craving (SC); is sometimes referred to as sensory seeking. Atypical behavior associated with SC includes a need for more intense sensory input than what one would typically want, or that would naturally occur, often manifesting as inappropriate, disruptive, disorganized and/or risky behavior (Miller et al., 2007, 2017; James et al., 2011; Schoen et al., 2014).
Prevalence estimates of iSPD range from 5 to 16% of children in the general population, while 60–90% of children with coexisting neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been estimated to have sensory problems (Ahn et al., 2004; Ben-Sasson et al., 2009; James et al., 2011; Galiana-Simal et al., 2020; Jussila et al., 2020). Mulligan et al. (2019) reported that 20% of the children in their sample had a co-occurring disorder while the remaining 80% had not been diagnosed with another neurodevelopmental disorder. [1]
Unfortunately, there are a limited number of diagnostic assessment tools available to evaluate the sensory processing abilities of children, and no tool is available for explicitly identifying and measuring the SPD types as described by Miller et al. (2007).[1]
Research evidence is building regarding how sensory processing deficits manifest within various populations and how iSPD may be differentiated among children with other neurodevelopmental conditions. As high as 90% of children with ASD have sensory processing difficulties, with the most common pattern of SPD being the SOR modulation subtype (Schoen et al., 2009; Tavassoli et al., 2014; Tomchek et al., 2014; Little et al., 2018). Children with ASD were more under-reactive to auditory stimuli but over-reactive to taste and smell.
Sensory under-responsivity has been associated with depressive symptoms and internalizing behaviors, while externalizing behaviors have been more related to sensory craving, and over-reactivity. Studies demonstrating how the symptoms of children with iSPD differ from those seen in children with other neurodevelopmental conditions, including ADHD and ASD are particularly relevant for supporting SPD as its own diagnostic entity. Miller et al. (2012) compared clinical assessment findings among samples of neurotypicals, children with ADHD, those with SMD, and those with dual diagnoses. All clinical groups had significantly more sensory, attention, activity, impulsivity, and emotional difficulties than typical children. [1]
[1] Mulligan S, Douglas S and Armstrong C (2021) Characteristics of Idiopathic Sensory Processing Disorder in Young Children CC BY
7.08: Conclusion
Conclusion of Sensory and Perceptual Development
Sensory and perceptual development is intriguing and something that infant/toddler caregivers need to understand and incorporate in their caregiving practices. Development of the sensory system begins in utero and doesn't end. Infant and toddler curriculum should include multiple sensory experience options throughout the day every day. The importance of sensory and perceptual development should be expounded on often to families and caregivers, as it lays a foundation for life, beginning at the very beginning. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/07%3A_Sensory_and_Perceptual_Development/7.07%3A_Sensory_Processing_Differences.txt |
Introduction to Cognitive Development
Imagine all of your thoughts as if they were physical entities, swirling around inside your mind. How is it possible that your brain is able to move from one thought to the next in an orderly fashion? Our brains are always active as they endlessly perceive, process, plan, organize, and remember. Upon waking each morning, you begin thinking—contemplating the tasks that you must complete that day. In what order should you run your errands? Should you go to the bank, the cleaners, or the grocery store first? Can you get these things done before you head to class or will they need to wait until school is done? These thoughts are one example of cognition at work. Simply put, cognition is thinking, and it encompasses the processes associated with perception, knowledge, problem solving, judgment, language, and memory. In this section we will learn about how cognition develops in infancy and toddlerhood. [1]
[1] Spielman et al., (2020). Psychology. OpenStax. Licensed under CC by 4.0
[2] Image from Markus Spiske on Unsplash
8.02: Studying Cognition- Jean Piaget
Jean Piaget
The scientific study of cognitive development in young children traces its roots back to the 20th century to Jean Piaget, a pioneer in the field of child development (Piaget, 1954, 1983). Piaget described children as active learners who, through continuous interactions with their environments, construct a complex understanding of the physical world around them. From infancy to adolescence, children progress through four cognitive stages: (1) the sensorimotor stage from birth to 2 years (when cognitive functioning is based primarily on motor reflexes and perceptions); (2) the preoperational stage from 2 to 7 years (when symbolic thought and language become prevalent, but reasoning is illogical by adult standards); (3) the concrete operational stage from 7 to 12 years (when logical reasoning abilities emerge but are limited to concrete objects and events); and (4) the formal operational stage at around 12 years (when thinking about abstract, hypothetical, and contrary-to-fact ideas becomes possible). The sensorimotor stage can further be divided into six substages. The sensorimotor substages divide the first two years of life into phases. Each substage builds upon the previous stage as the child's cognition develops. During the first two years, Piaget stressed the central role sensory and motor abilities have on supporting early cognition. According to Piaget, infant and toddler cognitive development is primarily driven by motor and sensory interactions with the environment. [1]
While Piaget’s theory of cognitive development continues to be foundational in understanding infant and toddler cognition, Piaget’s theory has many limitations. For example, research has revealed that infants have internal mechanisms of learning, not just motor and sensory abilities, that drive cognitive development such as the automatic number system and statistical learning (Saffran & Kirkham, 2018; Wang & Feigenson, 2021). Some researchers believe infants are born with core knowledge – innate systems that help infants learn about the physical and social world around them (Spelke & Kinzler, 2007; Stahl & Feigenson, 2019). Another limitation to his theory is that Piaget underestimated the cognitive abilities of infants and toddlers. As an example, Piaget (1954) suggested that object permanence did not begin to develop until 8 to 12 months of age, as indicated by younger infants’ failures to search for hidden objects, but research has since discovered object permanence develops much earlier, around three to six months of age (Baillargeon, 1987; Bremner, Slater & Johnson, 2015). [1]
[1] Houdé & Borst (2014). Measuring inhibitory control in children and adults: brain imaging and mental chronometry. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 616. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Studying Cognition
Infants’ emerging understanding of the physical and social world is commonly investigated by using violation-of-expectation experiments. In violation-of-expectation experiments, unexpected events that violate physical or social rules lead to different responses in infants’ gaze behavior (Baillargeon, 2004), pupil dilation (Jackson & Sirois, 2009), and brain responses (Köster, Langeloh, & Hoehl, 2019). For example, infants detect impossible physical events, such as a ball rolling through a wall (Spelke et al., 1992), changes in numbers, such as when the number of toys changes (Simon, Hespos, & Rochat, 1995), or irrational human actions, such as a pretzel that is put toward the ear instead of the mouth (Reid et al., 2009). Interesting research on the development of moral cognition used the violation-of-expectation paradigm and a cookie scenario, presented in Figure \(1\), to study the possibility that young infants might expect resources to be divided equally between similar recipients (Dawkins, Sloane & Baillargeon, 2019). Infants as young as four months of age expected an experimenter to divide two cookies equally between two similar animated puppets, and they detected a violation (measured by longer looking time) when the researcher divided them unequally instead. [1] [2]
A second common method to study cognition in infants and toddlers is called habituation. Many prominent studies of infant cognition over the past two decades have relied on the fact that infants habituate to repeated stimuli – i.e. that their looking times tend to decline upon repeated stimulus presentation (Aslin, 2007; Oakes, 2010). Habituation is one of the earliest cognitive processes to emerge in development (Colombo & Mitchell, 2009) and reflects a basic form of learning: once a stimulus is fully encoded in the mind, the infant habituates to it and demonstrates decreased attention to the stimulus. Researchers have found that the duration of time to habituate in infancy accounts for up to 30 percent of the variance in cognitive ability at older ages (Bornstein & Sigman, 1986; Colombo, 1993; Miller et al., 1980). This indicates that habituation provides important insight into early cognition as it relates to the development of more complex cognitive abilities later in childhood. [4]
To illustrate how habituation is used to research cognition, one study explored the visual habituation of objects in hearing and deaf non-signing infants and toddlers (Monroy et al., 2019). The children were shown one of the objects in Figure \(2\) until they habituated to it (three consecutive trials in which the mean looking time to the stimulus was less than or equal to 50% of the mean looking time during the first three habituation trials). After habituation, the infant was then presented with randomized trials containing both a new object (not shown in the habituation phase) and the familiar object (shown in the habituation phase). Findings revealed that deaf infants were slower to habituate to and demonstrated a lower look-away rate than hearing infants. Evidence from prior studies suggests that the ‘look-away’ rate—brief eye gaze shifts away from the target stimulus during habituation—reflects processing efficiency and attentional control (Bahrick et al., 2016). One explanation for these results is that deaf infants’ cognitive development may be protracted because of delayed language development (these deaf infants already had or were waiting to receive a cochlear implant and all of them had limited access to a fully-accessible language, like sign language). [4]
[1] Köster et al., (2020). Making sense of the world: infant learning from a predictive processing perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 562-571. CC by 4.0
[2] Buyukozer et al., (2019). Do infants in the first year of life expect equal resource allocations? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 116. CC by 4.0
[3] Image from Buyukozer et al., (2019). Do infants in the first year of life expect equal resource allocations? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 116. CC by 4.0
[4] Monroy et al., (2019). Visual habituation in deaf and hearing infants. PloS One, 14(2), e0209265. CC by 4.0
[5] Image from Monroy et al., (2019). Visual habituation in deaf and hearing infants. PloS One, 14(2), e0209265. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.03%3A_How_is_Infant_and_Toddler_Cognition_Studied.txt |
Milestones of Cognitive Development
Infants and toddlers are constantly learning about the world as they experience it and actively engage with it during the first three years of life. Milestones represent what most children can do by specific ages; however, it is important to remember that children do not achieve these milestones at the same exact ages--milestones only represent the average age at when they are achieved. If a child has not achieved specific milestones by a specific age, it does not necessarily suggest a delay or disability; however, there are specific ages where if certain milestones are not achieved, caregivers should encourage the child’s parents to communicate with their family pediatrician. Here is a table of some of the cognitive milestones infants and toddlers typically develop.
What most children can do at each age
Age
What Most Children Can Do By Each Age [1]
2 months
● Pay attention to faces
● Begin to follow things with their eyes and recognize people at a distance
● Begin to act bored (cry, act fussy) if activity doesn’t change
4 months
● Let you know if they are happy or sad
● Respond to affection
● Reach for a toy with one hand
● Use their hands and eyes together, such as seeing a toy and reaching for it
● Follow moving things with their eyes from side to side
● Watch people’s faces closely
● Recognize familiar people and things at a distance
6 months
● Look around at things nearby
● Bring things to their mouth
● Show curiosity about things and try to get things that are out of reach
● Begin to pass things from one hand to the other
9 months
● Watch the path of something as it falls
● Look for things they see you hide
● Play peek-a-boo
● Put things in their mouth
● Move things smoothly from one hand to the other
● Pick up things like cereal o’s between thumb and index finger
12 months
● Explore things in different ways, like shaking, banging and throwing
● Find hidden things easily
● Look at the right picture or thing when it’s named
● Copy gestures
● Start to use things correctly; for example, drink from a cup, brush hair with a brush
● Bang two things together
● Put things in a container and take things out of a container
● Let things go without help
● Poke with index (pointer) finger
● Follow simple directions like “pick up the toy”
18 months
● Know what ordinary things are for; for example, telephone, brush, and spoon
● Point to get the attention of others
● Show interest in a doll or stuffed animal by pretending to feed them
● Point to one body part
● Scribble on their own
● Can follow 1-step verbal commands without any gestures; for example, sits when you say “sit down”
24 months
● Find things even when hidden under two or three covers
● Begin to sort shapes and colors
● Complete sentences and rhymes in familiar books
● Play simple make-believe games
● Build towers of 4 or more blocks
● Might use one hand more than the other
● Follow two-step instructions such as “Pick up your shoes and put them in the closet.”
● Name items in a picture book such as a cat, bird, or dog
36 months
● Can work toys with buttons, levers, and moving parts
● Play make-believe with dolls, animals, and people
● Do puzzles with 3 or 4 pieces
● Understand what “two” means
● Copy a circle with a pencil or crayon
● Turn book pages one at a time
● Build towers of more than 6 blocks
● Screw and unscrew jar lids or turn door handles
[1] CDC’s Developmental Milestones by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is in the public domain. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.04%3A_Cognitive_Milestones_2-36_months.txt |
Concerns
The above chart represents averages of when infants and toddlers achieve various cognitive milestones. What about children who do not achieve these milestones by the ages listed? While children can indeed develop different abilities at different times, too great a delay in acquiring specific milestones can be a concern. The information in Figure# is from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The chart adopts a proactive stance--we should take action early when developmental concerns arise rather than the perspective of waiting to see if a child “catches up”. Again, while children do develop at individual paces, being proactive during these critical early years is essential. The chart below lists milestones that, if children are not achieving by specific ages, caregivers should encourage parents to communicate with their family’s pediatrician. Most caregivers are not professionally trained to officially assess the developmental abilities of children; however, caregivers have the ability to track developmental progress and are often the first to notice developmental concerns.
When to encourage parents to communicate with a pediatrician
Age
Encourage parents to communicate with their family’s pediatrician if: [1]
By 4 months
● Child doesn’t watch things as they move
● Child doesn’t smile at people
By 6 months
● Child doesn’t try to get things that are in reach
● Child shows no affection for caregivers
● Child has difficulty getting things to mouth
● Child doesn’t respond to sounds around him
● Child doesn’t laugh or make squealing sounds
By 9 months
● Child doesn’t play any games involving back-and-forth play
● Child doesn’t respond to own name
● Child doesn’t seem to recognize familiar people
● Child doesn’t look where you point
● Child doesn’t transfer toys from one hand to the other
By 12 months
● Child doesn’t search for things that she sees you hide
● Child doesn’t say single words like “mama” or “dada”
● Child doesn’t learn gestures like waving or shaking head
● Child doesn’t point to things
● Child loses skills he once had
By 18 months
● Child doesn’t point to show things to others
● Child doesn’t know what familiar things are for
● Child doesn’t copy others
● Child doesn’t gain new words
● Child doesn’t have at least 6 words
● Child doesn’t notice or mind when a caregiver leaves or returns
● Child loses skills he once had
By 24 months
● Child doesn’t use 2-word phrases (for example, “drink milk”)
● Child doesn’t know what to do with common things, like a brush, phone, fork, spoon
● Child doesn’t copy actions and words
● Child doesn’t follow simple instructions
● Child loses skills she once had
By 36 months
● Child drools or has very unclear speech
● Child can’t work simple toys (such as peg boards, simple puzzles, turning handle)
● Child doesn’t speak in sentences
● Child doesn’t understand simple instructions
● Child doesn’t play pretend or make-believe
● Child doesn’t want to play with other children or with toys
● Child doesn’t make eye contact
● Child loses skills he once had
[1] CDC’s Developmental Milestones by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is in the public domain | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.05%3A_Cognitive_Development_Concerns.txt |
Processes of Cognition
Imagine being an infant, what would learning about the world be like? From the sounds, sights and smells, there would be a lot of new things to try to make sense of! Indeed, the potential information available in the environment is both voluminous and complex. This led William James to coin his famous phrase about “the blooming, buzzing confusion” that confronts the newborn (James, 1890). Contrary to what James thought, infants show remarkable feats of learning as they make sense of the world, beginning in the last trimester of fetal life and accelerating through infancy and toddlerhood. But how is it that infants are able to learn in such complex environments? Let’s next discuss various cognitive processes during infancy and toddlerhood. [1]
[1] Kidd et al., (2012). The Goldilocks effect: Human infants allocate attention to visual sequences that are neither too simple nor too complex. PloS One, 7(5), e36399. CC by 4.0
8.06: Cognitive Processes
Infant Imitation
Imitation of others’ behavior is considered a central means of learning, specifically for social cognition and the learning of cultural norms (Goertz et al., 2011; Kugiumutzakis & Trevarthen, 2015; Meltzoff & Marshall, 2018). Imitation has been defined in numerous ways, emphasizing the matching of either the form of movements, the outcomes, or the intentions of an action. The often cited findings from Meltzoff and Moore (1977; 1983), that newborns imitate adult facial expressions, has been called into question. Recent research has been unable to replicate their findings and has pointed out critical weaknesses and limitations in those early newborn imitation studies (Kennedy-Costantini et al., 2017; Oostenbroek et al., 2016; Oostenbroek et al., 2018; Slaughter, 2021).[1]
While newborn imitation continues to be debated, it is clear that imitation plays a role in learning for older infants and toddlers. It has been found that 12 to 18 month-olds learn one to two novel actions every day, merely by observing others around them (Barr & Hayne, 2003). Rather than imitating everything and everyone, however, infants tend to be selective in their imitative behavior, a tendency that is present beginning around 12 months of age (Schwier et al., 2006; Zmyj, Daum & Aschersleben, 2009). For example, in one study researchers presented a novel head action to two groups of 14-month-olds whereby the model illuminated a light-box with her forehead by sitting in a chair and leaning forward until her head pressed on the light-box (Gergely, Bekkering & Király, 2002). While one group of infants observed the unusual head action with the model freely resting her hands next to the light box (hands-free condition), the other group observed a demonstration of the identical head action, but the model had her hands occupied by holding a blanket wrapped around her torso (hands-occupied condition). Figure \(2\) illustrates the two conditions. The majority (69%) of infants in the hands-free condition imitated this novel action of using their forehead to turn on the light-box, whereas only 21% of infants did so in the hands-occupied condition. The authors argued the results suggest that infants inferred that the model must have had good reasons to freely choose to perform the unusual action in the hands-free condition, whereas the model would have used her hands in the hands-occupied condition if she was not using her hands to hold the blanket. As a result, while imitation can be a great way to learn, the imitation process for infants and toddlers is complex as they consider various factors that may influence what actions of adults are rational or logical before imitating. [3] [4]
As imitation is one way infants and toddlers learn about the world, caregivers can support cognitive development through imitation by including infants and toddlers in everyday care routines and by demonstrating more complex actions during play and social interactions. Care routines (e.g., diapering, meal time, etc.,) can sometimes become more like adult-driven chores if caregivers quickly rush through with the goal of completion. However, care routines often involve complex actions that can be rich learning opportunities for young children to watch, imitate and learn from. For example, the care routine of meal time involves motor movements to support pouring, scooping, holding, passing, etc., and also involves the learning of social patterns such as waiting, turn taking, manners etc.,. These motor actions and social patterns may be challenging for young toddlers, but are important as they practice these skills and are able to participate more in the meal time routine. Instead of preparing individual plates ahead of time and out of the sight of the children, plates can be prepared and shared in their presence. A family-style meal presentation where food and drinks are served at the table with toddlers, allows for them to be able to watch, imitate and learn from the meal time routine. Additionally, during play and social interactions, caregivers who are engaged with infants and toddlers and demonstrate different ways to use and play with materials encourage infants and toddlers to imitate similar actions as they learn about how the world works.
[1] Paukner et al., (2017). Testing the arousal hypothesis of neonatal imitation in infant rhesus macaques. PLoS One, 12(6), e0178864. CC by 4.0
[2] Image by HeatherDawnKemp on Pixabay.
[3] Gellén & Buttelmann (2017). Fourteen-month-olds adapt their imitative behavior in light of a model’s constraints. Child Development Research. CC by 4.0
[4] Beisert et al., (2012). Rethinking ‘rational imitation in 14-month-old infants: A perceptual distraction approach. PloS One, 7(3), e32563. CC by 4.0
[5] Image from Beisert et al., (2012). Rethinking ‘rational imitation in 14-month-old infants: A perceptual distraction approach. PloS One, 7(3), e32563. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.06%3A_Cognitive_Processes/8.6.01%3A_Imitation.txt |
Concept of Categorization
Infants and toddlers are constantly experiencing new and recurring objects and events. The ability to form categories is a core cognitive ability that helps organize these experiences. Without categorization, we would treat every entity we encounter (e.g., every golden retriever) as unique. Identifying a category to which an object or entity belongs (e.g., a dog, a retriever) permits us to make inferences that go beyond our immediate experience with that entity (e.g., retrievers bark, have sharp teeth, etc.). Categorization, therefore, is a fundamental cognitive process, and one that is especially important for infants and toddlers who encounter new objects, entities, and events every day. [1] [2]
A considerable body of research reveals that in the first months of life, infants can already successfully and spontaneously form object categories of animals, vehicles, and geometric shapes (Balaban & Waxman, 1997; Novack et al., 2021; Quinn, Eimas & Tarr, 2001). For example, Figure \(2\) shows a sample of stimuli used in a categorization experiment with 3 to 4 month old infants (Ferry, Hespos & Waxman, 2010). In the familiarization phase, infants were shown various types of dinosaurs, varying in color. In the test phase, infants saw two objects in the same color, one dinosaur (familized object) and one non-dinosaur object not shown in the familiarization phase (novel object). To measure categorization, infants’ looking time at the objects in the test phase was measured. The results demonstrate that already by 3 to 4 months of age, infants are cognitively forming categories of objects they encounter. [1] [2]
By 12 months, however, infants reach a turning point where what matters is not whether infants are listening to language in general, but more precisely, what is being said about specific objects. By 12 months, infants track not only which objects and which words are presented, but also how the words and objects are paired together (Waxman & Braun, 2005). Specifically, when infants hear the same label with each object, the labels highlight commonalities between them and thus facilitate their categorization, whereas when infants hear a distinct label for each object, the labels highlight their differences and thus facilitate their individuation (Dewar & Xu, 2007; Xu, Cote & Baker, 2005). [5]
The research on categorization suggests that young infants begin categorizing objects by 3 to 4 months of age and that language promotes categorization. Therefore caregivers can support categorization through learning experiences and language use. With learning experiences, caregivers can provide play objects and manipulatives where similarities and differences can be easily identified through color, size, texture and shape. Objects within and across categorical boundaries are also important. For example, objects of one type of animal such as fish can be provided alongside another type of animal, such as birds. This can help children identify commonalities within the category of fish and differences across the categories of fish and birds. To promote categorization with language, caregivers can be purposeful with the language they use by labeling objects within and across categories and highlighting similarities and differences between objects. Figure \(3\) shows a toddler holding three leaves. Each leaf is a different color, size and shape. As a caregiver, what words or phrases could you use to support a toddler’s categorization process when playing with these leaves?
[1] Althaus et al., (2020). Infant categorization as a dynamic process linked to memory. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 200328. CC by 4.0
[2] Kadlaskar et al., (2020). Does human touch facilitate object categorization in 6-to-9-month-old infants? Brain Sciences, 10(12), 940. CC by 4.0
[3] Image from Shirota Yuri on Unsplash
[4] Image adapted from Kadlaskar et al., (2020). Does Human Touch Facilitate Object Categorization in 6-to-9-Month-Old Infants? Brain Sciences, 10(12), 940. CC by 4.0
[5] Ferguson et al., (2015). The precision of 12-month-old infants’ link between language and categorization predicts vocabulary size at 12 and 18 months. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1319. CC by 4.0
[6] Image from Markus Spiske on Unsplash | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.06%3A_Cognitive_Processes/8.6.02%3A_Categorization.txt |
Understanding Numbers
Evidence suggests that there is an innate, non-symbolic sense of quantity that gives rise to our basic numerical intuitions. The Approximate Number System (ANS) allows humans and non-human animals to estimate quantities without explicitly counting. For example, if you look at the two images in Figure \(1\), which image has more dots than the other? Can you figure it out by simply looking at the two images--without counting any of the dots? While this example is slightly challenging because the number of dots in the two images is similar, in experiments like this, using dots, infants have the innate ability to distinguish between various quantities. [1]
The ANS is present at birth as newborns are able to discriminate object sets if the ratio is at least 1:3 (e.g., arrays of 4 vs.12 dots) (Izard et al., 2009). The ability to discriminate between displays of large numbers, known as number acuity (efficiency), improves throughout childhood (Halberda & Feigenson, 2008) with dramatic changes in number acuity observed within the first year of life. In a visual only comparison, four month olds can discriminate between a 1:4 ratio but not a change to a 1:3 ratio; however, if audio and visual information are both provided, four month olds can discriminate between a 1:3 ratio, but not a change to a 1:2 ratio (Wang & Feigenson, 2021). Six-month-old infants can reliably discriminate between sets with a ratio of 1:2 (e.g., arrays of 8 vs.16 dots) but cannot discriminate between sets with a 2:3 ratio (e.g., arrays of 8 vs.12 dots) (Feigenson, 2011; Xu & Spelke, 2000). By about 9 to 10 months of age, infants are able to discriminate 2:3 ratios (e.g., arrays of 8 vs. 12 dots) but fail with 4:5 ratios (e.g., arrays of 8 vs.10 dots) (Lipton & Spelke, 2003; Xu & Arriaga, 2007; Xu & Spelke, 2000).[3]
Number acuity in infancy is related to later mathematical performance throughout childhood, adolescence and the adult years (Halberda et al., 2008; Mazzocco, Feigenson & Halberda, 2011; Libertus, Feigenson & Halberda, 2013; Starr, Libertus & Brannon, 2013). To illustrate, one study (Starr, Libertus & Brannon, 2013) placed two monitors in front of six month olds. One monitor always displayed the same number of dots (although the dots changed, varying in placement array) and the other monitor changed between various numbers of dots and placement array. Some infants spent more time looking at the monitor that displayed the changing numbers of dots than other infants. The researchers then followed the same children into preschool where they measured various math abilities. Results showed that the infants who spent more time looking at the monitor that displayed the changing numbers of dots had greater mathematical skills as preschoolers.
While early number acuity may be inborn, other numerical abilities are not and develop overtime. Children come to understand the meaning of exact number words very slowly (Wynn, 1990, 1992). English-speaking children first learn the meaning of the word “one” around two-and-a-half years of age but lack knowledge of numbers larger than one. About four to five months after learning the meaning of “one,” children understand the word “two” but not larger numbers, such as “three” or “four.” It takes several more months for children to display knowledge of the word “three.” Not until children are three or four years of age do they fully grasp the cardinality principle—that each number word refers only to an exact set of that quantity with the last number in the count list referring to the total number of items in the set (Carey, 2009). [5]
Before infants and toddlers may fully understand the meaning of specific number words, they show an early sensitivity to counting. Eighteen-month-old infants showed a preference for correctly ordered counting sequences; that is, although they were unable to recite the count list themselves, they recognized and preferred to listen to the correct order of the number words (Ip et al., 2018). Similarly, 14 to 18 month-old infants appear to be able to use their ability to recognize the count list to help them overcome typical memory limits (Wang & Feigenson, 2019). Infants generally display working memory capacity limits of three items and fail to remember the number of hidden items when it exceeds this limit (Feigenson & Carey, 2003). However, when objects are counted before being hidden, infants are able to overcome this memory limit (Wang & Feigenson, 2019). Thus, even though toddlers may not grasp the full meaning of number words, they may still be aware of the numerical nature of these words and may be able to use counting knowledge despite lacking precise representations of the quantities.
Although research suggests ANS to be innate, ANS is only an early foundation to support mathematical development. As mathematical knowledge continues to develop, caregivers play a critical role in supporting it. Infants and toddlers build early foundations for math during play and daily care routines. Young children naturally explore math concepts as they play, and caregivers support their math knowledge and vocabulary with the language they use. Caregivers can use math talk during care routines by discussing spatial concepts like, “I’m going to pick you up” or they can compare the size of their shoes as they get ready to go outside, “Your shoes are smaller than my shoes.” Caregivers can use math language during mealtimes: “How many blueberries do you have left? Do you need more?” The more math language children hear each day, the greater the growth of their math knowledge. [8]
Additionally, infants and toddlers need time and space to play in open-ended ways with varied materials to boost their emerging math skills. Caregivers can introduce math concepts like size and shape, and spatial words like in, between, and under during any type of play or routine. Create and look for patterns in the environment and point them out to children. Find patterns in your clothing or around the environment like stripes on a rug and point them out to children while using math language to describe the patterns. Indoor and outdoor environments present unlimited ways that we can discuss math. When working with infants and toddlers, purposefully look around the environment and at the materials being used for math concepts you can discuss. [8]
[1] Ma et al., (2021). Approximate number sense in students with severe hearing loss: A modality-neutral cognitive ability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 296. CC by 4.0
[2] Image by Todd LaMarr. CC by 4.0
[3] Zorzi & Testolin (2018). An emergentist perspective on the origin of number sense. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1740), 20170043. CC by 4.0
[4] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0.
[5] Silver et al., (2021). Measuring Emerging Number Knowledge in Toddlers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3057. CC by 4.0
[6] Image from luis arias on Unsplash
[7] Image from Eric Tompkins on Unsplash
[8]Supporting Math Skills in Infants and Toddlers” from Head Start’s Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center is in the public domain. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.06%3A_Cognitive_Processes/8.6.03%3A_Numerical_Cognition.txt |
Purpose of Executive Functions
Executive functions are a complex set of cognitive abilities, which enable us to coordinate mental processes, manipulate information, solve new problems, sequence information, inhibit non-useful responses and generate new strategies to accomplish goals in a flexible way (Diamond, 2012; Henry, Messer, & Nash, 2012; Miyake & Friedman, 2012). Most executive function research focuses on three core areas: inhibition; working memory and cognitive flexibility, which some suggest underpin other more complex executive functions such as planning, problem solving, reasoning, etc., (Friedman & Miyake, 2017). [1]
Executive functions play an important role in the everyday life of infants and toddlers, allowing them to focus attention on specific tasks, to engage in successful problem solving, and to plan for their next action. Executive functions begin to emerge early in infancy, with basic skills needed for executive functions emerging before three years of age, and more specific skills developing in early childhood (Garon, Bryson & Smith, 2008). It has been suggested that each component of executive function develops at its own rate across childhood and adolescence, reaching maturity at different ages (Diamond, 2013). The gradual acquisition of executive functions relate to the development of the prefrontal cortex and other brain areas from infancy to adulthood (Fiske & Holmboe, 2019; Thompson, 2016; Tsujimoto, 2008). [2] [3]
Figure \(1\) depicts the growth of executive function abilities in infants and toddlers from 9 to 30 months of age (Hendry & Holmboe, 2021). This data highlights two important findings. First, executive function abilities improve with age, a consistent finding across studies (Hendry et al., 2016; Putnam et al., 2006). As Figure \(1\) shows, there is a steady increase in executive function skill across the first thirty months. Second, there are early individual differences already evident by the end of the first year. This means that at any given age, some infants and toddlers have greater executive function abilities than others. Understanding early differences could be important as preschool and kindergarten children’s performance on executive function tests is correlated with academic achievement (for both mathematical and literacy assessments) in the U.S., South Korea, Taiwan, and China (McClelland et al., 2014; Ponitz et al., 2009; Wanless et al., 2011). [4]
Next, let’s look at the three core areas of executive function, inhibition, working memory and cognitive flexibility, more in depth.
Inhibition
Inhibition, or inhibitory control, is a child's ability to stop a dominant response and demonstrate more adaptive and/or socially acceptable behavior (Diamond, Kirkham, & Amso, 2002; Rennie, Bull, & Diamond, 2004). Inhibition is important in the successful execution of tasks by providing the child with the flexibility and freedom to choose and control their actions (Dowsett & Livesey, 2000), for instance, by waiting for one's turn, sharing or cleaning up toys before playing somewhere else. [6]
The developmental trajectory of inhibition begins towards the end of the first year of life (Diamond, 2002, Diamond et al., 2007, Garon et al., 2008, Wolfe & Bell, 2007) with research suggesting that some early forms of inhibitory and attentional control emerge already at around 6 months of age (Courage, Reynolds, & Richards, 2006; Holmboe, Bonneville-Roussy, et al., 2018). Inhibition skills develop rapidly between the ages of 22 and 33 months (Carlson, 2005; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000), and the proportion of time children can successfully wait improves significantly between the ages of 30 and 42 months (Caughy, Mills, Owen, & Hurst, 2013). Following this, inhibition shows a rapid improvement during the toddler and preschool years (Friedman et al., 2011, Garon et al., 2008, Garon et al., 2014, Holmboe, Larkman, et al., 2018, Simpson & Riggs, 2005), increasing at a more steady pace throughout middle childhood (Best & Miller, 2010, Best et al., 2009), before eventually reaching adult levels in early adolescence (van den Wildenberg & van der Molen, 2004, Williams et al., 1999). [6] [7]
As infants and toddlers grow, caregiver–child interactions have an important impact on the development of children's inhibition skills. Well-organized infant and toddler classroom environments and caregivers' use of clear, proactive strategies in supporting behavior create predictability within the classroom that further enables the child to gain a sense of control and exhibit appropriate behavior while inhibiting more inappropriate behaviors (Salminen et al., 2021). Children's ability to show better inhibition control in classrooms also relates to the caregivers' sensitivity and responsiveness towards children's needs and developing skills. Children's feelings of frustration can be reduced by creating a safe and welcoming environment, showing interest in supporting infants’ and toddlers' autonomy, understanding their way of seeing the world, and supporting their willingness to attend to learning activities in a personally meaningful way (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999). These caregiver practices of sensitivity and responsiveness may further indicate to children that their own actions and decisions matter, hence sending out stronger signals of how to behave in an acceptable way. [6]
The concept of caregiver mind-mindedness is related to (but distinct from) that of sensitivity, but is also related to the development of inhibition. Mind-mindedness refers to a caregiver’s proclivity to treat an infant as an “individual with a mind rather than merely as a [child] with needs that must be satisfied” (Meins, Fernyhough, Fradley & Tuckey, 2001). For example, if, during a game of peek-a-boo, the infant signals that they are overstimulated (e.g., by turning away from the caregiver, tuning out, frantic movements, etc.), the caregiver's appropriate understanding of the behavioral signal in terms of the child’s internal states (e.g., feeling overwhelmed) is critical in guiding the caregiver's reaction. When the caregiver accurately understands the signal, they are more likely to show an attuned response: pause the game, enabling the infant's autonomic system to recover from the heightened arousal. Conversely, when the caregiver does not have a mind-minded perspective, they may not see or may misinterpret the infant's signal and are more likely to continue the peekaboo game. The infant then does not experience recovery from heightened physiological arousal in a way that is matched to his or her current state of being. [8] [9] [10]
One way to know a caregiver’s level of mind-mindedness is to measure the proportion of attuned comments in which a caregiver refers to a child’s desires, cognitions and emotions (Meins, Fernyhough, Fradley & Tuckey, 2001). Despite only about 10% of caregiver verbal comments being mind-mindedness comments that accurately reflect the child’s internal state (Helmerhorst, Colonnesi & Fukkink, 2019), caregiver mind-mindedness of infants at nine months of age predicts children’s developing inhibitory control at 2 and 3 years of age (Cheng, Lu, Archer & Wang, 2018). There are cultural differences in the level of mind-mindedness of caregivers. Mind-mindedness was lower in Chinese and Hong Kong caregivers compared to caregivers in the U.K. and Canada (Bernier, Carlson & Whipple, 2010; Hughes, Devine & Wang, 2017). [8] [9]
Working Memory
Working memory refers to a child's ability to hold information in memory long enough to successfully complete a task, for instance, remembering simple instructions and then performing accordingly (Adams, Bourke, & Willis, 1999). For a toddler, this can be seen in completing a task with two parts (e.g., “take your paintbrush to the sink and wash your hands”) or remembering simple rules in a game or in play. The basic components of working memory start to develop across the child's first year of life, while more complex working memory abilities, such as updating or manipulating representations develop during toddlerhood and throughout the preschool period (Alloway, Gathercole, Willis, & Adams, 2004; Gathercole, 1998; Pelphrey & Reznick, 2002). [6]
Cognitive Flexibility
Cognitive flexibility, the ability to shift between different tasks or goals, is considered a key aspect of executive functions, allowing individuals to regulate their thoughts and actions adaptively Jurado & Rosselli, 2007; Miyake et al., 2000). Cognitive flexibility is sometimes also referred to by shifting, attention switching, or task switching, and includes both the ability to disengage from irrelevant information in a previous task and to focus on relevant information in a forthcoming task (Monsell, 2003). Thus, cognitive flexibility enables one to think divergently, change perspective and adapt to a continuously changing environment. [11]
There is sparse research on the development of cognitive flexibility in infants and toddlers, as most research finds even 3 year olds struggle on tasks of cognitive flexibility. The Dimensional Change Card Sorting (DCCS) task is widely used to measure the cognitive flexibility of children. The DCCS task asks children to sort cards (e.g., a red rabbit and a blue boat) with one of the two target cards (e.g., a red boat and a blue rabbit) according to one rule (e.g., by color), and then after several successful trials, switch to another rule (e.g., by shape). Previous findings using the DCCS task indicated that most 3-year olds had difficulty switching between the dimensions, but by age 4, most children could successfully switch to the new rule (Perner & Lang, 2002; Zelazo, Frye & Rapus, 1996). Cognitive flexibility matures along a steep slope during early childhood (Diamond, 2006; Garon et al., 2008) and this is thought to be driven by neurodevelopmental changes in the prefrontal cortex (Diamond, 2002; Ezekiel et al., 2013). [12]
There are important cultural differences in early executive function skills. Findings from cross-cultural investigations suggest that children from Eastern cultures (e.g., Chinese) typically perform better on executive function tasks than their Western counterparts (Sabbagh et al., 2006; Oh & Lewis, 2008; Lewis et al., 2009; Lan et al., 2011; Grabell et al., 2015). Different explanations have been proposed. While children from Eastern cultures are expected to have mastery of impulse control around 2 years of age, children from Western cultures are not expected to be able to do so until the preschool years (Chen et al., 1998). This could create opportunities for Chinese children to be taught the importance of self-control (Ellefson et al., 2017) and start practicing executive function skills at an earlier age than their U.S. counterparts (Sabbagh et al., 2006). In a collectivist culture like China, children practice and learn how to behave in society through adult modeling of the “acceptable” behaviors (Jian, 2009). On the other hand, individual choices and negotiation are valued elements in caregiving practices in individualistic cultures (Greenfield et al., 2006). According to Lan and colleagues (2011), the difference of educational styles between countries (e.g., China and the U.S.) is the major reason for the variation in executive function skills. While being able to control one's behavior, attention and concentration are a central element of Chinese education, self-expression and decision-making freedom are more of the focus in U.S. education (Song & Jinyu, 2016). [13]
The overall behaviors and practices of infant and toddler caregivers have a significant role in the development of executive functions (Bernier, Carlson & Whipple, 2010; Fay-Stammbach, Hawes & Meredith, 2014). Stephanie Carlson (2003) argued that caregiving contributes to the development of executive function through three primary aspects of interaction (scaffolding behavior, stimulation, and sensitivity) and that each has different effects on executive function.
Scaffolding refers to how caregivers verbally and non-verbally guide and instruct children during challenging tasks (Lewis & Carpendale, 2009), support children’s autonomous exploration, and encourage children to make decisions autonomously to solve problems (Matte-Gagn & Bernier, 2011). For example, a caregiver might provide gentle guidance to a child frustrated by an ever-collapsing block tower by placing the larger blocks at the base. The strategies provided by caregivers tell children not only what to do, but also ways to think, guiding improvements in cognitive control, inhibition and the ability to think flexibly during problem-solving.
Sensitivity represents a caregiver’s ability to perceive and accurately interpret the signals shown explicitly or implicitly in an infant’s behavior, and to then respond appropriately (Pederson et al., 1990). Children who experience their environments as predictable and consistent are inclined to achieve higher-level self-regulation in their early lives and are more motivated to gain cognitive control (Carlson, 2003). For example, caregiver-toddler interactions that are warm and responsive predict longitudinal effortful control performance and delay of gratification (inhibition) ability (Kochanska et al., 2000; Sethi et al., 2000).
Stimulation covers the wide range of interactions between caregivers and children, such as the creation of environments for cognitive skill development through activities like reading (Bradley et al., 2011) and playing together (Rome-Flanders, Cronk & Gourde, 1995). Caregiver language has specifically been found to play a critical role in children’s later executive processing (Daneri et al., 2019; Landry et al., 2002). For example, caregiver verbal scaffolding during problem-solving tasks shows both concurrent and longitudinal associations with executive function in early childhood (Bernier et al., 2010; Hammond et al., 2012; Hughes & Ensor, 2009). This research emphasizes the importance of developmentally-appropriate activities that also challenge infants and toddlers accompanied by sensitive scaffolding by caregivers. [14] [15]
[2] Ferguson et al., (2021). The developmental trajectories of executive function from adolescence to old age. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-17. CC by 4.0
[3] Keil et al., (2021). Family environment and development in children adopted from institutionalized care. Pediatric Research, 1-9. CC by 4.0
[4] Legare et al., (2018). Cultural variation in cognitive flexibility reveals diversity in the development of executive functions. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-14. CC by 4.0
[5] Hendry & Holmboe (2021). Development and validation of the early executive functions questionnaire: A carer‐administered measure of executive functions suitable for 9‐to 30‐month‐olds. Infancy. CC by 4.0
[6] Salminen et al., (2021). Teacher–child interaction quality and children's self‐regulation in toddler classrooms in Finland and Portugal. Infant and Child Development, e2222. CC by 4.0 NC
[7] Fiske & Holmboe (2019). Neural substrates of early executive function development. Developmental Review, 52, 42-62. CC by 4.0
[8] Colonnesi, et al., (2021). Mind-mindedness in out-of-home Care for Children: Implications for caregivers and child. Current Psychology, 1-13. CC by 4.0
[9] Longobardi et al., (2021). Maternal mind-mindedness and communicative functions in free-play and mealtime contexts: Stability, continuity and relations with child language at 16 months. Journal of Child Language, 1-26. CC by 4.0
[10] Zeegers et al., (2018). Mothers’ and fathers’ mind‐mindedness influences physiological emotion regulation of infants across the first year of life. Developmental Science, 21(6), e12689. CC by 4.0
[11] Buttelmann & Karbach (2017). Development and plasticity of cognitive flexibility in early and middle childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1040. CC by 4.0
[12] Yi et al., (2012). Visual scanning patterns during the dimensional change card sorting task in children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research and Treatment. CC by 3.0
[13] Metaferia et al., (2021). Parents' views on play and the goal of early childhood education in relation to children's home activity and executive functions: A cross-cultural investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. CC by 4.0
[14] Cheng et al., (2018). Quality of maternal parenting of 9-month-old infants predicts executive function performance at 2 and 3 years of age. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2293. CC by 4.0
[15] Devine et al., (2016). Executive function mediates the relations between parental behaviors and children's early academic ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1902. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.06%3A_Cognitive_Processes/8.6.04%3A_Executive_Functions.txt |
Development of Self-Regulation
Infants have the ability to express themselves through vocalizations, facial expressions and movements of their body. For example, upon hearing a loud unexpected sound, an infant may close their eyes, tense their body and cry to express their internal state. However, while they can express themselves, infants have limited capacity for self-regulation. Self-regulation is the ability to control behavior and responses in adaptive ways across a variety of dimensions, including attention, emotion, behavior, and cognition (Calkins, 2007; Calkins & Fox, 2002). Self-regulation is a cornerstone of healthy development (Robson, Allen & Howard, 2020; Thompson, 2016) and has been linked to the development of language, mathematics, reading, and literacy skills (von Salisch et al., 2015; Bohlman & Downer, 2016; Lin et al., 2016). Consider the strategies you personally use for self-regulation. When you feel scared, anxious, unmotivated or distracted, what strategies have you discovered that help you regulate your internal state?
During infancy, the early beginning of self-regulation can be seen in infants’ responses to input from caregivers and the environment (Samdan et al., 2020). The ongoing development of motor skills, attention, and emotion subsequently influence the development of self-regulation abilities (Calkins, 2007), as infants and toddlers begin to recruit newly developed skills for self-regulating. Whereas a young infant relies upon the caregiver to distract them from an unfavorable experience, an older infant can control their eyes and/or head to purposefully look away and a toddler can use newly developed motor abilities to independently crawl or walk away. [2]
It is important to recognize that processes of self-regulation might differ across cultures (Jaramillo et al., 2017). The strategies an individual uses to modify their internal states and behaviors are immersed in a cultural context that gives priority to prevailing values and outcomes in the socialization process. In this way, caregivers shape an infant’s developing self-regulation skills and at the same time communicate culturally-appropriate socioemotional norms and expectations. As an example, two studies (Harwood et al., 1999; Carlson and Harwood, 2003) compared socialization goals and practices of European American and Puerto Rican toddler caregivers. In line with their socialization goals, European American caregivers preferred educational practices that gave children learning opportunities. They structured learning situations indirectly, as they used suggestions and verbal approvals to guide children to act in a certain way, while giving them much room to choose for themselves what to exactly do. Puerto Rican caregivers, instead, tended to use more authority to teach children the ways of acting, according to what they expected. They intervened physically more often (e.g., by physically moving children to do something), used more explicit signals to obtain children’s attention, and gave more direct orders than European American caregivers. [3]
Caregivers are instrumental in the development and maintenance of self-regulatory abilities among infants and toddlers. As they develop, infants transition from dependence on caregivers for help in self-regulating to more autonomous self-regulation. Let’s return to and provide more information about the scenario of the infant who hears a loud unexpected sound presented at the beginning of this topic. Eli, 3 months old, is a new child in the infant room at a child care center. Ms. Williams, his primary caregiver, learned from his family what techniques work best to calm Eli when he is upset. One day, a loud noise from the street suddenly wakes Eli and he starts to cry. Ms. Williams lifts him from his crib and holds him close, swaying from side to side until he relaxes and returns to sleep. [4] [5]
As infants have limited self-regulation abilities, the role of caregivers is essential. By responding to the infant in a way that meets their needs, the caregiver supports the infant’s emerging regulatory abilities. As the example from the scenario highlights, Eli was able to express his internal state, but he depended on his caregiver to help him regulate his internal state. Soothing by holding and rocking or by reorienting a child’s attention is a common practice for regulating distress. The caregiver’s regulating actions not only soothe the infant, but also demonstrate to the infant, culturally-appropriate strategies for self-regulation.
[2] Schworer et al., (2021). Early regulatory skills and social communication development in infants with Down Syndrome. Brain Sciences, 11(2), 208. CC by 4.0
[3] Jaramillo et al., (2017). Children’s self-regulation in cultural contexts: The role of parental socialization theories, goals, and practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 923. CC by 4.0
[4]Emotional and Behavioral Self-Regulation” by Head Start ECLKC is in the public domain.
[5] Finlay-Jones et al., (2021). Caregiver-mediated interventions to support self-regulation among infants and young children (0–5 years): A protocol for a realist review. BMJ Open, 11(6), e046078. CC by 4.0 NC
8.6.06: Persistence
Development of Persistence
As toddlers continue to grow, their developing abilities will lead them to taking on more challenging tasks such as climbing new obstacles and playing with toys in more complex ways, such as stacking blocks to create tall towers. But when these tasks become challenging, what determines when a toddler will give up or demonstrate persistence? Persistence in childhood has repeatedly been associated with positive outcomes. Persistence at 6 months predicts cognitive development at 14 months (Banerjee & TamisLeMonda, 2007), persistence at 3 years predicts language and math skills in kindergarten (Mokrova et al., 2013), and persistence in childhood predicts later academic achievement (Meier & Albrecht, 2003), success at career work, and healthy relationships, well into adulthood (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007; EskreisWinkler, Duckworth, Shulman, & Beal, 2014). [1]
During challenging tasks, we consider the costs and rewards for continued persistence. Recent work has provided evidence that young children also consider costs and rewards when making decisions. For example, 18-month-olds weigh the expected costs and benefits of their actions when deciding whether to help an adult construct a tower composed of blocks of different weights (Sommerville et al., 2018). When toddlers were presented with a task researchers purposefully created to be impossible to do, increased failure led to decreased effort by toddlers (Radovanovic et al., 2021). Interestingly, toddlers who attempted various strategies during the impossible task persisted for longer in trying to do it. This research emphasizes the importance of developmentally-appropriate activities for infants and toddlers as well as the importance for caregivers to demonstrate different approaches to solve challenges. [1]
One factor that influences even very young children’s decisions about when to persist and when to give up is the behavior of the adults in their environment (Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Lucca, Horton & Sommerville, 2019). For example, toddlers tend to make generalizations about when to persist based on adult behavior. When 15-month-olds observed an adult work hard to achieve a particular goal (e.g. trying different strategies, repeating actions), they themselves attempted to activate a novel toy more times than toddlers who observed an adult succeed after little to no effort (Leonard, Lee & Schulz, 2017). Thus, our persistence with challenging tasks as caregivers, are demonstrations for infants and toddlers to learn about persistence themselves. [1]
[1] Rett & Walker (2020). Knowing when to quit: Children consider access to solutions when deciding whether to persist. Cognitive Science. CC by 4.0
[1] Photo by Alexander Dummer on Unsplash | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.06%3A_Cognitive_Processes/8.6.05%3A_Self-Regulation.txt |
Development of Spatial Skills
Spatial skills refer to the cognitive processing of spatial information, which “involves shapes, locations, paths, relations among entities and relations between entities and frames of reference” (Newcombe & Shipley, 2015). Spatial abilities are an important part of cognitive development because early spatial skills are associated with map use (Liben et al., 2013), numerical skills (Zhang, 2016; Cornu et al., 2018; Fanari et al., 2019), math reasoning and knowledge (Casey et al., 2015; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019), early writing skills (Bourke et al., 2014), motor skills (Jansen & Heil, 2010), and executive functions (Lehmann et al., 2014; Frick and Baumeler, 2017). [1]
Spatial thinking often involves mental rotation. Mental rotation refers to the ability to imagine how an object that has been seen from one perspective would look if it were rotated in space into a new orientation and viewed from the new perspective. This ability is crucial even for infants because from soon after birth they are confronted with and must cognitively represent moving and rotating objects in their natural environment. Whether a caregiver or a favorite toy, infants must learn how to recognize people and objects when viewed from different orientations. Figure \(2\) provides an example of a test item frequently used to measure mental rotation. At the top is an image of a “same” stimulus in which the object on the right is the same as the object on the left, just rotated. At the bottom is an image of a “different” stimulus, no matter how the image on the left is rotated, it cannot be represented by the image on the right. [3] [4] [5]
Several studies have reported mental rotation abilities in infants as young as 3 to 5 months of age with greater abilities in boys than in girls in early infancy (Constantinescu et al., 2018; Johnson & Moore, 2020; Lauer et al., 2015; Quinn & Liben, 2014). As an example, Moore and Johnson (2008) habituated three month old infants to a video of an object, like in Figure \(3\), as it rotated around its vertical axis. Then, in test trials, infants saw the same object (just rotated) or a different object (its mirror image). In Figure \(4\) image A represents the “back side” of the habituation object seen in Figure \(4\) (thus it is the same image, just rotated). In Figure \(4\) image B represents the mirror-image of the object seen in image A. The results of the study revealed that only the boys, not the girls, differentiated between the same and the mirror object. Thus, mental rotation is developed already by three months of age, with a gender difference favoring males in the ability to mentally rotate an object in three-dimensional space. [7]
Studies suggest there are various factors that might be important for supporting the early development of mental rotation abilities. Campos et al. (2000) provided evidence that self-produced locomotion, such as crawling, is relevant for infant visual-cognitive ability in general, while other studies have demonstrated a specific association between infant crawling and mental rotation ability (Gerhard-Samunda, Jovanovic & Schwarzer, 2021; Schwarzer et al., 2012). In addition, manual object exploration, such as when infants and toddlers use their hands to manipulate, rotate and transfer objects, might be associated with infant mental rotation ability (Möhring & Frick, 2013; (Soska et al., 2010). These findings demonstrate a relation between mental rotation abilities in infants and toddlers and object and environment exploration. Caregivers can support the development of mental rotation abilities by encouraging infants and toddlers to directly explore objects of various sizes, shapes, colors, etc, with their hands and by supporting the exploration of mobile children. [7]
[1] Yang et al., (2020). Is early spatial skills training effective? A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1938. CC by 4.0
[2] Image from Ryan Fields on Unsplash
[3] Johnson & Moore (2020). Spatial thinking in infancy: Origins and development of mental rotation between 3 and 10 months of age. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), 1-14. CC by 4.0
[4] Schwarzer et al., (2013). How crawling and manual object exploration are related to the mental rotation abilities of 9-month-old infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 97. CC by 4.0
[5] Ganis & Kievit (2015). A new set of three-dimensional shapes for investigating mental rotation processes: Validation data and stimulus set. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 3(1), e3. CC by 3.0
[6] Image from Ganis & Kievit (2015). A new set of three-dimensional shapes for investigating mental rotation processes: Validation data and stimulus set. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 3(1), e3. CC by 3.0
[7] Schwarzer et al., (2013). How crawling and manual object exploration are related to the mental rotation abilities of 9-month-old infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 97. CC by 4.0
[1] Image from Jelleke Vanooteghem on Unsplash | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.06%3A_Cognitive_Processes/8.6.07%3A_Spatial_Skills.txt |
Effect of Praise on Mindset
As a student, what were your favorite and least favorite classes in school? For many people, their least favorite class was math and they might say statements like “I’m just not a math person”. This statement suggests that people are born with specific abilities (like being skilled at math or art, or sports, etc.,). The problem with this statement is that we are not born to be or to not be “math people”. While indeed genetics and environment play a role in developing abilities, so too does the mindset we have.
Mindsets are defined as implicit beliefs individuals hold about basic human abilities and attributes, such as intelligence (Dweck, 2006). They exist on a spectrum from fixed mindsets, which refer to believing that specific human attributes are static and unchangeable, to growth mindsets, which refer to believing that these attributes are malleable and can be shaped and developed with effort. So if we return back to math, someone who says “I’m just not a math person” probably has a fixed mindset because they are suggesting human abilities are unchangeable—you are either born a math person or not. In contrast, someone with a growth mindset can still struggle with math, but believes that their ability in math can be changed—practicing more and finding new strategies can help them improve. [1]
The role of mindsets has been widely investigated in the educational field, especially with older children, as mindsets are related to motivation and behavior, including the way students handle academic setbacks and challenges (Blackwell, Trzesniewski & Dweck, 2007; Aditomo, 2015). People with a fixed mindset are more prone to interpret their setbacks to a lack of inborn ability when compared to people with a growth mindset, who instead attribute setbacks to a lack of effort (Dweck, Chiu & Hong, 1995; Dweck, 2006). Growth mindset has been linked to students’ higher resilience, psychological well being, and school engagement (Yeager et al., 2019; Zeng, Hou & Peng, 2016). [1]
Why do some people have a growth mindset while others have a fixed mindset? What factors contribute to someone developing a specific mindset? As infants and toddlers develop, they frequently reveal new abilities that are exciting for caregivers to witness. Praise is a common response to these new abilities. While praise may seem like a positive response, research has revealed that the effect of praise depends on the type of praise, and that, surprisingly, some types of praise negatively affect the motivation of the person receiving praise. Many studies have found that receiving effort-focused praise positively affected motivation, while receiving ability-focused praise negatively affected motivation (e.g., Brummelman et al., 2014; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). In a landmark study by Mueller and Dweck (1998), fifth-grade children were asked to work on a set of tasks; then, they were praised for their ability (e.g., “You must be smart”), were praised for their effort (e.g., “You must have worked hard”), or received no additional feedback (i.e., the control group). Subsequently, children were given a more difficult set of problems and failed. Compared to children in the control group, children in the effort praise group reported more task enjoyment and performed higher on the subsequent task, while children in the ability praise group reported less task enjoyment and performed lower on the task. [2]
These effects of ability-focused and effort-focused praise are related to one’s mindset about one’s ability and attributes (e.g., Gunderson et al., 2013; Pomerantz & Kempner, 2013). Children who receive effort-focused praise tend to endorse a growth mindset, and their enjoyment and subsequent task performance are high following failure; in contrast, those who receive ability-focused praise tend to endorse a fixed mindset, and their enjoyment and subsequent task performance are low following failure (Dweck, 2008; Mueller and Dweck, 1998). Effort-focused praise emphasizes the fundamental role of effort for growth/improvement, whereas ability-focused praise implies that individuals’ intelligence is an internal and perhaps fixed/stable trait. [2]
Research with infants and toddlers demonstrates that mindsets about one’s abilities are already forming during the first three years of life and the type of praise received from caregivers is important in shaping a child’s mindset. Eighteen month old toddlers who have caregivers who use more effort-focused praise are more persistent in challenging tasks (Lucca, Horton & Sommerville, 2019). Toddlers who receive more ability-focused praise from their caregivers are more likely to have a growth mindset later in childhood as 7 to 8 year olds (Gunderson et al., 2013) and higher academic achievement in the fourth grade (Gunderson et al., 2018).
As caregivers of infants and toddlers, we not only need to be cognizant of how our praise affects childrens’ developing mindsets, but also the impact our personal mindsets can have. Recent research has focused on caregivers’ mindsets as a key factor that may shape caregiving behaviors and perspectives toward children (Justice et al., 2020). Caregivers’ mindsets refers to the beliefs that caregivers hold regarding whether children’s development is fixed or malleable as well as their belief of the importance of effort for learning (Sisk et al., 2018). [3]
Recently, Rowe and Leech (2018) implemented a random-assignment experiment to examine use of a caregiver mindset intervention to improve caregivers’ non-verbal interactions with 10-month-old infants. Caregivers assigned to a training condition participated in training emphasizing the malleability of early language skills and that caregivers can play a key role in facilitating these skills through non-verbal interactions. Compared to caregivers in a control group, the trained caregivers interacted more frequently with their children at 12 months of age, and this effect was particularly strong for caregivers who originally had a fixed mindset. Such research suggests that caregiver mindset may be a key factor for improving children’s early experiences and development. To discover what your mindset is, (1\) presents a short Mindset assessment. [3]
Example \(1\) Mindset activity
Directions: Select an answer for each of the eight questions.
1. “No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it a good deal”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
2. “You can learn new things, but you cannot really change your basic level of intelligence”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
3. “I like my work best when it makes me think hard”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
4. “I like my work best when I can do it really well without too much trouble”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
5. “I like work that I’ll learn from even if I make a lot of mistakes”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
6. “I like my work best when I can do it perfectly without any mistakes”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
7. “When something is hard, it just makes me want to work more on it, not less”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
8. “To tell the truth, when I work hard, it makes me feel as though I’m not very smart”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
Directions: Select an answer for each of the eight questions.
1. “No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it a good deal”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
2. “You can learn new things, but you cannot really change your basic level of intelligence”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
3. “I like my work best when it makes me think hard”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
4. “I like my work best when I can do it really well without too much trouble”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
5. “I like work that I’ll learn from even if I make a lot of mistakes”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
6. “I like my work best when I can do it perfectly without any mistakes”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
7. “When something is hard, it just makes me want to work more on it, not less”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
8. “To tell the truth, when I work hard, it makes me feel as though I’m not very smart”
1. Disagree a lot
2. Disagree
3. Disagree a little
4. Agree a little
5. Agree
6. Agree a lot
Research suggests that mindsets begin developing during infancy and toddlerhood and that caregivers play a pivotal role in which mindset children develop. The type of praise we use is important. Caregivers should be aware of their praise and attempt to use more effort-focused praise in an attempt to help children develop a growth mindset. Using effort-focused praise with infants and toddlers is important as their mindsets are beginning to develop and effort-focused praise during the first three years is related to the development of a growth mindset and educational achievement later in childhood.
[1] Puusepp et al., (2021). Mindsets and neural mechanisms of automatic reactions to negative feedback in mathematics in elementary school students. Frontiers in Psychology, 3297. CC by 4.0
[2] Kakinuma et al., (2021). Praise affects the “Praiser”: effects of ability-focused vs. effort-focused praise on motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1-22. CC by 4.0
[3] Justice et al., (2020). Parents’ growth mindsets and home-learning activities: A cross-cultural comparison of Danish and U.S. parents. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1365. CC by 4.0
[4] Burgoyne & Macnamara (2021). Reconsidering the use of the mindset assessment profile in educational contexts. Journal of Intelligence, 9(3), 39. CC by 4.0
8.07: Conclusion
Conclusion of Overview of Cognitive Development
While it was once thought that the experience a young infant likely has when engaging with the world is one of “blooming, buzzing confusion” (James, 1890), research has since revealed that infants are cognitively making sense of the world around them in complex ways. While some cognitive processes seem to be inborn, other cognitive processes unfold throughout the first three years of life. What is clear is that through everyday experiences with supportive caregivers, infants and toddlers are making sense of their world and developing important cognitive skills that they will continue to build on later in childhood. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/08%3A_Overview_of_Cognitive_Development/8.06%3A_Cognitive_Processes/8.6.08%3A_Mindset_and_Praise.txt |
Introduction to Theories of Cognitive Development
The first three years of a child’s life are full of many first-time experiences, from the sensory experiences in early infancy to the various new experiences motor and language abilities afford. Just think about the difference in experience of an infant not yet mobile and an infant who is able to walk around independently! Every experience, whether novel or repeated, supports their emerging cognition. Cognition refers to thinking and memory processes, and cognitive development refers to changes in these processes over time. This section will introduce you to the major theories of cognitive development, with special attention to the theories of Jean Piaget and Lev Vyotsky. [1]
[1] Kelvin Seifert & Rosemary Sutton (2009). “Educational Psychology.” CC by 4.0
9.02: Jean Piaget
Overview of Jean Piaget
Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was a renowned psychologist of the 20th century and a pioneer in developmental psychology. Piaget did not accept the prevailing theory that knowledge was innate. Instead, he believed a child’s knowledge and understanding of the world developed over time, through the child’s interactions with the world. By observing that interaction, Piaget was able to perceive how children created schemas (mental ways to organize information) that shaped their perceptions, cognitions, and judgment of the world. Just as almost all babies learn to roll over before they learn to sit up by themselves, Piaget believed that children gain their cognitive ability in a developmental order. These insights—that children at different ages think in fundamentally different ways—led to Piaget’s stage theory of cognitive development. As a stage theorist, Piaget believed cognitive change occurred in distinct stages with a fixed-order, rather than continuous development that argued for a more gradual continuous process (see Figure \(2\) for an analogy). Despite various limitations, Piaget's theory of cognitive development is one of the most enduring theories in psychology. [2]
Piaget believed that children do not just passively learn but actively try to make sense of their worlds. He argued that, as they learn and mature, children develop schemas that help them remember, organize, and respond to information. Furthermore, Piaget thought that when children experience new things, they attempt to reconcile the new knowledge with existing schemas through methods that he called assimilation and accommodation. [4]
When children apply assimilation, they use already developed schemas to understand new information. If children have learned a schema for horses, then they might call the striped animal they see at the zoo a horse rather than a zebra. In this case, children fit the existing schema (knowledge that defines a horse separate from other animals) to the new experience (a zebra) because zebras fit the basic schema of a horse. Accommodation, on the other hand, involves learning new information, and thus changing/updating the schema. When a mother says, “No, honey, that’s a zebra, not a horse,” the child may adapt the schema to fit the new experience, learning that there are different types of four-legged animals, only one of which is a horse and that zebras are unique because of their black and white stripes.
Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development
Over his lifetime, Piaget contributed significantly to the study of cognitive development in children. Piaget’s most important contribution to understanding cognitive development, and the fundamental aspect of his theory, was the idea that development occurs in unique and distinct stages, with each stage occurring at a specific time, in a sequential manner, and in a way that allows the child to think about the world using new capacities. Piaget classified children’s cognitive development into four sequential stages: (1) The sensorimotor period from birth to 24 months, (2) the pre-operations period between the approximate ages of two and seven years old, (3) the concrete operational period that begins around age seven and continues through about 11 years old, and (4) the formal operations period that begins around age 11 and continues through adolescence. [2]
Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development
Stage
Approximate age range
Characteristics
Stage attainments
Sensorimotor
Birth to about 2 years
The child experiences the world through the fundamental senses of seeing, hearing, touching, and tasting.
Object permanence
Preoperational
2 to 7 years
Children acquire the ability to internally represent the world through language and mental imagery. They also start to see the world from other people’s perspectives.
Theory of mind; rapid increase in language ability
Concrete operational
7 to 11 years
Children become able to think logically. They can perform operations on objects, but only those which are real ("concrete"), not those which are abstract.
Conservation
Formal operational 11 years to adulthood Adolescents can think systematically, can reason about abstract concepts, and can understand ethics and scientific reasoning. Abstract logic
As this text is about infants and toddlers, we will primarily focus on the first stage, the sensorimotor stage, which includes children between the ages of 0 to 2 years. During the sensorimotor stage, children use their senses and motor capabilities to understand the world. In fact, infants’ use of their senses to perceive the world is so central to their understanding that whenever infants do not directly perceive objects, as far as they are concerned, the objects do not exist. Piaget found, for instance, that if he first interested infants in a toy and then covered the toy with a blanket, infants who were younger than 6 months of age would act as if the toy had disappeared completely—they never tried to find it under the blanket but would nevertheless smile and reach for it when the blanket was removed. Piaget found that it was not until about 8 months that the infants realized that the object was merely covered and not gone. Piaget used the term object permanence to refer to the child’s ability to know that an object exists even when the object cannot be perceived. [4]
Sensorimotor Substages
The sensorimotor period begins at birth and continues through the child’s first two years. It focuses on the development of schemes as infants’ sensory and motor systems interact with the world. There are six substages within the sensorimotor period.
Sensorimotor Substages
Sensorimotor Substage
Age
Substage 1: Simple Reflexes
Birth to 1 month
Substage 2: Primary Circular Reactions
1 to 4 months
Substage 3: Secondary Circular Reactions
4 to 8 months
Substage 4: Coordination of Circular Reactions
8 to 12 months
Substage 5: Tertiary Circular Reactions
12 to 18 months
Substage 6: Internalization of Schemes and Early Representational Thought
18 months to 2 years
Stage 1 lasts from birth until around 1 month of age. At this first stage, learning by experiencing the world is largely driven by inborn motor and sensory reflexes, like the sucking and palmar reflexes. With the palmar reflex, when something is placed in the palm of an infant, their involuntary reflex is to close their fingers around it and cling on to it. By doing so, the infant is able to experience shape, texture, temperature, weight, etc.,. The palmar reflex typically disappears by six months of age (Anekar & Bordoni, 2020). At this stage, Piaget proposed that learning about the world is not primarily voluntary, instead, infants begin to encounter the world as a result of their inborn reflexes. [2] [8]
Stage 2, which occurs approximately between 1 and 4 months, includes the primary circular reaction in which an infant happens to experience an event and then attempts to repeat the action. The infant begins to discriminate between objects and adjust responses accordingly as reflexes are replaced with voluntary movements. An infant may accidentally engage in a behavior and find it interesting, such as making a vocalization. This interest motivates them to try to do it again and helps the infant learn a new behavior that originally occurred by chance. At first, most actions have to do with the body, but in the months to come, will be directed more toward objects.[2] [8]
Stage 3, which takes place between 4-8 months, involves secondary circular reactions when an infant repeats an action with a specific, desired consequence or to achieve an unrelated consequence. The infant becomes more and more actively engaged in the outside world and takes delight in being able to make things purposely happen on their own. Repeated motion brings particular interest, for example, as the infant is able to bang two things together or when sticking out their tongue leads to their parents laughing. [2] [8]
Stage 4, which occurs approximately between 8 and 12 months, comprises the use of familiar means to obtain ends. It entails deliberate planning of steps to meet a goal or objective. The infant can engage in behaviors that others perform and anticipate upcoming events. Perhaps because of continued maturation of the prefrontal cortex, the infant becomes capable of having a thought and carrying out a planned, goal-directed activity such as seeking a toy that has rolled under the couch. The object continues to exist in the infant’s mind even when out of sight and the infant now is capable of making attempts to retrieve it. [2] [8]
Stage 5, which takes place between 12 to 18 months of age, is a tertiary circular reaction in which an infant experiments with their environment using the properties of one object to manipulate another object, in other words, using an experimental object, like a stick, to push a ball that then makes a noise. The infant actively engages in more experimentation to learn about the physical world. Gravity is learned by pouring water from a cup or pushing bowls off of table tops. The caregiver tries to help the child by picking it up again and placing it back on the table. And what happens? Another experiment! The child pushes it off the table again causing it to fall and the caregiver to pick it up again! [2]
Stage 6, which occurs approximately between 18 and 24 months, is characterized by insight, wherein the child observes how other people manipulate the environment to reach the desired goal, then the child applies that knowledge to obtain the desired goal. The child is now able to solve problems using mental strategies, to remember something heard days before and repeat it, to engage in pretend play, and to find objects that have been moved even when out of sight. Take for instance, a toddler who is upstairs in a room with the door closed, supposedly taking a nap. The doorknob has a safety device on it that makes it impossible for the child to turn the knob. After trying several times to push the door or turn the doorknob, the child carries out a mental strategy learned from prior experience to get the door opened-knocking on the door! The child is now better equipped with mental strategies for problem-solving. [2]
The culmination of stage 6 and the sensorimotor period is the child’s understanding of object permanence, that objects have an existence independent of the child’s interaction with them. Classic examples of understanding object permanence include a child’s realization that when a caregiver leaves a room, the parent continues to exist, or the child’s attempt to recover a hidden toy, indicating the child’s understanding that the toy still exists outside of view (Beilin & Fireman,1999). [2]
[1] Image by Mirjoran is licensed under CC by 2.0.
[2] Scott & Cogburn (2021). Piaget. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. CC by 4.0
[3] Image from Siegler (2021). Cognitive development in childhood. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. CC by SA NC 4.0
[4]Introduction to Psychology” by Walinga & Stangor. CC by NC SA 4.0
[5] Assimiliation and Accomodation in “Introduction to Psychology” by Walinga & Stangor. CC by NC SA 4.0
[6] Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development. in “Introduction to Psychology” by Walinga & Stangor. CC by NC SA 4.0
[7] Image adapted from Clackson et al., (2019). Do helpful mothers help? Effects of maternal scaffolding and infant engagement on cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2661. CC by 4.0
[8]Psyc 200 Lifespan Psychology” by Laura Overstreet. CC by 4.0
[9] Image by Raul Luna is licensed under CC by 2.0.
[10] Image by Jason Sung is licensed under CC by 4.0
[11] Image by Juan Encalada is licensed under CC by 4.0
[12] Image by Jelleke Vanooteghem is licensed under CC by 4.0
[13] Image by Lubomirkin is licensed under CC by 4.0
[14] Image by Jluis arias is licensed under CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/09%3A_Theories_of_Cognitive_development/9.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Sensorimotor Stages
While learning about the sensorimotor stage, did you notice how Piaget used observable behaviors from children to understand and categorize cognitive progression? Children reveal their thinking through their observable behaviors. The key then to understanding a child’s cognitive development is that we, as caregivers, need to take the time to carefully observe and document children’s behavior. The sensorimotor substages can act like a map to help us understand a child’s current cognitive stage and also the next stage(s) they will progress into. Knowing which substage children are in can inform us about the function of their behaviors and provide us insight into possible activities to support their cognitive progression.
For example, in stage 3, infants take delight in being able to make things purposefully happen on their own; therefore, caregivers can consider including play objects that infants can easily manipulate and that have a ‘consequence’--an outcome that can be experienced by the child. In comparison, during stage 5, an infant directly experiments with their environment; therefore, caregivers can include various play objects that can be used to engage with the immediate contextual environment. Children in stage 5 love pouring water back and forth between containers of different sizes and shapes. As contexts change (e.g., inside/outside, water play, table activities, etc.,), so too should the experimental play objects to best encourage experimental curiosity. Remember, the first and most important thing we can do as caregivers is purposefully observe children. Observe the children and how they use objects and then reflect on their behaviors to consider additional or alternative objects to support their experimentation.
Preoperational Stage
Although Piaget suggested that only one year of toddlerhood is spent in the preoperational stage, learning about this stage is important because it sheds light on the future trajectory of cognitive growth in toddlers. Furthermore, the fact that Piaget includes the second year of a child’s life in the next stage of cognitive development, highlights the important cognitive growth that occurs from 24 to 36 months of age.
At about 2 years of age, and until about 7 years of age, children move into the preoperational stage. During this stage, children begin to use more language and to think more abstractly about objects. The term ‘operational’ refers to logical manipulation of information, so children at this stage are considered pre-operational because children’s logic is based on their own personal knowledge of the world so far, rather than on conventional knowledge. Children also begin to use more conversational language in the preoperational stage, but they cannot understand adult logic or mentally manipulate information. [1] [2]
The preoperational period is defined by semiotic function, or representational thought through signs and symbols. This stage exhibits five characteristic behaviors: imitation, symbolic play, drawing, mental image, and verbal recalling of events. The first behavior, imitation, is when the child models observed behavior even after the disappearance of the thing the child is imitating. For example, the child may mimic a person’s dance or how they play with an object, even after the person is no longer present. The next behavior, symbolic play, is a step beyond imitation. This “make-believe” or “play pretend” behavior is characterized by the child’s ability to project an idea onto an object, symbolically. “Let’s pretend that I am the mama and this is my baby,” and the child points to a stuffed animal. In this example, both the child and the stuffed animals are symbols in the game of make-believe. The third identified behavior, drawing, begins early in the preoperational period, and incorporates both play and imitation. Drawing often begins with scribbles and proceeds to graphic imagery with the representation of objects that are present in the child’s world. Through drawing, the child may represent family members with stick figures, with the key characteristic being that the child understands that the stick figures are only representations of the family, not the actual family members. Finally, the verbal recalling of events, which is the culmination of semiotic function, is the child’s use of language to imitate and reflect upon events that occurred in the child’s past. Mastery of semiotic function is important because it indicates that a child can think and assimilate knowledge rather than merely act on objects that are physically present (Marwaha, Goswami & Vashist, 2017). [3]
Limitations of Piaget’s Theory
[1]Introduction to Psychology” by Walinga & Stangor. CC by NC SA 4.0
[2] Lally & Valentine-French (2019). Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective. CC by NC SA 4.0
[3] Scott & Cogburn (2021). Piaget. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/09%3A_Theories_of_Cognitive_development/9.03%3A_Applying_Piagets_Sensorimotor_Stage.txt |
Zone of Proximal Development:
Vygotsky’s best known concept is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Vygotsky stated that children should be taught in the ZPD, which occurs when they can almost perform a task, but not quite on their own without assistance. With the right kind of teaching, however, they can accomplish it successfully. A good teacher identifies a child’s ZPD and helps the child stretch beyond it. Then the teacher gradually withdraws support until the child can then perform the task unaided. This highlights the importance of instructional decisions related to types and quality of interactions in designing effective learning experiences for infants and toddlers. [1] [3]
Researchers have applied the metaphor of scaffolds (the temporary platforms on which construction workers stand) to this way of teaching. Scaffolding is the temporary support that caregivers give a child to do a task. Scaffolding represents the way in which a caregiver guides a child’s learning during a goal-oriented task by offering or withdrawing support at different levels depending on the child’s individual developmental level and learning needs. Scaffoldings typically include a mutual and dynamic nature of interaction where both the learner and the one providing the scaffold influence each other and adjust their behavior as they collaborate. In an interactive game of peek-a-book, a caregiver can scaffold an infant’s attention and understanding of object permanence by changing the length of time they stay hidden and by changing how they reveal themselves (e.g., using their hands or another object to hide behind). Research suggests that even in infancy scaffolding plays an important role in the development of cognitive abilities (Cuevas et al. 2014; Matte-Gagné & Bernier 2011; Neale & Whitebread, 2019). Ideas such as the ZPD and scaffolding bring to light a fundamentally different view of a caregiver who serves more as a facilitator of learning rather than someone providing general knowledge. Likewise, the learner takes on more responsibilities such as determining their learning goals, becoming a resource of knowledge for peers, and actively collaborating in the learning process (Grabinger, Aplin, & Ponnappa-Brenner, 2007). This often contrasts with how many people perceive education--as the teacher being the source of knowledge and the teacher directly giving their knowledge to the children. [1] [4] [3]
For infant and toddler caregivers, every interaction, whether during play or a care routine, is an opportunity to engage with a child inside their ZPD. To begin to engage with an infant or toddler inside their ZPD, we must first purposefully observe them. Beginning with observation is critical because it allows us to first understand what the child is interested in and hypothesize about what their goals may be. Furthermore, observation reveals their current ability or understanding about the activity and objects they are engaged in. Next, we should then reflect upon our observations and consider our role within the child’s ZPD. What type and level of assistance can we offer to the child? What is the least amount of assistance we can provide as guidance? While implementing assistance to the child, we should constantly be reflecting upon how our assistance changes their activity and reflect upon our potential new role as their behaviors change.
Contingency is one strategy to use while engaging with a child in their ZPD. Contingency describes the extent to which a caregiver’s interaction is dependent upon attributes of the child (for example their age, ability, attention, interest, and whether or not they are struggling with the task at hand). A contingent caregiver response is one which occurs when a child requires help of some kind, as opposed to assistance which appears unnecessary because it occurs when a child is coping adequately. A contingent response will also provide the appropriate level of support to assist the child – not taking over the task completely, and not giving too little assistance to not have any effect. As a result, to respond contingently, a caregiver must be present in the unfolding of an activity and observe the child carefully. [4]
Development and learning originate in social, historical, and cultural interactions.
Vygotsky contended that thinking has social origins. Social interactions play a critical role especially in the development of higher order thinking skills, and cognitive development cannot be fully understood without considering the social and historical context within which it is embedded. He explained, “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)” (Vygotsky, 1978). It is only through working with others on a variety of tasks that a child adopts socially-shared experiences and acquires useful strategies and knowledge (Scott & Palincsar, 2013). [3]
Barbara Rogoff (1990) refers to this process as guided participation, where a learner actively acquires new culturally valuable skills and capabilities through a meaningful, collaborative activity with an assisting, more experienced other, such as a caregiver. It is critical to notice that these culturally-mediated functions are viewed as being embedded in sociocultural activities rather than being self-contained. Development is a “transformation of participation in a sociocultural activity” not a transmission of discrete cultural knowledge or skills (Matusov, 2015). The processes of guided participation reveal the Vygotskian view of cognitive development “as the transformation of socially-shared activities into internalized processes,” or an act of enculturation (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). In this way, children cognitively learn about the world by participating in it with others. [3]
Examples of guided participation can be seen when caregivers involve infants and toddlers in everyday routines. In her research with Mayan families in Guatemala, Rogoff et al., (1993) reported mothers guiding their toddlers through the process of making tortillas. Mothers would give the toddlers small balls of dough to practice rolling and flattening. This cultural practice both contributed to the child’s cognitive development and their learning of practices important for their culture. As another example, consider a group care setting during meal time where toddlers are seated with a caregiver and the meal is separated into larger bowls on the table where the toddlers are seated. The toddlers are able to participate in the routine by serving themselves using the serving spoons and then feed themselves using the utensils. The first few times this routine is started, the caregiver may do more serving and guiding, but eventually, through practiced participation, toddlers are able to participate more deeply, all the while learning culturally-valuable skills such as turn-taking, conversation around a meal, vocabulary and the motor skills needed to serve and eat.
This Vygotskian notion of social learning stands in contrast to some of Piaget’s more popular ideas of cognitive development, which assume that development through certain stages is biologically determined, originates in the individual, and precedes cognitive complexity. This difference in assumptions has significant implications to the design and implementation of learning experiences. If we believe, as Piaget did, that development precedes learning, then we will make sure that new concepts and problems are not introduced until learners have first developed the capabilities to understand them. On the other hand, if we believe as Vygotsky did that learning drives development and that development occurs as we learn a variety of challenging concepts and principles with others, then we will ensure that activities are structured in ways that promote interaction. We will know that it is the process of learning that enables achievement of higher levels of development, which in turn affects a child’s “readiness to learn a new concept” (Miller, 2011). [3]
Private Speech
Do you ever talk to yourself? Why? Chances are, this occurs when you are struggling with a problem, trying to remember something, or feel very emotional about a situation. Children talk to themselves too. Piaget interpreted this as Egocentric Speech or a practice engaged in because of a child’s inability to see things from another’s point of view. Vygotsky, however, believed that children talk to themselves in order to solve problems or clarify thoughts. As children learn to think in words, they do so aloud before eventually closing their lips and engaging in private speech or inner speech. Thinking out loud eventually becomes thought accompanied by internal speech, and talking to oneself becomes a practice only engaged in when we are trying to learn something or remember something. This inner speech is not as elaborate as the speech we use when communicating with others (Vygotsky, 1962). Despite the fact that toddlers are still progressing through the early stages of language acquisition, they nevertheless use private speech. For example, young toddlers, between 14 to 18 months of age, independently use gestures to help think through the use of complex toys and for self-regulation (Basilio & Rodríguez, 2017) and when left alone in their bed at night, toddlers sing to themselves as a way to “practice musical skills, reflect, experiment, self-soothe, and understand their own worlds” (Sole, 2017). [1]
Although Piaget’s theory of cognitive development receives more attention, sociocultural theory has several widely recognized strengths. First, it emphasizes the broader social, cultural, and historical context of all human activity. It does not view individuals as isolated entities; rather, it provides a richer perspective, focusing on the fluid boundary between self and others. It portrays the dynamics of a child acquiring knowledge and skills from the society and then in turn shaping their own personal environment (Miller, 2011). Second, sociocultural theory is sensitive to individual and cross-cultural diversity. In contrast to the universal aspects of Piaget’s theory, sociocultural theory acknowledges both differences in individuals within a culture and differences in individuals across cultures. It recognizes that “different historical and cultural circumstances may encourage different developmental routes to any given developmental endpoint” depending on particular social or physical circumstances and cultural tools available (Miller, 2011). Finally, sociocultural theory greatly contributes to our understanding of cognitive development by integrating the notion of learning and development. The idea of learning driving development rather than being determined by a developmental level or age of the child fundamentally changes our understanding of the learning process and has significant instructional and educational implications for the care and education of infants and toddlers. [3]
Limitations of Vygotsky’s Theory
There are critical limitations to the sociocultural perspective. The first limitation is related to Vygotsky’s premature death, as many of his ideas remained incomplete. Furthermore, his work was largely unknown until fairly recently due to political reasons and issues with translation. The second major limitation is associated with the vagueness of the ZPD. Individuals may have wide or narrow zones, which may be both desirable and undesirable, depending on the circumstances. Knowing only the width of the zone “does not provide an accurate picture of a child’s learning, ability, style of learning, and current level of development compared to other children of the same age and degree of motivation” (Miller, 2011). Additionally, there is little known about whether a child’s zone is comparable across different learning domains, with different individuals, and whether the size of the zone changes over time. And importantly, there is not a common metric scale to measure ZPD. [3]
[1] Lally & Valentine-French (2019). Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective. CC by NC SA 4.0
[2] Image by josemota is licensed under CC by 2.0. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
[3]Sociocultural Perspectives of Learning” by Polly et al., is licensed under CC by 4.0
[4] Neale & Whitebread (2019). Maternal scaffolding during play with 12-to 24-month-old infants: stability over time and relations with emerging effortful control. Metacognition and Learning, 14(3), 265-289. CC by 4.0
[5] Image by Anna Earl is licensed under CC by 4.0
[6] Image by Liana Mikah is licensed under CC by 4.0
[7] Image by Markus Spiske is licensed under CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/09%3A_Theories_of_Cognitive_development/9.04%3A_Vygotskys_Sociocultural_Theory_of_Cognitive_Development.txt |
Understanding the Theory of Core Knowledge
The theory of core knowledge proposes that infants are born with ‘core knowledge systems’ that support basic intuitions about the world (Spelke & Kinzler, 2007). Whereas Piaget claimed that children construct knowledge by engaging with the world and Vygotsky claimed children develop cognitively by participating with others in culturally-relevant activities, the theory of core knowledge claims that children are born with basic knowledge. Supporters of this theory suggest that the many studies documenting cognitive abilities in just the first few months of infancy, provide evidence for this theory. For example, Renée Baillargeon’s early work discovered that object permanence is developed in infants at a much younger age than Piaget proposed--already by 3 to 4 months of age (Baillargeon, 1987)! The fact that infants have an understanding of object permanence already, in only the first few months of life, suggests that this knowledge might be inborn. [1]
In one experiment on object permanence, young infants were familiarized with a display in which a screen lying flat and facing the infant rotated up and away from the infant 180° in the manner of a drawbridge (Baillargeon, 1987). During the test phase, a new object was then placed at the far edge of the screen, which either did or did not impede the rotating screen (see Figure \(1\) for a depiction of the experimental scenarios). In the “impossible” scenario, the screen moved exactly as during familiarization, appearing to rotate right through the object. In the “possible” scenario, the screen rotated only to the point where it would be expected to make contact with the object and then stopped moving. Infants looked longer at the “impossible” scenario than the ‘possible’ scenario – which was interpreted in terms of a violation of infants’ expectations regarding object permanence. In another experiment on object permanence (see Figure \(1\) for a visual depiction of the scenarios), 3 to 4 month old infants looked longer at an impossible event (tall carrot moving behind a box with a section cut out near the top of the box that should have shown the green top of the carrot as it moved behind the box) than the possible event (short carrot moving behind a box with a section cut out near the top of the box that should not have shown the green top of the carrot as it moved behind the box) (Baillargeon & DeVos, 1991).
Building on Baillargeon’s early research, many studies have since continued to document a range of abilities that are collectively described as ‘core systems of knowledge’ and suggest basic inborn knowledge about the physical world (Hamlin, Wynn & Bloom, 2010; Spelke, 1998; Spelke et al., 1992; Spelke & Kinzler, 2007; Wang & Feigenson, 2021). Unlike Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories, the theory of core knowledge suggests that some aspects of early knowledge do not need to be learned with experience or from more knowledgeable others because children are instead born with this knowledge. [1]
[1] Grace et al., (2021). Implicit Computation and the Origins of Knowledge. Preprint. CC by 4.0
[2] Image adapted from Turk-Browne et al., (2008). Babies and brains: Habituation in infant cognition and functional neuroimaging. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2, 16. CC by 4.0
[3] Image from Grace et al., (2021). Implicit Computation and the Origins of Knowledge. Preprint. CC by 4.0
[4] Grace et al., (2021). Implicit Computation and the Origins of Knowledge. Preprint. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/09%3A_Theories_of_Cognitive_development/9.05%3A_Theory_of_Core_Knowledge.txt |
Theory of Information Processing
Information processing theory uses the analogy of a computer to consider how the mind works.
It is theorized that cognitive processes work in specific sequences, as does a computer, by receiving input, processing the information, and delivering an output. In this way, the mind functions like a biological computer responsible for processing information from the environment. As children grow, their brains also grow, leading to advances in their ability to cognitively process the information they receive. In contrast with Piaget's theory of cognitive development that proposed development occurs in stages, information processing theory instead emphasizes a continuous pattern of development. [1]
Memory is one cognitive process that is commonly used to explain information processing theory. The idea is that there are specific steps in the memory process, similar to how information storage on a computer can involve multiple distinct steps. Using the Atkinson and Shiffrin Model shown in Figure \(1\), memory has three main components in which information can flow in and out of the memory system. The process begins when information from our senses flows into sensory memory. If we pay attention to this information, it then enters short-term memory where, if attention is further maintained toward it, it can continue on to long-term memory. [1]
Along with suggesting specific steps in cognitive processes, following the analogy of a computer, information processing theory explains growth in cognitive abilities through continuous maturational growth in cognitive systems and the brain. Whereas Piaget proposed stages based on ages to represent important periods of change in cognitive growth, information processing theory instead examines the continuous growth in cognitive processes. Consider the cognitive process of visual working memory, which is a cognitive system that actively holds visual information, such as the color or shape of something, in the mind temporarily for use in ongoing tasks. Research reveals a continuous increase in visual working memory capacity over the first year (Rose et al., 2001; Kaldy and Leslie, 2003, 2005; Oakes et al., 2006, 2017; Kibbe and Leslie, 2011; Kwon et al., 2014; Kaldy et al., 2016) that continues to develop into childhood (Simmering, 2012; Guillory et al., 2018). For example, ten and twelve month-old infants are successful in remembering three objects but are unable to remember more than three objects (Feigenson and Carey, 2003, 2005). Similarly, brain research has found visual working memory activation evident by 4 months of age with continuous developmental change between 4 months and one year of age (Reyes et al., 2020). As an example of how growth in some cognitive systems influence the abilities in other cognitive systems, fourteen month-old infants can use high-level strategies such as chunking to remember more items (Feigenson and Halberda, 2004; Kibbe and Feigenson, 2016). Information processing research continues to document the continuous growth in cognitive processes of infants and toddlers. [3] [4]
[1] Information processing theory from Wikipedia is licensed under CC by SA 4.0
[2] Image from Dkahng is licensed under CC by SA 4.0
[3] Isbell et al., (2015). Visual working memory continues to develop through adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 696. CC by 4.0
[4] Guillory & Kaldy (2019). Persistence and Accumulation of Visual Memories for Objects in Scenes in 12-month-old Infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2454. CC by 4.0
9.07: Conclusion
Conclusion to Theories Cognitive Development
This section presented four theories of cognitive development. The two main cognitive theories of Piaget and Vygotsky were explained, compared and applied to the care and education of infants and toddlers. Both of these theories continue to be highly influential in leading discussions of cognitive development in young children. The theories of core knowledge and information processing were also discussed and related to the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. Despite the strengths and limitations of each theory, what is clear is that recent research has revealed that infants and toddlers know more about the world than was once thought, and it is through their active engagement with the world and quality interactions with others that is most important for ongoing cognitive development. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/09%3A_Theories_of_Cognitive_development/9.06%3A_Information_Processing.txt |
Introduction to Strategies to Support Cognitive Development in Group Care
Cognitive development refers to the increasing efficiency and ability of the mental processes associated with perception, knowledge, problem solving, judgment, language, and memory. When infants and toddlers are actively engaged with the physical and social world, they reveal their developing cognitive abilities. To support their developing cognition, caregivers can create safe and stimulating environments with age appropriate materials that invite engagement and exploration while interacting with them in language-rich ways. This section will present various strategies to create environments and interactions that optimally support the cognitive development of infants and toddlers. [1]
[1] Spielman et al., (2020). Psychology (2nd ed.). OpenStax. Licensed under CC by 4.
10.02: Observing Cognition
Importance of Observation
The best way for caregivers to start to learn about the cognitive abilities of infants and toddlers is simply to observe them because they reveal their ever-evolving understanding of the world through their interactions with objects and people. To illustrate, look at the sequence of photos displayed in Figure \(1\) of Nora, a fifteen-month-old toddler from Nigeria. There are a few different objects Nora is playing with. There are rectangle stacking blocks of various colors and sizes and a recycled food container that has a circle cut into the lid. This sequence of six photos represents only a few seconds of her play, but in just these few seconds, we can learn a lot about her cognition. When you look at the photos, what insight do they provide about Nora’s developing understanding of how the world works?
In Figure \(1\), Nora has a yellow block in her left hand and a blue block in her right hand, but is primarily focused on the blue block. In front of her is the cylinder container with a hole in its lid. and various other blocks scattered around the base of the cylinder. With the blue block in her right hand, Nora moves it toward the hole in the cylinder container and drops it onto the container lid. When laid horizontally on top of the container, the blue block is too long to fit through the round hole. In Figure \(2\), Nora lifts the blue block up again, angles one end toward the hole, guides the block part way into the hole and releases it as it falls into the container. In Figure \(3\), Nora swings her left hand, with the yellow block, toward the hole. In the same continuous movement, as her hand nears the hole entry point, she angles the end of the yellow block toward the hole and guides it directly through the hole. In Figure \(4\), Nora picks up another yellow block (from off camera) and focuses her eyes on the hole as she again angles the end of the block toward the hole and drops it into the container. In Figure \(5\), she selects an orange block but as she moves it toward the hole, she moves her eye gaze away from the hole and toward the remaining blocks on the floor. As she looks toward the blocks on the floor, her hand guiding the orange block gets stuck on the lid as the angle of the block does not fit into the hole. She then looks toward the container, adjusts the angle of the block and drops it into the hole. In Figure \(6\), Nora grabs a large toy object (from off camera) and guides it toward the hole. In the first attempt to fit it into the container, it does not fit. Nora twists her wrist to change the angle and tries again, but it does not fit.
These six photos of Nora represent only a few seconds of play, but nevertheless demonstrate important information about infant and toddler cognitive development. First, children are actively making sense of the world around them through interactions with the physical and the social world. Like young scientists, they use their knowledge to make hypotheses, then act upon them, constantly updating their knowledge based on the results. In this way, it is through the interactions with the physical and social worlds that cognition primarily grows; therefore, the quality of the physical and social environments and overall learning experiences of infants and toddlers is of utmost importance for supporting optimal cognitive development. As evidence, let’s next consider how the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the significance of early learning experiences for supporting cognitive development in infants and toddlers.
[1] Images adapted from Ashley Siokwu licensed under CC by 3.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/10%3A_Cognitive_Development-_Strategies_in_Group_Care/10.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
COVID-19 and Quality Care
COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is a disease caused by a virus named SARS-CoV-2 and was first discovered in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The virus spread throughout the world and in the spring of 2020, many schools and childcare centers in the U.S. closed in an effort to reduce its spread and impact.
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique opportunity to explore the importance of learning experiences on the cognitive development of infants and toddlers as the childcare arrangements of children changed. Compared to toddlers born before the pandemic, children born during the pandemic showed lower scores in cognition, language and motor abilities as toddlers (Deoni, Beauchemin, Volpe & D'Sa, 2021; Huang et al.m 2021; Shuffrey et al., 2021). The negative cognitive impact was greatest for boys and for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. These results suggest the pandemic somehow changed learning experiences enough to make a significant impact on the experiences that support optimal cognitive development. Although there are various potential contributing factors that could be argued to explain these results (e.g., reduced social interaction, increased screen time, increased parental stress, etc.,), one significant contributing factor was the care and educational experiences infants and toddlers received during the pandemic. [1]
During the early months of the pandemic childcare arrangements shifted. Some childcare providers closed temporarily and later opened with strict protocols. Many children, instead of attending a group care program, stayed home under the care of parents and extended family. The various experiences infants and toddlers received during the pandemic had an impact on their cognitive development.
One study examined how childcare arrangements during the pandemic impacted cognitive growth in infants and toddlers (Davies et al., 2021). Their data revealed that children who attended infant and toddler group care programs during the pandemic showed greater cognitive growth, regardless of their socioeconomic background. The benefits of attending infant and toddler group care programs for cognitive development, compared to other childcare arrangements such as care from a family member, may be due to group care programs being more likely to implement developmentally appropriate learning materials and adult-child interactions which scaffold learning, and have been shown to promote early cognitive development (Clark et al., 2013; DeJoseph, Sifre, Raver, Blair, & Berry, 2021; Rosen et al., 2020). [3]
Interestingly, compared to children who attended infant and toddler group care programs, informal childcare by family members did not show the same benefits for cognitive growth (Davies et al., 2021). Although the overall evidence is mixed regarding the cognitive benefits of informal childcare (Green, Pearce, Parkes, Robertson, & Katikireddi, 2020; Hansen & Hawkes, 2009; Laing & Bergelson, 2019; Melhuish et al., 2015), the strengths of infant and toddler group care programs, such as caregiver-child interactions, predictable schedules, lower screen use, and caregiver education is likely to be important for supporting cognitive growth (Dowsett, Huston, Imes, & Gennetian, 2008). [3]
The handful of studies that have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cognitive development of infants and toddlers have highlighted the role learning experiences have in supporting cognitive development. In particular, the quality of the care and educational experiences infants and toddlers receive are related to their cognitive growth. These findings further document the significant role infant and toddler caregivers have in creating safe and high quality contexts that contribute to the trajectory of cognitive development in children.
In the next section we will discuss four factors of infant and toddler quality group care that support cognitive development: environments, materials, experiences and interactions.
[1]Basics of COVID-19” from the CDC is in the public domain.
[2] Image from Leo_Fontes on Pixabay.
[3] Davies et al., (2021). Early childhood education and care (ECEC) during COVID‐19 boosts growth in language and executive function. Infant and Child Development, e2241. CC by 4.0
[4] Image from marcinjozwiak on Pixabay | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/10%3A_Cognitive_Development-_Strategies_in_Group_Care/10.03%3A_The_COVID-19_Pandemic-_Proof_of_the_Importance_of_Quality_Learning_.txt |
Cognitive Development and the Environment
Environments are significant in supporting cognitive development because they are both the stimulating backdrop and the active contributor of learning. Therefore, we should change the way we think of environments—we should think of them as learning environments instead of simply physical environments. Learning environments are nurturing spaces that support the development of all young children. They include classrooms, play spaces, areas for caregiving routines, and outdoor areas. Learning environments are well-organized and managed settings. They offer developmentally-appropriate schedules, indoor and outdoor opportunities for choice, play, exploration, and experimentation. Learning environments include age-appropriate equipment and materials They integrate home cultures and are flexible to support the changing ages, interests, and characteristics of a group of children over time. [1]
The educational framework of Reggio Emilia holds the classroom environment to a special status and therefore provides a great perspective to learn about how the environment can support cognitive development. Reggio Emilia was founded by Loris Malaguzzi (1920–1994) to provide provisions for children of the city of Reggio Emilia, Italy, after World War II (Wien, 2008). The Reggio Emilia philosophy perceives physical space as a primary aspect of cognitive development, envisioned as a third teacher (Wien, 2008). What do you think it means to consider the environment as a third teacher? The importance of the environment lies in the belief that children can best create meaning and make sense of their world through environments that support "complex, varied, sustained, and changing relationships between people, the world of experience, ideas and the many ways of expressing ideas.” (Cadwell, 1997). While infants and toddlers are active meaning makers, the quality of materials and interactions in their environments influence the quality of meaning that they can make. [3] [4]
Physically, Reggio Emilia classrooms generally incorporate natural light and indoor plants. Classrooms capture the attention of children through the use of mirrors, photographs, and children's work accompanied by transcriptions. Other supportive elements of the environment include ample space for supplies, frequently rearranged to draw attention to their aesthetic features. The Reggio Emilia environment informs and engages the viewer while always making an effort to create opportunities for children to interact. [4]
With this basic understanding of some of the ideas related to how Reggio Emilia regards learning environments, we can now start to consider important factors for creating learning environments in infant and toddler classrooms. Here are some factors, inspired by Reggio Emilia, to consider for the environments of infants and toddlers: [3]
• Create environments that have an open concept, allowing flow between rooms and amongst areas within a classroom. Windows, indoor plants and materials from nature create a feeling of flow between indoor and outdoor spaces.
• Photographs hung on walls should represent the children, their families and individuals of various cultures who are enrolled in the program and that make up the local community.
• Hang child-created artwork around the classroom ensuring they are placed on walls that are located at heights the children can easily visually engage with.
• Label shelves and containers to support early literacy and help make the process of finding and cleaning easier.
• Consider how the type of storage impacts invitation and ease of access. Storing and displaying materials in clear containers and open baskets visually invites children to play with them and provides easy access without challenging lids to open.
In addition to the overall physical setting of the environment, it is important to consider how materials in the environment are arranged. Reggio Emilia philosophy suggests that children should be allowed to touch, move, listen, see, taste, discover, and explore the world around them in an enriching and supportive environment. Therefore, materials should be developmentally-appropriate, intriguing and easily accessible. Figure \(3\)shows two collections of materials stored in baskets on a shelf. How does the storage and arrangement of the materials both invite engagement and allow for ease of access? The materials are stored in open baskets so their contents are visible and easy to access. The baskets are open, without lids, inviting participation. Additionally, the baskets are placed on a low shelf at the height of children. [3]
[1]Learning Environments” from Head Start ECLK is in the public domain.
[2] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
[3] Aljabreen (2020). Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia: A comparative analysis of alternative models of early childhood education. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(3), 337-353.
[4] Reggio Emilia approach from Wikipedia is licensed under CC by SA 3.0
[5] Reggio Inspired toddler classroom by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
[6] Play Materials by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/10%3A_Cognitive_Development-_Strategies_in_Group_Care/10.04%3A_Environments_that_Support_Cognitive_Development.txt |
Materials and Cognitive Development
Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development proposed a pivotal connection between experiences and cognitive development during the sensorimotor stage of infancy and toddlerhood. The sensorimotor period begins at birth and continues through the child’s first two years. During this stage, infants and toddlers experience the world through sensation (sensory) and movement (motor). Materials can stimulate both sensory and motor experiences and therefore are an important way to support the cognitive development of infants and toddlers. [1]
To encourage exploration, the selection of materials provided to infants and toddlers should be age-appropriate and based on what caregivers observe them to be interested in. As infants age, their strategies for exploring materials changes. For example, mouthing is a predominant form of exploration at 6 months of age but is exchanged for more refined forms of manual exploration later in infancy (Kaur, Srinivasan & Bhat, 2015). Another example can be seen in the developmental changes in grasping ability. Infants improve their grasping abilities between 6 and 15 months of age (Butterworth, Verweij & Hopkins, 1997). Similarly, 12 to 14 month old infants show appropriate, anticipatory changes in grasp formation based on object shape and size compared to 5 to 6 month old infants (Barrett et al., 2008; Fagard, 2000). Infants with more advanced motor abilities (i.e., those who could crawl, stand, or walk) are more interested in objects with handles (Nelson & Oakes, 2021). Based on this research, caregivers should observe the developmental changes of infants and toddlers, such as exploration and grasping strategies, and provide materials that continue to challenge, intrigue and support their age-appropriate developing abilities. For example, consider the collection of play materials in Figure \(1\). How might the different developing grasping abilities of infants and toddlers influence how they are able to hold, manipulate and explore the various materials? [1]
Along with age-appropriateness, exploratory behaviors are also influenced by material properties including size, shape, texture, and weight of objects (Barrett et al., 2008; Bourgeois et al., 2005; Corbetta & Snapp-Childs, 2009; Libertus et al., 2013; Newell et al., 1989, 1993; van Hof et al., 2002). For example, infants showed greater grasping of smaller objects whereas they looked more at larger objects (Rochat, 1989). In addition, 9 to 12 month old infants explored object properties such as shape, size, and texture by rotating, fingering, and transferring objects, whereas they explored properties such as weight, sound, and rigidity by banging and shaking objects (Ruff, 1984). Infants’ grasping patterns depended on object size and structure as smaller objects were grasped with one hand and larger objects were grasped with two hands (Kaur, Srinivasan & Bhat, 2015). Similarly, infants squeezed non-rigid objects more compared to rigid objects (Barrett et al., 2008; Newell et al., 1989, 1993). This research suggests that caregivers should constantly be observing the developing abilities of infants and toddlers and providing age-appropriate materials based on these close observations. [2]
Loose Parts
Loose parts refers to materials that are open-ended and manipulable (Nicholson, 1971). Loose parts are moveable, non-dictated materials that children can use in a variety of ways (Daly & Beloglovsky, 2015; Maxwell, Mitchell, & Evans, 2008). Loose parts are often considered in contrast to pre-designed toys, like most toys sold at stores. For example, a toy airplane, if provided to a child, will probably be used in a limited number of ways, limited to what the toy is, an airplane. In contrast, materials such as leaves and popsicle sticks affords creative engagement with unlimited ways to interact with the materials. Figure \(2\) is a picture of a loose parts table with various objects from nature: small pumpkins, leaves, slices of trunk from a small tree, sticks, etc., and tools like tweezers and magnifying glasses, to support further exploration. Take a moment to look over the objects and tools in Figure \(2\), then consider these questions: [4]
• What do you imagine toddlers doing while at the table?
• How many different ways of using the materials can you imagine for toddlers?
• How do the carefully selected tools (twissors, magnify glasses) further support exploration than would probably happen if the tools were not present?
• What other tools could be added?
• What cognitive concepts are toddlers experiencing as they engage with the materials?
When children have exposure to intriguing loose parts, they become curious. Children’s curiosity is triggered when they see and experience new things and have unique experiences that may not be otherwise possible in the indoor environment. This sense of curiosity is how children become inspired to engage in new explorations and discoveries (Perry, 2004). Loose parts give children the freedom to develop their play experiences based on their personal ideas and goals, rather than the play being predetermined by the materials or surroundings (Änggård, 2011). This means that the materials do not dictate the type of play children engage in. Children create play episodes based on their past experiences, curiosity, creativity, and new ideas. [4]
[1] Scott & Cogburn (2021). Piaget. StatPearls Publishing. CC by 4.0
[2] Kaur et al., (2015). Atypical object exploration in infants at-risk for autism during the first year of life. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 798. CC by 4.0
[3] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
[4] Flannigan & Dietze (2017). Children, outdoor play, and loose parts. Journal of Childhood Studies, 53-60. CC by NC 4.0
[5] Image from Susan Lewis-Penix on Unsplash.
[6] Loose parts by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
10.06: Interactions that Support Cognitive Development
Cognitive Development and Interactions
While materials are indeed important for supporting cognitive development, the interactions we, as caregivers, have with infants and toddlers may be even more important. Toddlers who experience more language from caregivers have greater cognitive abilities later in childhood (Brown, Wang & McLeod, 2022; Marchman & Fernald, 2008). One study examined features of childcare quality for two year olds and their potential association to later cognitive abilities when the same children were four years of age (Côté et al., 2013). Childcare quality was measured using two dimensions. The ‘Provision for Learning’ dimension measured the availability, accessibility, and diversity of activities available for children. The ‘Teaching and Interactions’ dimension measured the quality of the interaction and engagement between caregivers and children. Overall, higher levels of quality childcare at age two was associated with stronger cognitive abilities at age four. Of the two dimensions, it was the dimension of ‘Teaching and Interactions’ that was associated with longitudinal cognitive performance, supporting the role of quality interactions for cognitive growth. Interestingly, the ‘Provision of Learning’ dimension did not significantly contribute to later cognitive development.
These results are supported by numerous studies that also have found it is the quality of relationships and the interactions within these relationships during infancy and toddlerhood that are most significant for supporting cognitive development and long-term cognitive growth (Forget‐Dubois et al., 2009; Fraley, Roisman, & Haltigan, 2013; Marchman & Fernarld, 2008; McCormick et al., 2020; Rodriguez & Tamis‐LeMonda, 2011). In a longitudinal study, Tamis-LeMonda and colleagues (2019) found that the early learning environments of infants and toddlers predicted their later academic skills all the way out into fifth grade. Using the phrase “learning environment” can be slightly misleading as it may lead one to think only about the physical environment and objects/materials. While one dimension of it did focus on stimulating objects/materials, the other two dimensions focused on stimulating engagement and interactions (frequency of engaging children in literacy activities and sensitive and stimulating interactions). The research is clear: access to quality learning materials is important, but it is the quality of the interactions while using these materials that may be the most important.
What is the take away message for infant and toddler caregivers?
• Consider communication to be an integral part of the curriculum.
• If you plan an activity, do not just consider what the child will be doing, but also consider the critical role of the adult and their interactions during the activity.
• Enroll in or provide staff training that demonstrates how to improve interactions with infants and toddlers.
• Implement caregiving policies that support and encourage quality interactions, such as primary care, small groups, continuity of care, individualized care, culturally responsive care, and inclusive care.
[1] Image by ParentiPacek on Pixabay. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/10%3A_Cognitive_Development-_Strategies_in_Group_Care/10.05%3A_Materials_that_Support_Cognitive_Development.txt |
Cognitive Development and Experiences
The overall value of high quality experiences infants and toddlers receive during childcare supports their cognitive development. High-quality, center-based childcare during the first three years of life shows benefits for children's cognitive, language, and social development at school entry and beyond, across a range of national contexts (Albers, Riksen-Walraven & de Weerth, 2010; Barnes & Melhuish, 2017; Burchinal et al., 2000; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Drange & Havnes, 2019; Eryigit-Madzwamuse & Barnes, 2014; Hansen & Hawkes, 2009; Melhuish et al., 2015; Melhuish & Gardiner, 2017; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2000; Ruzek et al., 2014). These effects are particularly pronounced in children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Connell & Prinz, 2002; Felfe, Nollenberger, & Rodríguez-Planas, 2015; Geoffroy et al., 2007, 2010; Larose, Côté, Ouellet-Morin, Maughan, & Barker, 2020; Melhuish, 2004; Melhuish et al., 2015), meaning that investment in early childhood education and care is a powerful way of reducing socioeconomic inequalities (Bustamante et al., 2021; Center on the Developing Child, 2010; Heckman, 2006; Reynolds, 2021). [1]
While the benefits of center-based childcare is well documented, the quality of care and education for infants and toddlers is not created equal as numerous studies have documented dramatically different differences in childcare quality (Kuchirko & Nayfeld, 2020; Kuchirko & Tamis-LeMonda, 2019). In a national study of Early Head Start center-based programs for infants and toddlers in the U.S., most classrooms were of midrange quality with higher scores in the area of emotional and behavioral support and lower scores in the area of engaged support for learning (Vogel et al., 2015). The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care is one of the largest research projects on early childcare in the U.S. and has followed over 1,000 children longitudinally to measure the long term impact of experiencing high quality infant and toddler childcare. Children who received higher quality care as infants and toddlers scored higher on cognitive tests across the first three years and all the way through adolescence (Belsky, 2006; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2001; Vandell et al., 2010). Importantly, caregiver language (asking questions, responding to child vocalizations, etc.,) was the strongest predictor of cognitive development. [3]
The research is clear: high quality infant and toddler care is important for supporting cognition, but what does high quality care look like? The overall quality of care and education for infants and toddlers is commonly separated into two components—structural quality and process quality (Beller et al. 1996; Howes & Rubenstein, 1983; Penn, 2011; Phillipsen et al., 1997). Structural quality refers to components such as the physical environment (buildings, space and materials), child–staff ratios, staff education and training, and curriculum (Barros et al., 2016; Slot et al., 2015; OECD, 2006). On the other hand, process quality focuses on the nature of interactions between the children and caregivers, among children, and among adults—teachers, parents, staff, and on the nature of leadership and pedagogy (Barros et al., 2016; Cryer 1999; Goelman et al. 2006; Slot, 2017; Thomason & La Paro, 2009; Vandell and Wolfe 2000). Structural quality is easier to measure although process quality may be more strongly related to greater developmental outcomes. [4]
There are various tools that can be used to measure structural and process qualities. One commonly used tool is the Infant-Toddler Environmental Rating Scale Revised Edition (ITERS-R; Harms et al. 2006), used to measure the overall quality of classrooms serving children from birth through 30 months of age. The ITERS-R includes 39 items, organized under 7 subscales: Space and Furnishings (5 items); Personal Care Routines for infants and toddlers (6 items); Listening and Talking (3 items); Age Appropriate Activities (10 items); Adult–Child Interaction (4 items); Program Structure (4 items); and Parent and Staff Communication (7 items). [4]
ITERS-R Items and Subscales. [4]
Space and Furnishings
• Indoor space
• Furniture for routine care and play
• Provision for relaxation and comfort
• Room arrangement
• Display for children
Personal Care Routines
• Greeting/departing
• Meals/snacks
• Nap
• Diapering/toileting
• Health practices
• Safety practices
Listening and Talking
• Helping children understand language
• Helping children use language
• Using books
Age Appropriate Activities
• Fine motor
• Active physical play
• Art
• Music and movement
• Blocks
• Dramatic play
• Nature/science
• Promoting acceptance of diversity
Adult–Child Interaction
• Supervision of play and learning
• Peer interaction
• Staff–child interaction
• Discipline
Program Structure
• Schedule
• Free play
• Group play activities
Parent and Staff Communication
• Provisions for parents
• Provisions for personal needs of staff
• Provisions for professional needs of staff
• Staff interaction and cooperation
• Staff continuity
• Supervision and evaluation of staff
• Opportunities for professional growth
Using the ITERS, scores of overall quality range from ‘inadequate’ (score of 1) to ‘excellent’ (score of 7), with a ‘minimum’ (score of 3) and ‘good’ (score of 5) in between. Studies that have used the ITERS to assess quality have found low scores in general. Research in the U.S. has found quality scores of infant and toddler programs to be in the low to medium range (La Paro, Williamson & Hatfield, 2014; Tietze & Cryer, 2004). For example, one study examined the quality of 93 toddler programs across the state of North Carolina and found that 83% of the programs were in the mid-range, with scores between 3 to 5 (La Paro, Williamson & Hatfield, 2014). While childcare centers in the U.S. score higher in overall average quality compared to most other countries, there is more variance in the quality of U.S. programs compared to other countries (Vermeer et al., 2016). Higher than average quality scores have also been found in Australia (Fenech, Sweller & Harrison, 2010).
ITERS scores from around the world are low. Results from studies in the Netherlands found an overall quality score on the ITERS to be at the minimal level, with an average score of 3, and showing a downward trend in quality over time (Helmerhorst et al., 2015; Vermeer et al., 2008). Seventy-five childcare centers in Eastern and Western Germany had an average ITERS score of 3.2 (Tietze & Cryer, 2004). Three studies in Portugal reported poor-quality care and education with scores all under 3 (Barros & Aguiar, 2010; Pessanha et al., 2007; Pinto et al., 2013). Results from a study of 93 centers in Norway found a minimal average quality of 3.9 (Bjørnestad & Os, 2018). In Greece, infant and toddler programs ranged between 2.60 to 5.40 using ITERS (Megalonidou, 2020). In England, 75 childcare centers were assessed and found to have a mean score of 4.2 (Smith et al. 2009). Chile reported an ITERS score between 3 to 4, with public childcare centers (3.08) scoring lower than private centers (3.57) (Cárcamo et al., 2014). Across seventy-nine infant and toddler classrooms from Jinan, in the Shandong province in eastern China, the overall mean score was 3.50 (Hu et al., 2019). Overall quality was low in Ecuador with an average score of 2.08 (Lopez Boo, Dormal & Weber, 2019). [4]
What is the take away message for infant and toddler caregivers?
• Quality of learning experiences during the first three years is related to later cognitive abilities.
• Infants and toddlers who attend center-based programs of higher quality have higher cognitive scores later in childhood and adolescence.
• The overall quality of care and education infants and toddlers experience can vary widely.
• While programs in the U.S. tend to receive average quality scores in the midrange and above, U.S. programs have been found to vary greatly in quality.
• While a handful of countries receive quality scores in the midrange and above, many more countries consistently receive scores of low quality, emphasizing the importance of education and training for infant and toddler caregivers and staff.
• Caregivers can use measures of program quality, such as the ITERS-R, to assess the quality of their programs, identify areas of lower performance and strive to improve.
• As process quality may be more strongly related to cognitive development than structural quality, caregivers can seek to actively improve their abilities and strategies for engaging with infants and toddlers, especially in terms of language exposure.
Another tool that can be used to measure the quality of interactions between caregivers and children is the The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). The CLASS defines teaching quality through the lens of interactions. It provides the ability to measure and improve the interactions that matter most for student outcomes. Implementing a tool like the CLASS can provide data which can be used to provide professional development and improve overall quality.
[1] Davies et al., (2021). Early childhood education and care (ECEC) during COVID‐19 boosts growth in language and executive function. Infant and Child Development, e2241. CC by 4.0
[2] Image from igrow on Pixabay.
[3] Vogel et al., (2015). Toddlers in Early Head Start: A portrait of 2-year-lds, their families, and the programs serving them. Vol 1: Age 2 report. OPRE report 2015-10. Administration for Children & Families. In the public domain.
[4] Megalonidou (2020). The quality of early childhood education and care services in Greece. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 14(1), 1-12. CC by 4.0
[5] Image by ImagesBG on Pixabay.
[6] Image by cherylholt on Pixabay.
10.08: Conclusion
Conclusion of Supporting Cognitive Development in Group Care
Infants and toddlers are active meaning makers, eager to engage with the physical and social world around them. Experiences that are age appropriate and stimulating optimally support their developing cognitive abilities. Caregivers can play a pivotal role in supporting cognitive development by creating quality experiences with materials and through their interactions. This chapter discussed how caregivers can create environments and interactions and use learning materials to create overall high quality experiences for infants and toddlers. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/10%3A_Cognitive_Development-_Strategies_in_Group_Care/10.07%3A_Experiences_that_support_Cognitive_Development.txt |
Introduction to Language Development
There is something truly special about language development. Beyond the amazing feat that infants and toddlers acquire complex language systems rapidly and with relative ease, language changes a child’s interactions with the people around them and how they think about their physical surroundings. Language affords the ability for adults and children to share inner thoughts and feelings and discuss past, present, and future events. With language, children transform their thinking about the world around them with new ways to label, organize, categorize and memorize. Furthermore, early language ability in toddlerhood is important not only for later language ability but also for cognitive development in later childhood. This section will provide an overview of communication and language development during the first three years, considering acquisition patterns and the importance of individual differences.
11.02: Communication and Language Milestones in Infancy and Toddlerhood
Milestones
Milestones represent what most children can do by specific ages; however, it is important to remember that children do not achieve these milestones at the same exact ages—milestones only represent the average age at which they are achieved. If a child has not achieved specific milestones by a specific age, it does not necessarily suggest a delay or disability; however, there are specific ages where if certain milestones are not achieved, caregivers should encourage the child’s parents to communicate with their family pediatrician. Here is a table of common communication and language milestones for infants and toddlers.
What most children can do by age[1]
Age
What Most Children Can Do By Each Age
2 months
• Coo and make gurgling sounds
• Turn their head toward sounds
4 months
• Begin to babble
• Babble with expression and copy sounds they hear
• Cry in different ways to show hunger, pain, or being tired
6 months
• Respond to sounds by making sounds
• String vowels together when babbling (“ah,” “eh,” “oh”) and like taking turns with a caregiver while making sounds
• Respond to their own name
• Make sounds to show joy and displeasure
• Begin to say consonant sounds (jabbering with “m,” “b”)
9 months
• Understand the meaning of “no”
• Make a lot of different sounds like “mamamama” and “bababababa”
• Copy the sounds and gestures of others
• Use their fingers to point at things
12 months
• Respond to simple spoken requests
• Use simple gestures, like shaking their head “no” or waving “bye-bye”
• Make sounds with changes in tone (sounds more like speech)
• Say “mama” and “dada” and exclamations like “uh-oh!”
• Try to say words caregivers say
18 months
• Say several single words
• Say “no” and shake their head “no”
• Point to show someone what they want
24 months
• Point to things or pictures when they are named
• Know names of familiar people and body parts
• Say sentences with 2 to 4 words
• Follow simple instructions
• Repeat words overheard in conversation
• Point to things in a book
36 months
• Follow instructions with 2 or 3 steps
• Can name most familiar things
• Understand words like “in,” “on,” and “under”
• Say their first name, age, and sex
• Name a friend
• Say words like “I,” “me,” “we,” and “you” and some plurals (cars, dogs, cats)
• Talk well enough for strangers to understand them most of the time
• Carry on a conversation using 2 to 3 sentences
Communication & Language Concerns
The above chart represents averages of when infants and toddlers achieve various communication and language milestones. What about children who do not achieve these milestones by the ages listed? While children can indeed develop different abilities at different times, too great a delay in acquiring specific milestones can be a concern. The chart below is from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The chart adopts a proactive stance—we should take action early when developmental concerns arise rather than the perspective of waiting to see if a child “catches up”. Again, while children do develop at their own pace, being proactive during these critical early years is essential as early recognition of delays and disabilities can lead to early intervention with the potential for greater positive outcomes (Caselli, Pyers & Lieberman, 2021; Fuller et al., 2020; Roberts & Kaiser, 2015). Caregivers should encourage parents to communicate with their family's pediatrician if children are not achieving milestones by the ages listed below. Most caregivers are not professionally trained to officially assess the developmental abilities of children; however, caregivers have the ability to track developmental progress and are often the first to notice developmental concerns.
Language Development Concerns[1]
Age
Encourage parents to communicate with their family’s pediatrician if:
By 4 months
• Child doesn’t coo or make sounds
• Child doesn’t smile at people
By 6 months
• Child doesn’t make vowel sounds (“ah”, “eh”, “oh”)
• Child doesn’t respond to sounds around him
• Child doesn’t laugh or make squealing sounds
By 9 months
• Child doesn’t babble (“mama”, “baba”, “dada”)
• Child doesn’t play any games involving back-and-forth play
• Child doesn’t respond to their own name
• Child doesn’t seem to recognize familiar people
• Child doesn’t look where you point
By 12 months
• Child doesn’t say single words like “mama” or “dada”
• Child doesn’t learn gestures like waving or shaking head
• Child doesn’t point to things
By 18 months
• Child doesn’t copy others
• Child doesn’t gain new words
• Child doesn’t have at least 6 words
By 24 months
• Child doesn’t use 2-word phrases (for example, “drink milk”)
• Child doesn’t copy actions and words
• Child doesn’t follow simple instructions
By 36 months
• Child drools or has very unclear speech
• Child can’t work simple toys (such as peg boards, simple puzzles, turning handle)
• Child doesn’t speak in sentences
• Child doesn’t understand simple instructions
• Child doesn’t play pretend or make-believe
• Child doesn’t want to play with other children or with toys
• Child doesn’t make eye contact
[1] CDC’s Developmental Milestones by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is in the public domain. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/11%3A_Overview_of_Language_Development/11.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
The Importance of Eye Gaze
Infants and toddlers learn language best through face-to-face interactions with their caregivers in social contexts, and face-to-face communication is inherently multimodal as it uses more than just speech to communicate (e.g., gestures, facial expressions, eye gaze, etc.,). Eye gaze is, in fact, a central element in human communication. Not only do adults often use social eye gaze when communicating with infants, but infants also show a sensitivity to, and preference for, eye gaze signals early on (Simpson et al., 2020). Newborns look longer at faces with open eyes than faces with closed eyes (Batki et al., 2000). They also prefer faces with direct gaze with which they can engage in mutual eye contact (Farroni, Johnson & Csibra, 2004). Infants begin developing gaze-following abilities between 2 to 4 months, which become fairly stable by 6 to 8 months (D'Entremont et al., 1997; Gredeback et al., 2010). Following gaze cues becomes almost automatic, with adult's gaze direction causing fast visual attention shifts even in infants as young as 3 months of age (Hood et al., 1998).
There is a strong association between infants' ability to follow an adult's gaze direction, and their later receptive and expressive vocabulary (Çetinçelik, Rowland & Snijders, 2020). Eye gaze, both in the form of eye contact and gaze following, may direct and help infants in sustaining their attention and thus learn about relevant information in the environment. For example, when an infant follows an adult’s gaze to the sky toward an airplane overhead, the sounds produced by the airplane and the language the adult uses while communicating in the moment about the airplane can be more easily linked to the airplane itself. The use of eye gaze cues support infants' learning by highlighting the important information in the environment and channeling their attention to it. [1]
[2] Çetinçelik et al., (2020). Do the eyes have it? A systematic review on the role of eye gaze in infant language development. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. CC by 4.0
11.04: Stages of Language Acquisition
Language Acquisition
Children will typically go through the four stages of language acquisition.
1. Pre-language stage (3 to 10 months) where a child makes a lot of ‘cooing’ and ‘babbling’;
2. The holophrastic stage (12 to 18 months) where a child starts to comprehend a single unit of utterance like ‘milk’, ‘eat’, ‘dad’, ‘brother’;
3. Two-word stage (18 to 20 months) where a child, through a process of acquiring two nouns or a noun and a verb (noun + verb), begins pairing two words together such as ‘baby chair’, ‘mommy eat’, ‘cat bad’;
4. Telegraphic speech-stage (before 3 years old) defines a stage where a child puts some words together, even if the words are in the incorrect order. It has a similar meaning as a sentence, such as ‘cookie I want’, ‘toy me fall’, but is not a complete sentence. [1]
[1] Fitria & Musthafa (2019). Conversational Interaction to Develop the Two-Word Stage of A Child’s Second Language Acquisition. In Eleventh Conference on Applied Linguistics. Atlantis Press. CC by NC 4.0 https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/conaplin-18/125911514
11.05: Infant Vocal Development
Vocal Development
The quality of infants’ vocalizations progresses markedly during the first year of life. From birth, infants produce reflexive vocalizations, such as cries, fusses, and vegetative noises (e.g., coughs, burps, sneezes), as well as prespeech (a.k.a. “protophone”) vocalizations (Buder, Warlaumont & Oller, 2013; Oller et al., 2009). Protophones are speech-like sounds including both canonical babbling (consisting of canonical syllables such as ‘ba’ or ‘da’ and sequences, ‘baba’ or ‘dada’ and so on) and non-canonical babbling (e.g. squeals, growls and vowel-like sounds). Infants produce approximately 3,500 protophone vocalizations every day (Oller et al., 2019). Infants begin cooing around two months of age. By three months of age, infants typically demonstrate an expanded range of vocal types, such as raspberries, squeals, growls, full vowels, yells, and whispers (Buder, Warlaumont & Oller, 2013; Oller, 2000). Between four to six months of age, infants begin to produce single syllable babbling sounds (e.g., da, ba) and then combine these syllable sounds (e.g., dadada, bababa) between six-eight months of age.[1] [2]
Babbling represents the specific sounds used in the language a child is exposed to. At around 7 months infants typically begin to demonstrate canonical babbling, which contains both consonants and vowels with swift transitions between them. Canonical babbling is considered speech-like and is a foundation for the first words that infants begin producing around the first birthday (Oller, 2000; Stoel-Gammon & Cooper, 1984). Cross-linguistic research shows that monolingual infants between 8 to 12 months of age begin to produce the characteristic intonation (Whalen, Levitt & Wang, 1991), syllable, and word-forms (Levitt & Utman, 1992; Levitt & Wang, 1991; Lleó, Prinz, El Mogharbel & Maldonado, 1996) of the specific language to which they are exposed, whether that be Spanish, Russian, Tagalog, a signed language or Arabic (Petitto & Marentette, 1991; Sundara, Ward, Conboy & Kuhl, 2020). Interestingly, frequency of early infant vocalizations is related to expressive language at twelve months of age (Lyakso, Frolova & Grigorev, 2014; Werwach, Mürbe, Schaadt & Männel, 2021). [1] [4]
While infants’ early vocalizations are important, it is the specific combination of infant vocalizations followed up by a caregiver response that is the strongest predictor of language growth (Donnellan et al., 2020). When caregivers respond to infants’ vocalization it creates a meaningful dyadic interaction that extends language learning. When caregivers do respond to the speech-like vocalizations from infants, infants are more likely to produce another speech-like vocalization, creating a language-rich interactional loop (Warlaumont, Richards, Gilkerson & Oller, 2014) that is positively related to later vocabulary development (Lopez, Walle, Pretzer & Warlaumont, 2020).
[1] Lopez et al., (2020). Adult responses to infant prelinguistic vocalizations are associated with infant vocabulary: A home observation study. PloS One, 15(11), e0242232.
[2] Oller, et al., (2021). Protophones, the precursors to speech, dominate the human infant vocal landscape. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1836), 20200255. CC by 4.0
[4] Sundara et al., (2020). Exposure to a second language in infancy alters speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 978-991. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/11%3A_Overview_of_Language_Development/11.03%3A_Early_Communication_with_Eye_Gaze.txt |
Gesturing
Infants and toddlers use a variety of gestures to communicate. Gestures involve movements of the body, particularly the fingers, hands, and head, that are interpreted as a form of intentional communication (Iverson & Thal, 1998). Children most commonly produce two main types of gestures—deictic and representational (Iverson & Thal, 1998). Deictic gestures, such as pointing, establish reference to indicate or call attention to something and can be used to indicate a wide range of meanings in the immediate environment (Bates, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1975). Infants start to use pointing gestures within the second half of their first year of life and usually before they begin talking. Infants may first use so called whole-hand points, in which the arm and the hand are extended toward a referent, followed by index-finger points, in which the arm and the index finger are clearly extended toward a referent (Lock et al., 1990; Liszkowski & Tomasello, 2011; Lüke et al., 2017). [1] [2]
The second main type of gestures, representational gestures, identify a referent and carry fixed semantic meaning. Representational gestures may include (a) culturally defined conventional gestures (e.g., shaking head for ‘‘no,’’ waving for ‘‘bye’’), (b) iconic gestures (e.g., moving arms in the air to represent an airplane flying), or (c) baby signs, which involve hand movements deliberately taught by an adult (e.g., bringing the hands together and tapping the fingertips to indicate ‘‘more’’). Gestures provide infants and toddlers a way to refer to objects and events as they are developing spoken language, and provide caregivers an opportunity to contingently respond to and translate the child’s gesture into words (Dimitrova et al., 2016). These bidirectional influences between caregivers and children help scaffold the development of communication and language (LeBarton & Iverson, 2017). [1]
Although gestures can be a form of preverbal communication, the use of gestures continues to grow throughout toddlerhood, even with the onset and development of children’s expressive language. Figure \(2\)shows the number of gestures produced by a large group of Hebrew-speaking toddlers. At each month during the second year of life, some toddlers produce very few gestures, while others produce a lot. For example, at nineteen months of age, the median is around forty gestures produced. The median is a midpoint, separating the top higher scores from the bottom lower scores. Therefore, this graph shows the large differences in the number of gestures toddlers produce, as some produced only around 30 gestures at nineteen months while others produced nearly twice as many.[4]
Gesture and Its Relation to Language Acquisition.
Early infant gestures are more than simple motor accomplishments—rather gestures are indicative of a dynamic, social process involving gradual transitions in the way in which infants engage with their physical environment and the people within it. Decades of research have revealed a robust correlation between gesture use and the later development of receptive language (Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009; Rowe, Ozcaliskan, & Goldin-Meadow, 2008; Watt, Wetherby, & Shumway, 2006) and expressive language (Iverson & GoldinMeadow, 2005; Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009). Brooks and Meltzoff (2008) offer a potential explanation for the predictive power of early gestures for later language outcomes. They argue that pointing has a bidirectional function; it aids infants by providing them with a communicative tool, and it makes caregivers more likely to produce the labels that the toddler is pointing at, therefore fostering the infant’s linguistic abilities. Furthermore, by gesturing, children can obtain and maintain attention of the adult, thereby establishing new language learning opportunities (Bates et al., 1979;Capone & McGregor, 2004). Pointing at the beginning of the second year is related to the beginning of word comprehension and production, and it plays a key role in coordinating attention to persons, objects, and events with other people and to labels associated with them (Sansavini et al., 2010; Tomasello et al., 2007). Thus, infants who point less frequently may have fewer opportunities to initiate and maintain joint attention with their caregivers and to associate labels with their referents in daily interactions. [5] [1] [6] [7]
Gesture and its Relation to Language Delay.
In addition to gesture being positively correlated with later language abilities, gesture is also indicative of children with developmental delays and disabilities. Reduced gesture use has been reported in toddlers with language delays early in development (Hsu & Iyer, 2016; Iverson et al., 2018; Lüke et al., 2017; Manwaring et al., 2019). Language delay can be identified between 18 and 36 months in young children with limited expressive vocabularies, equivalent to the 10th percentile or below compared to normative values, and who are free from cognitive, neurological, socio-emotional, or sensory disabilities (Rescorla, 2011). Research suggests a lower rate of pointing in toddlerhood may be an early marker of language delay (Lüke et al., 2017; Sansavini et al., 2019). Lower production of communicative gestures between 18 and 28 months of age also distinguishes truly delayed late talkers from “late bloomers” (their language development is initially delayed, but they eventually catch up), highlighting the predictive value of measures of gesture use for later expressive language skills (Thal & Tobias, 1992). Taken together, these findings underscore the relevance of gestures in the second year as a potential index of later language acquisition and delay. [1] [7]
Gesture and its Relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disability that can cause significant social, communication and behavioral challenges. Gesture deficits have been identified as one of the earliest social communication indicators of ASD (Iverson et al., 2018; Mitchell et al., 2006; Yirmiya & Charman, 2010). Young children with ASD may demonstrate particular difficulty with deictic gestures compared to typically developing toddlers (LeBarton & Iverson, 2016; Manwaring et al., 2018; Özçalişkan, Adamson, & Dimitrova, 2016). Studies of infants at increased genetic risk for ASD (due to having an older sibling diagnosed with ASD) indicate that reduced gesture use is present in infancy (Mitchell et al., 2006) and persists over time (Iverson et al., 2018) in infants later diagnosed with ASD. There is emerging evidence showing that social-communication skills in ASD do not differ significantly from typical development during the first year of life, with identical outcomes for typically-developing and high-risk infants who go on to receive an autism diagnosis (Rogers, 2009; Elsabbagh and Johnson, 2016). This trajectory, nevertheless, begins to diverge soon after, with a steady decline in the growth rates of both gesture and language production (Iverson et al., 2017) and a decline in social engagement in toddlers later diagnosed with ASD.[9] [1] [6]
[1] Manwaring et al., (2019). The gesture–language association over time in toddlers with and without language delays. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 4, 2396941519845545. CC by 4.0
[2] Lüke et al., (2020). Integrated communication system: Gesture and language acquisition in typically developing children and children with LD and DLD. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 118. CC by 4.0
[3] Image by Rohlfing et al., (2017). An interactive view on the development of deictic pointing in infancy. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1319. CC by 4.0
[4] Gendler-Shalev & Dromi (2021). The Hebrew Web Communicative Development Inventory (MB-CDI): Lexical Development Growth Curves. Journal of Child Language, 1-17. CC by 4.0
[5] Cameron‐Faulkner et al., (2021). A cross‐cultural analysis of early prelinguistic gesture development and Its relationship to language development. Child Development, 92(1), 273-290. CC by 4.0
[6] Ramos-Cabo et al., (2019). Gesture and language trajectories in early development: An overview from the autism spectrum disorder perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1211. CC by 4.0
[7] Sansavini et al., (2019). Low rates of pointing in 18-month-olds at risk for autism spectrum disorder and extremely preterm infants: a common index of language delay? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2131. CC by 4.0
[9]What is Autism Spectrum Disorder?” by the CDC is in the public domain. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/11%3A_Overview_of_Language_Development/11.06%3A_Gesture_Development.txt |
What is Statistical Learning?
Before infants can successfully link appropriate sound sequences to their referents, they must determine the set of sounds within a speech stream that correspond to potential words. For example, infants must segment the auditory statement “that is such a cute doggie” into meaningful chunks to accurately link it to its referent (e.g., “doggie”). This ability to segment speech sounds into word-level units, termed “word segmentation,” is a critical part of the word learning process (Saffran & Kirkham, 2018). Successful word segmentation requires exposure to the patterns and probabilities of sound sequences, maintaining phonological working memory and the order of the sequence of phonemes within the stream of speech to track the transitional probability so that one can increasingly identify potential word boundaries. Infants, children, and adults are all skilled at statistical word segmentation, often referred to as “statistical learning skills” (Aslin & Newport, 2012; Aslin, 2014; Saffran & Kirkham, 2018). [1]
Statistical learning is the implicit ability to track regularities in linguistic or other input (e.g., visual or motor) and learn from the distributional information (Saffran, 2001; Lany & Saffran, 2013). The foundational statistical learning experiments in 8-month-old infants demonstrated that young infants could segment speech into potential word units using transitional probabilities or co-occurring probability information between syllables (Saffran, Aslin & Newport, 1996; Aslin, Saffran & Newport, 1998). Researchers have argued that the ability to learn from the patterns of language a child is exposed to plays an important role in language learning (Saffran, 2001, 2003). These studies suggest that during their first year, before children begin to produce words, they start learning the patterns of the language they hear, tracking the sound combinations that correspond to potential words. Furthermore, statistical word segmentation is one of the important aspects of word learning and vocabulary acquisition in toddlers. Eighteen-month-olds’ ability to use statistical information derived from fluent speech to identify words within the stream of speech and then to map the words to meaning predicts vocabulary size at 24-months and vocabulary growth from 18 to 24 months (Ellis, Borovsky, Elman & Evans, 2021). [1]
[1] Ellis et al., (2021). Toddlers’ ability to leverage statistical iInformation to support word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 641. CC by 4.0
11.08: First Words
Word Development
Most infants produce their first word sometime around their first birthday, with over 75% doing so before twelve months of age (Schneider, Yurovsky & Frank, 2015). Despite tremendous individual variation in children’s rate of development (Fenson et al., 2007), the first words that they utter are strikingly consistent (Schneider, Yurovsky, & Frank, 2015; Tardif et al., 2008): they tend to talk about important people in their life (“mom,” “dad”), social routines (“hi,” “uh-oh”), animals (“dog,” “duck”), and foods (“milk,” “banana”). Even as children learn from their own experiences and according to their own interests (Mayor & Plunkett, 2014; Nelson, 1973), their vocabulary grows rapidly, typically adding more nouns, but also verbs (“go”) and other predicates (“hot”) to their repertoires. Figure \(1\) shows when the proportion of children between 10 to 30 months of age, across various languages, begin producing the word “dog” and “jump” in their native language. The higher the dots on the chart, the higher the proportion of children, at that specific age, are producing the word. What similarities and differences across languages do you notice? Over just their first 3 years, children learn hundreds, even thousands of words (Fenson et al., 1994; Mayor & Plunkett, 2011). [1]
[1] Braginsky et al., (2019). Consistency and variability in children’s word learning across languages. Open Mind, 3, 52-67. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/11%3A_Overview_of_Language_Development/11.07%3A_Statistical_Learning.txt |
Language Growth
Many times the growth of infant and toddler language development is only discussed with isolated stages and distinct milestones. The reality is that in between isolated stages and milestones, language is growing month by month (and even really day by day). In addition to presenting language milestones, it is important to acknowledge the month by month growth in comprehension and production in early language development. To illustrate what language growth looks like month by month over the first three years years, let’s examine some data.
When we talk with infants and toddlers, they can understand a lot, despite not yet being able to say much in return. Figure \(1\) illustrates the month by month development of language comprehension in children from eight months to eighteen months of age. The 50th percentile lines indicate the median growth over time. The data shows a steep upward trajectory of growth. At 8 months of age, half of the infants did not understand more than 7 words. By twelve months of age the median number of words an infant understood was around 20; however, just a few months later (fifteen months) the number of comprehensible words doubled and by eighteen months of age was around 80 comprehensible words.
Figure \(2\) illustrates the growth curves for the same children, but this time looking at language production rather than comprehension. Comparing Figure# and Figure# allows us to notice the growth differences between language comprehension and production. The data support the well-established pattern in language acquisition literature that children’s receptive vocabulary far exceeds their expressive ability during infancy and toddlerhood.
Figure \(2\) shows the language production abilities of children through eighteen months of age, with expressive ability improving from 14 to 18 months. What does language production growth look like in toddlers after 18 months of age? Figure \(3\) presents the median growth trend for the language production of 4,867 native English-speaking toddlers between 16-30 months of age in the U.S. Each grey dot represents the expressive vocabulary level of one individual child. The height of a dot represents how many words a child produces at a given age—the higher the dot is on the chart, the more words a child produces. The blue line represents the median growth curve. Notice how steep the blue line is—this illustrates how quickly expressive language abilities grow in toddlers!
Take a moment to analyze the data in Figure \(3\). What else do you notice about the data? Did you notice that the data for many children is far above the blue median line and the data for many others is located far beneath it? If so, you noticed the fact that there are early individual differences in language development. Figure \(4\) is the same data from Figure \(3\), but now five lines are present. These five lines divide the data into five different language growth trajectory curves. Notice how the top red line captures children who, at 16 months, have the highest vocabulary, the steepest growth curve in the chart and continue to have the highest vocabulary through 30 months of age. The opposite is true for the bottom purple line—these children have the lowest vocabulary at 16 months, the least steep growth curve and at 30 months, they continue to have the lowest vocabulary levels. From this chart we can see that early individual differences in language ability emerge in toddlerhood and the children with stronger language skills continue to have stronger language abilities later on. Although this chart only extends until 30 months of age, studies that have followed children longitudinally show that stronger language skills in toddlerhood is related to stronger language and cognitive abilities later in childhood (Gilkerson et al., 2018; Marchman & Fernald, 2008).
[1] Image by Frota et al., (2016). Infant communicative development assessed with the European Portuguese MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories short forms. First Language, 36(5), 525-545. CC by 3.0.
[2] Image by Wordbank is licensed under CC by 4.0
[3] Image by Wordbank is licensed under CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/11%3A_Overview_of_Language_Development/11.09%3A_Charting_language_growth_in_infants_and_toddlers.txt |
Development for Non-English Languages
If you work with infants and toddlers, you may have children who are learning more than one language. Infants may be exposed to one language, such as English, in a group care setting while also learning a different language natively with their family at home. You may wonder: do the comprehension and productive language growth patterns look similar or different across languages? In Figure \(1\), the language growth patterns for American English (Fenson et al., 2000), Spanish (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2013), Galician (Pérez-Pereira & Resches, 2007) and European Portuguese (Frota et al., 2016) are compared. The top graph shows language comprehension growth in children between the ages of 8 to 18 months and the bottom graph shows language production growth in children between the ages of 8 to 18 months. These findings indicate that overall early language development trends are similar across languages.
As language production is limited during the first year of life, examining production from 16 to 30 months reveals much more growth. Figure \(2\) presents the month-by-month vocabulary production scores for toddlers between the ages of 16 to 30 months across the same four languages.
A common finding in language development research is that a sex effect emerges—female and male infants and toddlers have different rates of growth (Bornstein et al., 2004; Eriksson et al., 2012; Simonsen et al., 2014). Figure \(3\) presents vocabulary production growth for fourteen different languages from children between the ages of 16 to 36 months of age. Across many languages there are early language differences by sex, often to the advantage of girls in the early months.
[1] Image by Frota et al., (2016). Infant communicative development assessed with the European Portuguese MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories short forms. First Language, 36(5), 525-545. CC by 3.0.
[2] Image by Wordbank is licensed under CC by 4.0
11.11: Development in Language Processing Efficiency
Language Processing
Throughout the second year of life, toddlers are rapidly developing in their ability to understand and produce language. The speed at which children are able to process language while comprehending it, is a critical aspect of language growth during toddlerhood. An experiment called the looking-while-listening (LWL) task has been used to measure language processing efficiency in children. Typically, in LWL tasks, children see a pair of images on a screen (e.g., a ball on the left side of the screen and a shoe on the right) while simultaneously listening to speech that refers to one of these images (e.g., “Where’s the ball?”). Children look towards the objects being named as their eye movements are monitored and are then coded offline to measure the speed with which children move their gaze to the correctly named pictures.[1]
The large body of research using this task has revealed important discoveries:
1. Maturational improvement. Language development involves more than the ability to understand or express single words—children need to be able to efficiently process streams of language in real-time. Over toddlerhood, children are consistently improving in their ability to rapidly and efficiently process language in real-time (Fernald, Perfors & Marchman, 2006; Fernald et al., 1998; MacDonald et al., 2018).
2. Individual differences. While all children improve in their language processing efficiency over time, there are important individual differences early on. Children who have larger expressive vocabularies and who are exposed to more child-directed language are more efficient at processing language in real-time (Hurtado, Marchman & Fernald, 2008; MacDonald et al., 2018; Marchman et al., 2017; Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). Already by eighteen months of age, children from higher SES backgrounds had larger vocabularies and faster response times in the LWL task and by twenty four months of age, there was a six month gap in language processing efficiency ability between children from low and high SES backgrounds (Fernald, Marchman & Weisleder, 2013). Late talking toddlers with more efficient language processing skills at eighteen months of age were more likely to “bloom”, showing greater increases in language ability at thirty months of age (Fernald & Marchman, 2012).
3. Links to later abilities. Early language processing abilities are associated not just with language outcomes later in childhood, but also cognitive outcomes as well. Amongst preterm toddlers, those who were more efficient at processing language at eighteen months scored higher on language and IQ tests at fifty-four months of age (Marchman et al., 2018). In a group of children followed longitudinally, language processing at twenty-five months was associated with language and cognitive outcomes at eight years of age (Marchman & Fernald, 2008). One hypothesis for why more efficient language processing leads to these outcomes is that faster processing of familiar words frees up cognitive resources that can then be dedicated to the learning of new words (Fernald & Marchman 2012). [3]
4. Caregiver language input increases child language ability. The quantity and quality of language exposure from caregivers is positively associated with toddlers’ language growth. Toddlers who heard more child-directed language from caregivers at 18 to 19 months of age, had larger vocabularies and were more efficient at processing language when they were two years of age (Hurtado, Marchman & Fernald, 2008; Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). It is important to emphasize that it was child-directed language that was most significant, not language that was simply overheard. This research suggests that caregivers should engage in meaningful back-and-forth conversations with infants and toddlers as they increase the quantity and quality of language children are exposed to, especially child-directed language.
[1] Peter, et al., (2019). Does speed of processing or vocabulary size predict later language growth in toddlers? Cognitive Psychology, 115, 101238. CC by 4.0
[2] Image by MacDonald et al., (2017). Real-time lexical comprehension in young children learning American Sign Language. PsyArXiv. CC by 4.0
[3] Peter, et al., (2019). Does speed of processing or vocabulary size predict later language growth in toddlers? Cognitive Psychology, 115, 101238. CC by 4.0
11.12: Conclusion
Conclusion of Overview of Language Development
Before children can produce their first word, the process of acquiring a language is already well underway as infants use eye gaze, gestures and vocalizations to communicate. Research has identified acquisition patterns, which has helped in the creation of milestone charts. Milestones reveal the patterns of language development and help caregivers notice if a child’s delay should lead to a conversation with a specialist. While there are general language patterns, there are also important individual differences throughout the acquisition process. Despite all we now know, observing children acquiring language is still an amazing experience to behold. Learning how to best support and encourage language development is critical as language experience during the first three years is a foundation for language and cognitive abilities later in childhood (Gilkerson et al., 2018). | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/11%3A_Overview_of_Language_Development/11.10%3A_Native_Language_Development_in_Non-English_Languages.txt |
Introduction to Theories of Language Acquisition
If you have ever tried to learn a language as an adult, you know just how great of a challenge it is. Despite years of practice, enrollment in language classes, books, videos, and countless resources, etc., learning a language as an adult is difficult! Now imagine what learning a language must be like for an infant. Infants do not enroll in language classes, do not have access to various help resources, and do not have the wealth of previous knowledge you do as an adult. So how do infants acquire language? Language theories attempt to explain the ‘how’ behind language acquisition. This section presents some of the main theories that have been proposed to explain how infants and toddlers acquire language.
12.02: Behaviorism
Behaviorism and Language Acquisition
You might recall the theory of behaviorism from an introductory child development or psychology course you have taken. Behaviorism is a perspective on learning that focuses on changes in individuals’ observable behaviors— changes in what people say or do. In terms of language acquisition, behaviorism might make note of the developmental changes in early non-language communication (i.e., eye gaze, gesture, and vocalization) or the changes in language development as children accumulate increasing vocabularies and then begin combining words. These are all aspects of language development that can be observed.
To explain how these developments in language acquisition actually take place, behaviorists applied many of the same ideas that they used to understand how children learn in general. For example, behaviorists proposed that one way children learn is through operant conditioning. B.F. Skinner believed that behavior is motivated by the consequences we receive for the behavior: the reinforcements and punishments. Operant conditioning focuses on how the consequences of a behavior affect the behavior over time. It begins with the idea that certain consequences tend to make certain behaviors happen more frequently. For example, when an infant vocalizes through cooing or babbling, the result will likely be an adult who turns toward the infant with attention, makes eye contact and responds with engaged infant-directed language. Thus, as a reward for vocalizing, the infant receives adult attention and infant-directed language--a highly desired type of communication for infants! With a great gift like this, the infant is very likely to vocalize again in the hope to receive the same gift next time. Indeed, research has found that the more responsive caregivers are when interacting with infants and toddlers, the earlier they will achieve language milestones (Masek et al., 2021; Tamis‐LeMonda, Bornstein & Baumwell, 2001). Through operant conditioning children also receive rewards for using language in a functional manner. For example, a behaviorist might suggest that children learn to say the word “drink” when they are thirsty because after doing so they receive something to drink, which reinforces their use of the word for getting a drink. [1] [2]
[2] Behaviorism. Authored by: Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose. CC by NC SA https://courses.lumenlearning.com/edpsy/chapter/behaviorism/
12.03: Nativism
Nativism and Language Acquisition
Nativism suggests that infants are born with an innate ability to acquire language that is hardwired in human brains. The linguist Noam Chomsky, the most well-known nativist, argued that human brains contain a language acquisition device (LAD) that includes a universal grammar that underlies all human language (Chomsky, 1965, 1972). Chomsky proposed that children are born with knowledge of general grammatical rules so that with exposure, children are able to acquire language rapidly and with relative ease. The idea is that each of the many languages used around the world has the same underlying set of grammatical rules that are hardwired into human brains--a “universal grammar”. Chomsky (1959) rebutted behaviorism’s argument on several grounds. Chomsky argued that it was unlikely that parents were doing the slow and careful shaping of children’s vocalizations that behaviorism proposed. According to Chomsky, language develops as long as the infant is exposed to it. No additional teaching, training, or reinforcement is required for language to develop. [1] [2]
1. All human languages share certain properties.
2. Children are exposed to different inputs yet still converge on the same grammar.
3. Children know things about language which they could not have learned from the input available to them. This is the most famous, and most powerful, argument for universal grammar.
4. Humans are the only species that has language.
5. Children learn language quickly and effortlessly, on minimal exposure.
6. All children acquiring language go through the same stages in the same order.
7. Different brain circuits are responsible for representing/processing linguistic and non-linguistic information.
There is general agreement among experts that babies are genetically programmed to learn language. In fact, fetuses have already begun their language acquisition journey while they are still in the womb (DeCasper & Spence, 1986; Ghio, Cara & Tettamanti, 2021; Moon, Lagercrantz & Kuhl, 2013)! Additionally, children are born ready to acquire any language they are exposed to, even languages of an entirely different modality (spoken modality versus a signed modality), such as a American Sign Language (Krentz & Corina, 2008; Stone, Petitto & Bosworth, 2018). Neuroscience continues to document the innate brain mechanisms that support language acquisition in infants (Friederici, 2017; Friederici & Wartenburger, 2010; Kuhl, 2010; Perani, et al., 2011). Nevertheless, there is still debate about Chomsky’s idea that there is a universal grammar that can account for all language learning. Evans and Levinson (2009) surveyed the world’s languages and found that none of the presumed underlying features of the language acquisition device were entirely universal. In their search they found languages that did not have noun or verb phrases, that did not have tenses (e.g., past, present, future), and even some that did not have nouns or verbs at all, even though a basic assumption of a universal grammar is that all languages should share these features. Another limitation to the nativist theory is their lack of acknowledgement of the role of social interactions and cultural contexts in language acquisition. In summary, most experts agree that children are born primed to acquire language; however, the role of social interactions and the effect various contexts can have on the acquisition process is undeniable. [1] [4]
[1] Martha Lally and Suzanne Valentine-French (2019). Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective, Second Edition. CC by 4.0 http://dept.clcillinois.edu/psy/LifespanDevelopment.pdf
[2] Sturdy, C. B., & Nicoladis, E. (2017). How much of language acquisition does operant conditioning explain?. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1918. CC by 4.0 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01918/full
[3] Image from Wikimedia CC by 4.0
[4] Dąbrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it?. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 852. CC by 4.0 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852/full | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/12%3A_Theories_of_Language_Acquisition/12.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Cognitive Theory and Language Acquisition
Cognitivists believe that language emerges within the context of other general cognitive abilities like memory, attention and problem solving. Once language does emerge it is usually within a specific sequence of stages that is universal in most children (Goodluck, 1991). The common progression through these language stages suggests that language is developing alongside other cognitive abilities. For example, infants and toddlers typically go through four stages of language acquisition:
1. Pre-language stage (3 to 10 months) where a child makes a lot of ‘cooing’ and ‘babbling’;
2. The holophrastic stage (12 to 18 months) where a child starts to comprehend a single unit of utterance like ‘milk’, ‘eat’, ‘dad’, ‘brother’;
3. Two-word stage (18 to 20 months) where a child, through a process of acquiring two nouns or a noun and a verb (noun + verb), begins pairing two words together such as ‘baby chair’, ‘mommy eat’, ‘cat bad’;
4. Telegraphic speech-stage (before 3 years old) defines a stage where a child puts some words together, even if the words are in the incorrect order. It has a similar meaning as a sentence, such as ‘cookie I want’, ‘toy me fall’, but is not a complete sentence.[1]
Jean Piaget is famous for his four stages of cognitive development. He believed that children do not think like adults and so before they can begin to develop language they must first actively construct their own understanding of the world through their interactions with the environment. A child has to understand a concept before they can acquire the particular language which expresses that concept. For example, a child first becomes aware of a concept such as a ‘cat’ and only afterward do they acquire the words to convey that concept. Essentially it is impossible for a young child to voice concepts that are cognitively unknown to them; therefore, a child must first learn about their environment, then they can connect language to their prior experiences. [1]
Piaget's cognitive theory states that children's language reflects the development of their logical thinking and reasoning skills in stages. In this way, Piaget’s stages reflect the primary role cognitive development has over language development and also reflects how language develops overtime as a child’s cognitive development progresses through each stage. Infants and toddlers are included in the first two stages of Piaget’s theory. These stages are most often discussed in reference to cognitive development. Their connection with language development will be explained below. [1]
Sensory-Motor Stage (birth to 2 years).
Infants and toddlers are learning about the world through motor and sensory experiences. Initially, language is limited to infants because they must first experience the world and develop mental schemas as a way to represent these experiences. The first words that infants produce are strikingly consistent as they tend to talk about important people in their life (“mom,” “dad”), social routines (“hi,” “uh-oh”), animals (“dog,” “duck”), and foods (“milk,” “banana”) (Schneider, Yurovsky, & Frank, 2015; Tardif et al., 2008). From a cognitive theorist perspective, this makes sense because these first words represent schemas that infants have been able to consistently develop and reinforce, due to high frequency exposure. In other words, infants’ first words are for concepts they have strong cognitive representations for. [2]
Pre-Operational Stage (2 years to 7).
From 2 to 3 years of age, children's cognitive development makes rapid progress. The increase in quantity and complexity of mental schemas to represent and organize the world, allows toddlers to be able to quickly accommodate new words into their vocabulary. As Figure \(1\) exemplifies, just within the third year of life (the first year under the preoperational stage) the vocabulary production abilities of toddlers rapidly increases. Children's language becomes "symbolic" allowing them to talk beyond the "here and now" and to talk about things such as the past, future, and feelings. Cognitivists would emphasize that the increase in vocabulary is driven first by an increase in cognitive development.
[1] Psycholinguistics/Theories and Models of Language Acquisition. CC BY-SA 3.0 https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics/Theories_and_Models_of_Language_Acquisition#cite_note-A_Linguistic_Introduction-8
[2] Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., Marchman, V. A., & Frank, M. C. (2019). Consistency and variability in children’s word learning across languages. Open Mind, 3, 52-67. CC by 4.0 https://direct.mit.edu/opmi/article/doi/10.1162/opmi_a_00026/5378/Consistency-and-Variability-in-Children-s-Word
[3] Image by Wordbank is licensed under CC by 4.0 http://wordbank.stanford.edu/analyses?name=vocab_norms | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/12%3A_Theories_of_Language_Acquisition/12.04%3A_Cognitive_Theory.txt |
Interactionist/Social Theory of Language Acquisition
The interactionist/social theory proposes that language exists for the purpose of communication and can only be learned in the context of interaction with adults and other children. It stresses the importance of the environment and culture in which the language is being learned. Interactionists acknowledge the presence of innate biological mechanisms, but emphasize the critical role of social interactions (Jensen & Arnett, 2017; Levine & Munsch, 2018). Lev Vygotsky is the most well-known interactionist theorist and provided a theoretical framework for other interactionists to further develop theories of language acquisition. [1]
Influenced by the work of Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner believed that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition in general and language in particular. Whereas Chomsky focused on innate mechanisms of language acquisition such as the idea of a language acquisition device (LAD), Bruner proposed the language acquisition support system (LASS) in opposition to Chomsky (Bakhurst & Shanker, 2001). The LASS refers to the social and cultural experiences that support and encourage language acquisition. This includes child-directed language exposure (e.g., parentese, dialogic reading, etc.,) as well as the various activities children engage in while also receiving exposure to language. Whereas the LAD emphasizes that children come into the world programmed ready to learn language, the LASS emphasizes that it is the world that is ready to expose and support children in learning language. [2]
A powerful argument for the critical role of social interaction and not just language exposure in general, comes from the body of research comparing language learning from live interactions versus pre-recorded exposure played from a screened device. Toddlers who hear a new word uttered by a speaker on a recorded video are less likely to learn that word than those who hear the same word from an in-person speaker (Krcmar et al., 2007; Krcmar, 2010; Kuhl, Tsao & Liu, 2003; Roseberry et al., 2014; Troseth et al., 2018). Although language learning from video occurs in some situations (e.g., Scofield et al., 2007; Linebarger and Vaala, 2010; Vandewater, 2011), when learning from video is directly compared to learning from face-to-face interactions, toddlers usually learn better from an actual event or person who is present. Even when language is presented through a screen, infants demonstrate greater language learning when two or more infants are present together (Lytle, Garcia-Sierra & Kuhl, 2018). To explain what is missing from video, Patricia Kuhl and her colleagues (2003) proposed that interpersonal social cues offered in a face-to-face setting “attract infants’ attention and motivate learning” and that the presence of a person allows the sharing of “information that is referential in nature” (Kuhl, 2007). A speaker’s communicative intentions may be less clear when offered on video, and the parts of language may be more challenging to extract. [4]
The interactionist approach can also help explain how differences in the quantity and quality of language exposure affect a child's language development. The contexts that children are raised in can be very different and the differences in language exposure across various contexts should be emphasized when considering how children acquire language (Rowe & Weisleder, 2020). Differences in language exposure, even exposure very early in life, such as exposure at a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for children born premature, can have long lasting effects. Variations in the amount of adult language a newborn heard on a single day in the NICU were positively associated with language skills at 7 and 18 months of age (Caskey et al, 2014) and the more language premature children heard at 16 months, the faster their language processing abilities were at 18 months of age (Adams et al., 2018). Furthermore, the higher the quality (responsive, verbally elaborative, and non-intrusive) of caregiver interactions with 22 month old children born prematurely, the larger their vocabulary comprehension was at three years of age (Loi et al., 2017). This research, along with so much more, demonstrates the critical importance of social interaction and exposure in the process of language acquisition. [6]
[1] Psycholinguistics/Theories and Models of Language Acquisition from Wiki University is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics/Theories_and_Models_of_Language_Acquisition#cite_note-A_Linguistic_Introduction-8
[2] “Jerome S. Bruner” Psychology Wiki. CC-BY-SA https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Jerome_S._Bruner
[4] Troseth, G. L., Strouse, G. A., Verdine, B. N., & Saylor, M. M. (2018). Let’s chat: On-screen social responsiveness is not sufficient to support toddlers’ word learning from video. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2195. CC by 4.0 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02195/full
[6] Brignoni-Pérez, E., Morales, M. C., Marchman, V. A., Scala, M., Feldman, H. M., Yeom, K., & Travis, K. E. (2021). Listening to Mom in the NICU: effects of increased maternal speech exposure on language outcomes and white matter development in infants born very preterm. Trials, 22(1), 1-9. CC by 4.0
https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13063-021-05385-4.pdf | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/12%3A_Theories_of_Language_Acquisition/12.05%3A_Interactionist_Social_Theory.txt |
Statistical Learning Theory of Language Acquisition
The natural environment presents infants with multiple streams of information occurring simultaneously. They encounter many objects, some moving, some stationary; they hear sounds, some language-related, others from animals and objects; they see people, some interacting with them, others in the background. Despite all of this information, these experiences are not completely random, there are predictable patterns that occur together. An infant’s surroundings contain statistical regularities that they can use to detect structure in a busy environment. Infants are able to detect regularities and co-occurrences in visual shape sequences and visual scenes (Fiser & Aslin, 2002; Kirkham et al., 2002, 2007). For example, take a look at Figure \(1\), which shows three object clusters, each cluster is composed of three colored shapes. Can you spot the regularity that co-occurs across the three object clusters? Although the three object clusters are not exactly the same, the regularity that occurs across all three are the yellow and pink connected shapes. In one study (Wu et al., 2011), 9-month-old infants were shown sequences involving these same three-shape object clusters in which two pieces always co-occurred and one piece constantly changed. They found that infants could keep track of which pieces co-occurred, suggesting that infants were able to track the statistical regularities they experience. [1]
Just as infants are able to track regularities in the visual environment, they are also able to track the regularities that naturally occur in language. When we talk, we produce a consistent stream of speech sounds. An important task for an infant is to figure out which specific set of sounds within a speech stream go together to create words. One way infants do this is by tracking the statistical regularities of speech sounds that co-occur together. To demonstrate this, a research study (Antovich & Graf Estes, 2018) had 14 month olds listen to a speech stream consisting of four made up words: timay, dobu, kuga, pimo. While listening, the children heard each of the four words repeated 120 times, but the order of the words was mixed up. Despite the random presentation of words in a consistent speech stream, there were regularities of sounds that always co-occurred. For example, ‘ti’ was always followed by ‘may’ (the two syllables in the word ‘timay’), and ‘pi’ always co-occurred with ‘mo’ (the two syllables in the word ‘pimo’). However, as the order of the words was mixed up, the last syllable of a word and the first syllable of the next consecutive word occurred much less frequently as ‘may’ (the last syllable in the word ‘timay’) could be followed up by either of the other three words at any time. The results revealed that even though the words used were made up, the infants were able to track the statistical regularities and segment the words from the continuous speech stream. This research study, along with many others (for a review, see Romberg & Saffran, 2010), demonstrates that infants are able to track the statistical regularities of the language they are exposed to and this helps them in the initial stages of acquiring their native language(s).
There is now a wealth of data documenting the statistical learning abilities of infants and toddlers (Saffran, 2020; Saffran & Kirkham, 2018). Detecting visual statistical regularities has even been documented in newborns (Bulf et al., 2011). Researchers have argued that statistical learning plays an important role in language learning (Saffran, 2001, 2003). These studies suggest that during their first year of language acquisition, before children begin to produce words, they start learning the patterns of the language they hear, tracking the sound combinations that correspond to potential words. Newman et al. (2006) discovered a relationship between infants’ ability to segment the speech stream into words and language proficiency at 24 months and, even later in childhood, between 4 and 6 years of age. Additionally, there is a growing body of evidence showing that statistical learning recruits the same brain areas as those used in language processing (de Vries et al., 2011; Folia et al., 2011; Petersson et al., 2012). [3] [4]
[3] Ellis, E. M., Borovsky, A., Elman, J. L., & Evans, J. L. (2021). Toddlers’ Ability to Leverage Statistical Information to Support Word Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 641. CC by 4.0 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.600694/full
[4] Arciuli, J., & Torkildsen, J. V. K. (2012). Advancing our understanding of the link between statistical learning and language acquisition: The need for longitudinal data. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 324. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00324/full#h9 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/12%3A_Theories_of_Language_Acquisition/12.06%3A_Statistical_Learning.txt |
Native Language Magnet Theory of Language Acquisition
Young children are born ready to learn their native language or languages rapidly and with relative ease, following similar developmental paths regardless of culture or language. In this way, young infants are “citizens of the world” (Kuhl, 2004) because they are able to phonetically distinguish between the sounds of all the world’s languages and acquire any language they are exposed to. Phonetics refers to how the sounds in a language are made and what they actually sound like. Infants are very good at noticing phonetic differences, and they can tell the difference between all kinds of different sounds from many different languages. But this ability changes within the first year of life. To acquire a language, infants must be able to discover which specific phonetic distinctions will be utilized in their native language. The early ability of young infants to phonetically distinguish between the sounds of different languages begins to diminish as repeated exposure to one’s native language leads to infants becoming “culture-bound listeners”, now only able to distinguish the sounds in their native language (Kuhl, 2004). For example, at six months of age, English-learning babies are about 80-90% successful at noticing phonetic differences in English, in Hindi, and in Salish (Werker & Tees, 1984). But by ten months of age, their success rate drops to about 50-60%, and by the time they are one year old, they are only about 10-20% successful at hearing the phonetic differences in Hindi and Salish. The theory of NLM-e explains the narrowing of infant speech perception and the subsequent growth of native language abilities. [1] [2]
NLM-e proposes that young infants’ universal early speech perception ability narrows with language experience as the brain neurally commits to the child’s native language, thereby fostering the language acquisition process. There are five basic principles of NLM-e (Kuhl et al., 2008):
Distributional patterns and infant-directed language are agents of change.
In order to comprehend language infants first have to acquire the sound inventory of a given language, that is, learn how many and which speech sounds are functionally distinct units. When a caregiver talks with an infant, what the infant hears is a long strand of continuous language sounds. How does an infant learn the individual words within a speech stream? One of the mechanisms they use is distributional learning, which refers to learning by simply listening to the frequency distributions of the speech sounds in language. Different languages have different distributional sound patterns, as some sounds are more likely to frequently be heard together than others. Infants as young as 2 months of age are sensitive to the distributional sound patterns in language (Maye, Werker, & Gerken, 2002; Wanrooij, Boersma, & van Zuijen, 2014). As research suggests distributional learning is one of the mechanisms by which infants start to acquire the phonemes of their native language, NLM-e includes it as an important agent of change. [3] When adult caregivers talk with infants and toddlers, they tend to use a different speech style, often referred to as infant-directed speech, that includes higher pitch, greater pitch range, and longer pauses between words, (Fernald et al.,1989; Outters et al., 2020). Infants prefer to listen to infant-directed speech over adult-directed speech at birth (Cooper & Aslin, 1990), as well as later in infancy (Fernald, 1985; Werker & McLeod, 1989). When listening to infant-directed speech, compared to adult-directed speech, infants are better able to discriminate speech sounds (Karzon, 1985; Trainor & Desjardins, 2002), more efficiently segment words from continuous speech (Thiessen, Hill & Saffran, 2005), demonstrate better long-term memory for words (Singh et al., 2009), and learn new words more effectively (Graf Estes & Hurley, 2013; Ma et al., 2011). As a result, NLM-e proposes that infant-directed speech is an agent of change because it helps infants phonetically discriminate language sounds as well as helps them acquire their native language. [4] [5]
Language exposure produces neural commitment that affects future learning.
Adults who either heard or spoke an additional language as a child have better perception and production abilities when relearning that childhood language later in life. Thus, exposure to a language within the first year of life provides sustained benefit to learners as language exposure in infancy leads to neural commitment. Furthermore, the benefits of early non-native language exposure begins to be observed almost immediately. For example, infants’ speech perception abilities change with as little as 5 hours of exposure to a second language (Kuhl et al., 2003; Conboy & Kuhl, 2011) and remain changed even a month after exposure has been discontinued (Sundara et al., 2020). [6]
Social interaction influences early language learning at the phonetic level.
In a series of studies Kuhl and colleagues have shown the significance of social interaction on phonetic learning. When English-monolingual infants were exposed to Mandarin Chinese through a “live condition” (experimenter directly interacting with the infant during learning) the infants demonstrated phonetic learning of the foreign language; however, exposure to Mandarin Chinese from a video did need lead to phonetic learning (Kuhl, Tsao & Liu, 2003). When these same Mandarin Chinese videos were presented to infants over an interactive touchscreen device, greater phonetic learning occurred for infants paired together, compared to infants without a social partner (Lytle, Garcia-Sierra & Kuhl, 2018). This line of research highlights the importance social interactions have on language learning at the phonetic level. [7]
Early speech perception predicts language growth.
NLM-e proposes that early language perception abilities (such as phonetic perception) is related to later language abilities. Indeed research has shown this association. Six month old infants’ speech perception ability is related, longitudinally, to language development at 13 months, 16 months and 24 months of age (Tsao, Liu & Kuhl, 2004). More recent research is finding this association lasts throughout early childhood as infants with greater speech perception abilities at 11 months of age demonstrated greater grammatical abilities as six year olds (Zhao et al., 2021).
The perception-production link is forged developmentally.
Early phonetic perception abilities are related to later language production abilities (Zhao et al., 2021). The connection between language perception and language production is built through the experiences of language exposure and infant vocalizations. Through language exposure, infants establish mental maps to represent the specific sounds of their native language. Through vocalization, infants relate the articulatory properties they use to create various sounds, to the sounds they hear themselves produce and then relate that to the language sounds they have mapped out from adult language exposure. This developmental perspective on language acquisition suggests that early language perception is critical and that language production relies upon perceptual abilities
[1] Psycholinguistics/Theories and Models of Language Acquisition. CC BY-SA 3.0
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics/Theories_and_Models_of_Language_Acquisition#cite_note-A_Linguistic_Introduction-8
[2] Essentials of Linguistics by Catherine Anderson is licensed under CC by 4.0
12.08: Conclusion
Conclusion for Theories of Language Acquisition
The process of language acquisition for infants and toddlers is truly a remarkable phenomenon. This section presented a few of the prominent theories of language acquisition. As research progresses and techniques are developed, we continue to gain new insights into the language acquisition process. While children may be born with mechanisms that aid in the early phases of language acquisition, such as statistical learning, the critical importance of the quantity and quality of interactions infants and toddlers have with caregivers and other people is of pivotal significance | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/12%3A_Theories_of_Language_Acquisition/12.07%3A_Native_Language_Magnet_Theory_Expanded_%28NLM-e%29.txt |
Introduction to Supporting Language in Group Care
While children are born ready to acquire language, the quantity and quality of exposure they receive is critical for the trajectory of their language development. For children who attend group care, the language caregivers share with infants and toddlers is essential. This section will emphasize the importance of the quantity and quality of language exposure during the first three years and explain various practices caregivers can implement to increase both the quantity and quality of the language they use with infants and toddlers
13.02: Language Growth and Individual Differences
Individuality of Language Growth
Language develops rapidly during the first three years of life. Figure \(1\) shows growth curves for the development of toddlers’ productive vocabulary between 16 to 30 months of age. On the x-axis is the age of children and the y-axis represents how many words children produce. Each gray dot is a child’s data. When you look at this chart closely, what do you notice? Did you notice the individual differences within each age? For example, look at the spread of dots at 24 months. Even within the same age, 24 months, there is a large variability in productive vocabulary between children. At 24 months, some children have been heard to speak more than 500 or even 600 words, while many others spoke less than 200 words. Also, notice that the growth curves suggest that these individual differences start early, before 16 months and continue throughout the second year of life. Where do these individual differences in language ability come from and do they have any long term significance?
Early individual differences in language ability does have long term significance. For example, individual differences in language processing abilities remain stable across development一those children who were faster at processing language at 19 months continued to be faster at processing language 12 months later (Peter et al., 2019). For children born prematurely, children who were faster at processing language at 18 months, had larger vocabulary comprehension abilities at 30 months (Marchman et al., 2016) and had higher scores on language and IQ at 54 months (Marchman et al., 2018). By 18 months, children from higher SES backgrounds already have larger productive vocabularies and are more efficient at processing language (Fernald, Marchman & Weisleder, 2013). When these same children were followed up six months later, those with larger vocabularies and more efficient language processing skills at 18 months continued to perform at a higher level: at two years of age, children from lower SES backgrounds performed at the level children from higher SES backgrounds did when they were 18 months old一representing a six month performance gap by age two. [2]
In summary, individual differences in language ability begin to form early in life and have the potential to lead to very different developmental outcomes later in childhood. Specifically, larger vocabularies and more efficient language processing skills in toddlerhood is related to higher performance on language, cognitive and academic assessments in later childhood. Clearly early individual differences in language ability are important, but where do they come from?
The Word Gap
The individual differences in language abilities that appear early in the first three years can be partly explained by the various levels of language exposure children recieve. For example, early language processing abilities are associated with the amount of language children hear as research has found that children who are exposed to less language tend to have lower language abilities (Fernald & Weisleder, 2010; Hurtado, Marchman & Fernald, 2008). [3]
In one important study on individual differences, researchers went into families’ homes once per month and recorded what children heard and said for one hour (Hart & Risley, 1995). They started doing this when the infants were nine months old, and they kept going to their homes every month until the children were three years old. During this time, the toddlers began to talk, and the scientists tracked every new word that they produced. They also wrote down all the words and sentences that parents said to their children. After analyzing these recordings, they found that most children started speaking around their first birthday, but some learned new words much more quickly than others did. They also found that children were better at learning new words if their parents talked to them a lot at home. Children who heard lots of language—more words, more different words, more questions, more encouraging words, and more words that described things—had bigger vocabularies than children who did not hear as much language. [5]
One important finding from this study was that children heard more language if they were from families with a higher socioeconomic status (SES). This relationship between family (SES) and the amount of words spoken to the child has become known as the word gap. Hart and Risley (2003) estimated that there is a 30 million word gap一children from higher SES families are exposed to 30 million more words by age three than children from families with a lower SES. While some researchers argue that the actual word gap may be less than the 30 million words originally proposed, the word gap is nonetheless present and impactful, as numerous studies have documented a difference in language exposure based on family SES (Ellwood‐Lowe, Foushee & Srinivasan, 2022; Hoff, 2003; Huttenlocher et al., 2010; Golinkoff et al., 2019; Rowe, Leech & Cabrera, 2017). For example, the language of parents with a lower SES often use a lower diversity of words in comparison to the language of parents with a higher SES (Burchinal et al., 2008; Huttenlocher et al., 2010). As a consequence of these input differences, children with a higher SES background often have a larger vocabulary (Gilkerson et al., 2017; Hoff, 2006) and more often use diverse and advanced grammatical constructions than children from lower SES families (Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman & Levine, 2002). [6]
The idea of a word gap highlights the importance of early language exposure for positive long term developmental trajectories. Early language experiences and abilities lead to stronger later language performance and are even related to later cognitive and academic abilities (Bornstein, Hahn, Putnick & Pearson, 2018; Lehrl et al., 2020; Rodriguez & Tamis‐LeMonda, 2011; Rose, Lehrl, Ebert & Weinert, 2018; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2019). For example toddlers with larger vocabularies and more efficient language processing demonstrated stronger language and cognitive skills at 8 years of age (Marchman & Fernald, 2008).
Quantity of Language Exposure
While indeed family SES is related to early language differences in children, family SES alone does not reveal the full story. In one study, researchers looked at the potential factors in language growth across a group of toddlers, all from families with a low SES (Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). Children wore a special recorder that captured the language they were exposed to throughout the day, over multiple days. Results revealed great variability in language exposure, even though the children were all from families with lower SES. Figure \(3\) charts the varied language exposure of the children. Each colored column represents one child and the height of the column represents the number of words a child heard in a 10 hour day一the taller the bar, the more words heard by a child. Some children heard over 25,000 words in one day, while others heard under 2,500 words in one day. This is data from just one day, but imagine the compounding effect this has over the first three years of a child’s life if these daily patterns are repeated! [5]
These results move the spotlight away from SES per se and instead shine it more specifically on the variable language experiences of children, one of which can include SES. In general, children from families with high SES hear more language than children from families with low SES, but even within the same SES level there are significant differences in language experience. There are also other reasons besides SES for wide-ranging levels of language exposure. For example, in Senegal, cultural traditions and beliefs discourage caregivers from talking with infants and toddlers, therefore greatly restricting their language exposure (Weber, Fernald & Diop, 2017). Other research shows that the quantity of words infants experience varies greatly based on how infants are placed during activities and the type of activity. Infants placed in sitting devices (e.g., bouncy seats, highchairs) experience fewer adult words and less consistent language exposure throughout the day (Malachowski, Salo, Needham & Humphreys, 2021). Considering various daily activities, infants were exposed to the most words during book sharing (mean of 55.91 words per minute) and grooming (mean of 56.60 words per minute) and the least amount of words during object play (mean of 34.10 words per minute) and feeding (mean of 32.44 words per minute) (Tamis‐LeMonda et al., 2019).
Until now we have learned that the number of words children are exposed to can vary greatly depending on factors such as SES and culture, but what does the “typical” amount of language exposure look like? To estimate how many words infants and toddlers hear across different ages, another team of researchers also used small language recorders worn by children to count the number of words infants and toddlers heard throughout the day (Gilkerson et al., 2017). Figure \(4\) summarizes some of their data. Take a moment to look carefully at the data in Figure \(4\). What did you notice? Consider how developmental growth in other domains, such as motor abilities, might influence the amount of words children hear.
Did you notice that infants typically heard more words than toddlers, with the youngest infants, 2 to 4 months of age, hearing the most words? Why do you think infants and younger toddlers are exposed to more words than older toddlers? Across 2 to 36 months of age, children are approximately exposed to an average amount of words between the range of 12,000 to just over 15,000. Although the difference between 12,000 and 15,000 may not seem very significant, consider how these numbers could play out over just one year. A child who is exposed to 12,000 words everyday for one year would hear 4,380,000 words, but a child exposed to 15,000 words daily would hear 5,475,000 words in one year. This represents a difference of over one million words!
It is critical to stress that while this data was recorded in the child’s home environment as families moved throughout their daily routines in an attempt to capture “natural” language exposure, the data in no way should be interpreted as representing what may be “typical” language exposure for all children. The participants in the study were all monolingual English speaking children, mostly (66%) white, all from the Denver, Colorado area and educated with a high school GED (26%), some college experience (29%) and a college degree (23%). Irrespective of these limitations, the data does provide intriguing insight into daily natural language exposure for infants and toddlers.
Quality of Language Exposure
While quantity, the sheer amount of language children are exposed to, is clearly important, research suggests the quality of the exposure is even more important (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Romeo et al., 2018). Let’s revisit the chart that showed the number of words toddlers, from low SES families, heard in one day (see Figure \(5\)). While the height of the columns represents the quantity of language exposure, the colored sections of the columns represent the quality of exposure. Some children heard lots of language spoken directly to them, like when they were talking and playing with their caregivers, this is referred to as child-directed speech. The bottom color of each column is green, representing the amount of words heard that were child-directed. Other children heard lots of language that was not directed to them, like when their caregivers were talking to each other or to other children nearby, this is referred to as overheard speech. The top color of each column is blue, representing the amount of overheard words. [8]
Distinguishing between the quantity of language children are exposed to is critical. The research revealed that the toddlers who heard more child-directed language had bigger vocabularies and had more efficient language processing abilities than the children who did not hear as much child-directed speech. This shows that the quality of the words caregivers use with infants and toddlers, such as child-directed speech, may be even more important than the overall quantity of language exposure.
Child-directed language is just one way to think about the quality of language infants and toddlers experience. Another way to perceive language quality is through the conversational turn counts between children and adults. Turn counts are an important quality measure because they capture the critical interactive and responsive aspect of a back-and-forth conversation. After controlling for SES, toddlers who experienced more conversational turn counts with caregivers had higher IQ scores and language abilities later in childhood at ages 9 and 13 (Gilkerson et al., 2018).
There are important early differences in the quantity and quality of language that infants and toddlers experience above and beyond SES. Research has found that both quantity and quality of language exposure during the first three years of life is related to language and cognitive abilities in later childhood. While caregivers should consider increasing the quantity of language their infants and toddlers experience, focusing on various quality aspects of their language interactions is the most important. The next session will introduce various strategies that caregivers can use to improve the quantity and quality of the language they share with infants and toddlers.
[1] Image by Wordbank is licensed under CC by 4.0
[2] Peter et al., (2019). Does speed of processing or vocabulary size predict later language growth in toddlers? Cognitive Psychology, 115, 101238. CC by 4.0
[3] Dickinson et al., (2012). How reading books fosters language development around the world. Child Development Research. CC by 3.0
[4] Image by Luiza Braun on Unsplash.
[5] Lew-Williams & Weisleder (2017). How do little kids learn language? Frontiers in Young Minds, 5(45). CC by 4.0
[6] Grolig (2020). Shared storybook reading and oral language development: A bioecological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1818. CC by 4.0
[7] Image adapted from Lew-Williams & Weisleder (2017). How do little kids learn language? Frontiers for Young Minds, 5, 45. CC by 4.0
[8] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0.
[9] Image by Luiza Braun on Unsplash. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/13%3A_Supporting_Language_in_Group_Care/13.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Responsiveness and Sensitivity
Responsiveness refers to a caregiver’s ability to detect and respond to a child's behavioral signals during shared interactions (Landry et al., 2001). Sensitivity refers to caregivers who are aware and capable of understanding a child’s behaviors and that respond to the child’s needs in a timely and appropriate manner (Grossmann, Bretherton, Waters & Grossmann, 2013). Thus responsiveness and sensitivity are related constructs that when implemented, support the language development of infants and toddlers (Alvarenga et al., 2021; Madigan et al., 2019). [1]
Infants and toddlers benefit from interacting with responsive and sensitive caregivers. For example, removing social feedback from interactions between caregivers and infants leads to fewer vocalizations from 5-month-old infants (Goldstein, Schwade & Bornstein, 2009), while providing social feedback in response to 8 month olds’ vocalizations results in a higher number of vocalizations (Goldstein, King & West, 2003). One study found that when children were 9 and 13 months old caregivers’ responsiveness predicted when children reached various language milestones, such as when children produced their first words and first fifty words (Tamis‐LeMonda, Bornstein & Baumwell, 2001). Both caregiver responsiveness and sensitivity are related to the development of expressive language abilities in toddlers (Bruce, Panneton & Taylor, 2022; Prime, Wade & Gonzalez, 2020) and higher levels of caregiver sensitivity during infancy are related to greater abilities in language comprehension in toddlerhood (Baumwell, Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1997). [3] [4]
To support language development, caregivers should participate in training sessions that practice and improve their ability to provide responsive and sensitive care and interactions with infants and toddlers. When caregivers do receive such training, their responsiveness improves and is linked to an improvement in communication abilities of infants (Alvarenga et al., 2021). Engaging in responsive and sensitive interactions not only takes practice, but also uninterrupted focused time with children. To be responsive, a caregiver must pay close attention to a child’s signals and to be sensitive, a caregiver must respond to their signals in a timely and appropriate way.
[1] Caldas et al., (2018). The socio-communicative development of preterm infants is resistant to the negative effects of parity on maternal responsiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 43. CC by 4.0
[2] Image by Alina Ryabchenko on Unsplash.
[1] Marklund et al., (2021). An association between phonetic complexity of infant vocalizations and parent vowel hyperarticulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 2873. CC by 4.0
[2] Dickinson et al., (2012). How reading books fosters language development around the world. Child Development Research. CC by 3.0
13.3.02: Strategies that Support L
Turn-taking
Infants spend much of their awake time in face-to-face interactions with their caregivers and it is this face-to-face conversational setting that provides an important context for infants to start acquiring language. Additionally, before infants acquire language they start to interact in social exchanges with caregivers characterized by turn-taking patterns, such as peek-a-boo games and give and take interactional sequences (Bates, Camaioni & Volterra, 1975; Ratner & Bruner, 1978; Rochat, Querido & Striano, 1999). These mutually engaged interactions can consist of behaviors in multiple modalities such as vocalizations, gazes and smiles. Conversational turn-taking is important during infancy as it lays the foundation for the flow and pattern of interactions, but continues to be important throughout toddlerhood and the preschool years as the amount of turn-taking children and caregivers engage in is related to language development and brain function (Donnelly & Kidd, 2021; Romeo et al., 2018, 2021). [1]
There are many ways caregivers can engage in turn-taking with children. Questions are a common way to start back-and-forth conversations (Gilkerson et al., 2018; Rowe, Leech & Cabrera, 2017). Questions can have many formats (Wasik & Hindman, 2013), including open (involving no single correct answer and likely requiring multiple word response) or closed (single correct answer), with the latter including label questions (What’s this called?) or yes/no questions (Is this a dog?). There is extensive evidence that questions in the classroom are a powerful tool for eliciting child language and fostering conversation. Open-ended questions may be relatively rare, representing approximately only 5% of caregivers’ prompts (Davis, Torr & Degotardi, 2015; Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2008). Interestingly, Kidd and Rowland (2021) found that, with two and three year olds, when presented with conversational opportunities, children contributed just about one-third (37%) of the turns. Caregivers can try to increase the number of turn-taking exchanges during interactions by talking about abstract, non-present concepts (Leech & Rowe, 2021). [3]
[1] Hilbrink et al., (2015). Early developmental changes in the timing of turn-taking: a longitudinal study of mother–infant interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1492. CC by 4.0
[2] Image by Marcin Jozwiak on Unsplash.
[3] Hindman et al., (2021). Understanding child-directed speech around book reading in toddler classrooms: Evidence from early Head Start programs. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 719783-719783. CC by 4.0
13.3.03: Strategies that Support L
Protoconversations
Infants produce both speech-like vocalizations (i.e., protophones) and cries from birth (Nathani, Ertmer & Stark, 2006). Even before infants produce their first words, caregivers and infants show turn-taking communication patterns referred to as “protoconversation” (Bateson, 1975; Trevarthen & Aitken, 2001). Protoconversations involve communicative turn-taking between caregivers and infants using a variety of communication such as vocalizations, gestures, facial expressions and language. Infants between 3 and 5 months produce more than 40% of their turns in overlap with caregivers, while this proportion of overlap decreases after 5 months and drops to around 20% at 18 months (Hilbrink, Gattis & Levinson, 2015). Caregiver responses (verbal or non-verbal) to infant protophones most often occur within one second after infant protophones (Keller et al., 1999; Yoo, Bowman & Oller, 2018). Caregiver responses to protophones thus appear to provide a rich learning opportunity. Through protoconversation, caregivers play a key role for infants in helping them learn the turn-taking system necessary for communication (Hilbrink, Gattis & Levinson, 2015). Furthermore, many longitudinal studies have shown that protophones are foundations for language development (Koopmans-van Beinum & van der Stelt, 1986; Oller, 1980; Roug et al., 1989; Stark, 1980). In summary, early turn-taking and protoconversations support language development by laying the foundation of back-and-forth communication and highlight the role of social interactions for supporting language development (Donnelly & Kidd, 2021). [1]
Caregivers can use protoconversations to support language development in the following ways:
• Recognize that protophones offer a special opportunity to bond with an infant and are important for the beginning development of speech.
• Even before an infant’s vocalizations begin to sound like speech, engage with the infant in protoconversations.
• A protoconversation involves contingent, bidirectional turn taking, so make sure you allow for time devoted to an infant where you can respond to their communication promptly and continue the turn taking conversation.
• Being an engaging caregiver in the communicative partnership positively affects the quantity and quality of infant vocalizations (Goldstein & Schwade, 2008).
• There are various ways to respond to infant vocalizations including physical touch, vocalizations, speech and facial expressions. In terms of vocal and speech responses, caregivers have been found to primarily use affirmations and imitations with young infants, and then expand their responses to include expansions, descriptions, and questions as children’s abilities increase (Tamis‐LeMonda, Bornstein & Baumwell, 2001). This shows that caregivers are sensitive to infant vocal capacities and respond accordingly, thereby fostering infant vocal development.
[1] Yoo et al., (2018). The origin of protoconversation: An examination of caregiver responses to cry and speech-like vocalizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1510. CC by 4.0
[2] Image by Raul Angel on Unsplash. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/13%3A_Supporting_Language_in_Group_Care/13.03%3A_Strategies_that_Support_Language_Development/13.3.01%3A_Strategies_that_Support_L.txt |
Infant-Directed Speech
When caregivers interact with infants, their speech often takes on specific, distinguishing features in a speech register known as infant-directed speech (Ferjan Ramírez, 2022; Fernald et al., 1989). Infant-directed speech is produced by caregivers of most (although not all) linguistic and cultural backgrounds and is typically characterized by a slow, melodic, high-pitched, and exaggerated cadence (Farran, Lee, Yoo & Oller, 2016; Fernald et al., 1989; Kitamura, Thanavishuth, Burnham & Luksaneeyanawin, 2001; Pye, 1986; Shute & Wheldall, 1999). From early in life, infants tune their attention to infant-directed speech, preferring to listen to infant-directed speech over adult-directed speech at birth (Cooper & Aslin, 1990), as well as later in infancy (Cooper & Aslin, 1994; Cooper, Abraham, Berman & Staska, 1997; Fernald, 1985; Hayashi, Tamekawa & Kiritani, 2001; Kitamura & Lam, 2009; ManyBabies Consortium, 2020; Newman & Hussain, 2006; Pegg, Werker & McLeod, 1992; Santesso, Schmidt & Trainor, 2007; Singh, Morgan & Best, 2002). [1]
Infants’ preference for infant-directed speech may play a useful role in early language learning. For example, infants are better able to discriminate speech sounds in infant-directed speech than in adult-directed speech (Karzon, 1985; Trainor & Desjardins, 2002), more efficiently segment words from continuous speech in an infant-directed speech register (Thiessen, Hill & Saffran, 2005), demonstrate better long-term memory for words spoken in infant-directed speech (Singh, Nestor, Parikh & Yull, 2009), and learn new words more effectively from infant-directed speech (Graf Estes & Hurley, 2013; Ma, Golinkoff, Houston & Hirsh-Pasek, 2011). Overall amount of infant-directed speech in everyday speech input between 7 to 11 months is positively correlated with language outcomes at five years of age (Weisleder & Fernald, 2013), and amount of infant-directed speech in a one-on-one setting between 11 and 14 months of age is correlated with productive vocabulary at 24 months (Ramírez-Esparza, García-Sierra & Kuhl, 2014; 2017a) as well as word production at 33 months (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2017b). [2] [3]
[1] Byers-Heinlein et al., (2021). A multilab study of bilingual infants: Exploring the preference for infant-directed speech. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 2515245920974622. CC by 4.0
[2] Byers-Heinlein et al., (2021). A multilab study of bilingual infants: Exploring the preference for infant-directed speech. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 2515245920974622. CC by 4.0
[3] Marklund et al., (2021). Relationship between parents’ vowel hyperarticulation in infant-directed speech and infants’ phonetic complexity on the level of conversational turns. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2712. CC by 4.0
13.3.05: Strategies that Support L
Singing
While infant-directed speech has been extensively investigated, research on infant-directed singing and its relationship with language development is gaining more attention (Falk & Tsang, 2020; Papadimitriou et al., 2021). Across most cultures, caregivers naturally sing to infants throughout the day (Fernald, 1992; Hilton et al., 2022; Trehub & Trainor, 1998; Yan et al., 2021). In fact, one study captured daylong audio recordings from thirty-five 6 to 12 month old infants and found that 100% of the infants heard both live and recorded music (Mendoza & Fausey 2021). However, not all children are exposed to singing daily. Nationally in the U.S., only 57.4% of infants and toddlers are sung to everyday (Keating, 2021). Comparing the prevalence of daily singing with infants and toddlers across the U.S., Texas had the lowest prevalence (47.6%), Alaska had the highest (72.3%) and California was just under the national average (56.4%) (Keating, 2021). Similar to infant-directed speech, infant-directed singing is characterized by higher pitch and slower tempo than non-infant-directed versions of the same songs by the same singers (Trainor, Clark, Huntley & Adams, 1997; Trehub, Hill & Kamenetsky, 1997; Trehub et al., 1998). [1] [2] [3]
Two common types of songs for infants and toddlers include lullabies and play songs. In line with their soothing function, lullabies feature very slow tempo, low pitch, falling pitch contours, limited amplitude variation, and soothing tone of voice (Trehub, Trainor & Unyk, 1993; Trehub & Trainor, 1998; Unyk, Trehub, Trainor & Schellenberg, 1992), properties that are shared with soothing infant-directed speech. Although play songs are commonly sung to Western infants, unlike lullabies, they are not universal (Trehub & Trainor, 1998). Examples of play songs are “Old MacDonald had a farm”, “Five little monkeys jumping on the bed” and “The wheels on the bus”. [4]
Research indicates that infants find infant-directed singing more engaging and prefer to listen to it compared to non-infant-directed singing (Masataka, 1999; Nakata & Trehub, 2004; Trainor, 1996; Tsang, Falk & Hessel, 2017). Singing lullabies to infants, even unfamiliar lullabies in an unfamiliar language, helps infants relax and enter a calmer state (Bainbridge et al., 2021). Songs allow infants to capitalize on the acoustic boundary cues within song melodies to organize a continuous song into structurally relevant parts and recognize different phrases while the song unfolds. For example, six month old infants are able to segment children’s songs into phrases (Hahn, Benders, Snijders & Fikkert, 2020). Already before their first birthday infants are able to recognize changes in the syllable order in songs (François et al., 2017; Lebedeva & Kuhl, 2010; Suppanen, Huotilainen, & Ylinen, 2019; Thiessen & Saffran, 2009), differentiate between rhyming and non-rhyming songs (Hahn, Benders, Snijders, & Fikkert, 2018), and learn novel words recurring in the song lyrics (Snijders, Benders, & Fikkert, 2020). Furthermore, infant-directed singing is related to later language development. Specifically, higher levels of infant-directed singing is related to greater language comprehension abilities in infants and later language skills in toddlerhood (Franco et al., 2020; Papadimitriou et al., 2021; Schaal et al., 2020). [5] [6]
Early newborn neural responses to singing predicts later language development at 18 months (François et al., 2017). Even a short, one-month intervention at nine months of age was found to be associated with enhanced neural responses for temporal structure processing in both music and speech contexts, compared to a control group (Zhao & Kuhl, 2016). This research suggests that detection and prediction of auditory patterns, crucial skills for both music and speech, were positively affected by early musical activities. [7]
Similar to infant-directed speech, infant-directed singing is more engaging and has the potential to positively influence children’s language development. Caregivers can take advantage of the power of singing by including singing across a range of activities. While singing to calm a child or while putting them to sleep is common, caregivers can include singing through daily routines and activities and create short songs in the moment.
[1] Franco et al., (2020). Singing to infants matters: Early singing interactions affect musical preferences and facilitate vocabulary building. Journal of Child Language, 1-26. CC by 4.0
[2] Yan et al., (2021, preprint). Across demographics and recent history, most parents sing to their infants and toddlers daily. CC by 4.0
[3] Corbeil et al., (2013). Speech vs. singing: Infants choose happier sounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 372. CC by 3.0
[4] Corbeil et al., (2013). Speech vs. singing: Infants choose happier sounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 372. CC by 3.0
[5] Corbeil et al., (2013). Speech vs. singing: Infants choose happier sounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 372. CC by 3.0
[6] Hahn et al., (2020). Six‐month‐old infants recognize phrases in song and speech. Infancy, 25(5), 699-718. CC by 4.0
[7] Franco et al., (2020). Singing to infants matters: Early singing interactions affect musical preferences and facilitate vocabulary building. Journal of Child Language, 1-26. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/13%3A_Supporting_Language_in_Group_Care/13.03%3A_Strategies_that_Support_Language_Development/13.3.04%3A_Strategies_that_Support_L.txt |
Joint Attention
Joint attention refers to a shared focus between a caregiver and a child (including gaze, pointing, and visual attention). Joint attention is an important feature of language development because once joint attention is shared, the caregiver and child have a communicative context in which information about objects or events in the environment can effectively be communicated. [1]
During the child’s first two years of life, joint attention is thought to emerge gradually in interaction with the child’s emotional and social development, as well as resulting from cognitive development involving skills like processing, attention and self-regulation (Morales et al., 2000). Already in the first four months of life, infants start to engage with their caregivers in sustained periods of face-to-face or mutual eye gaze (Johnson & de Haan, 2011). Between the ages of 9 to 12 months, children start to explore their environment more. At this point, dyadic attention shifts to triadic attention in which caregiver and child start to coordinate and systematically divide their attention between objects or events in the environment and with each other (Carpenter et al., 1998; Wille, Van Lierde & Van Herreweghe, 2019). It should be noted, however, that these episodes of triadic joint attention do not occur frequently until children are about 15 to 18 months old (Carpenter et al., 1998). [1]
Joint attention is related to language development. Children’s ability to respond to bids of joint attention by their caregiver at 6, 8, 10, and 18 months of age has been reported to predict vocabulary size at 30 months of age (Morales et al., 2000). Interestingly, there is also some evidence suggesting that responding to joint attention may be predictive of receptive vocabulary size and that initiating joint attention may be predictive of expressive vocabulary size (Markus et al., 2001; Mundy, Fox & Card, 2003; Mundy & Gomes, 1998). Gaze-following behavior at 10 to 11 months predicted receptive vocabulary at both 14 and 18 months (Brooks & Meltzoff, 2005). Further, full-term infants' responsiveness to gaze alternations in triadic interactions at 9 months and initiating triadic interactions at 14 months were positively correlated with later language, such that infants with more responsivity to gaze shifts had better receptive and expressive language scores at 30 months (De Schuymer et al., 2011). Individual differences in responding to joint attention at 9 and 12 months and initiating joint attention at 18 months predicted 24-months expressive language (Mundy et al., 2007). [4] [3]
One reason joint attention is related to language development is because shared attention toward an object allows for language to be more easily mapped to objects. For example if a caregiver and an infant are jointly attending to the same object, such as a dinosaur, when the caregiver uses the word “dinosaur” it creates a clear link between the object (dinosaur) and its linguistic label.
Although engaging in joint attention is a natural activity for caregivers, it does require an investment of uninterrupted time to truly engage with infants and toddlers. So much of a caregivers’ time can be devoted to care routines, preparation and cleaning, it can be a challenge to set aside time for joint attention to take place. For joint attention to occur, caregivers must be fully present in their interactions with children as they share joint attention through eye gaze, visual attention and pointing, oftentimes accompanied with physical touch and language. One study found that across 200 toddlers recorded for twenty minutes while attending group care programs, one third of the children did not engage in any joint attention with caregivers (Smith, 1999). When caregivers practice reading the communicative cues and practice engaging in joint attention with infants and toddlers, they improve in their ability to share in joint attention with children (Cain, Rudd & Saxon, 2007; Gouri-Guberman, 2015; Rudd, Cain & Saxon, 2008). One reason joint attention may be beneficial is that it increases the amount of time infants pay attention to something, such as an object. During moments of joint attention, caregivers can increase an infant’s attention by talking about and manually manipulating the object an infant is interested in (Suarez-Rivera, Smith & Yu, 2019).
[1] Lammertink et al., (2022). Joint attention in the context of hearing loss: A meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 27(1), 1-15. CC by 4.0
[2] Image by Kenny Krosky on Unsplash.
[3] Çetinçelik et al., (2021). Do the eyes have it? A systematic review on the role of eye gaze in infant language development. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3627. CC by 4.0
[4] Image by Praveen kumar Mathivanan on Unsplash. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/13%3A_Supporting_Language_in_Group_Care/13.03%3A_Strategies_that_Support_Language_Development/13.3.06%3A_Strategies_that_Support_L.txt |
Baby Signs and Sign Language
Baby signs are gestures created to provide an early way for caregivers to communicate with infants and toddlers and acquire insight and respect for underestimated communicative abilities of children before they can talk (Vallotton, 2008; 2011). The baby signs system is not a full system and is not the same as sign language. Baby signs were created as a means to ease communication as manual communication often precedes spoken language production (Goldin‐Meadow, Goodrich, Sauer & Iverson, 2007). Baby signs are usually used while simultaneously using a spoken language and do not mark each word spoken in a sentence. For example, if a caregiver asks an infant, “Do you want more?”, the baby sign for ‘more’ will be used when the spoken word ‘more’ is pronounced.
In comparison to baby signs, sign languages are fully-fledged language systems naturally created by Deaf individuals. As misconceptions about sign languages continue to persist, there are a few facts to know: [2]
• Sign languages are complex language systems with similar linguistic properties as spoken languages (Sandler, 2017; Woll, 2013).
• Most countries have their own sign language (Jepsen, De Clerck, Lutalo-Kiingi & McGregor, 2015), such American Sign Language in the U.S., Lengua de Señas Mexicana in Mexico and Nederlandse Gebarentaal, the primary sign language used in the Netherlands.
• Infants and toddlers learning a signed language as a native language show acquisition patterns and reach milestones similar to children learning a spoken language (Caselli, Lieberman & Pyers, 2020; Lillo-Martin & Henner, 2021; MacDonald et al., 2018).
• Similar neural systems support the processing of both signed and spoken languages (Corina & McBurney, 2001; MacSweeney, Capek, Campbell & Woll, 2008).
After early investigations reported that very young children of Deaf parents often attained early language milestones in sign language at younger ages than children learning a spoken language (Bellugi, & Klima, 1982; Bonvillian, Orlansky & Novack, 1983; McIntire, 1977), other investigators began to study the learning of signs or symbolic gestures by the young hearing children of hearing parents (Acredolo & Goodwyn, 1996; Goodwyn & Acredolo, 1993, 1998). In this research, those infants who were taught a collection of “baby signs” typically acquired the signs faster than speech-trained infants acquired a collection of spoken target words. The investigators attributed the children’s slower acquisition of spoken words to the difficulties and complexities involved in spoken language production early in a child’s development. In other words, a child’s physical ability to produce speech or control the muscles needed for recognizable speech seems to lag behind the child’s physical ability to control the arm and hand movements needed to produce recognizable signs. The children in the sign-trained group showed a long-term advantage on a number of language development measures throughout early childhood, as well as higher school-age IQ scores (Acredolo, Goodwyn, & Abrams, 2002; Goodwyn, Acredolo, & Brown, 2000). These findings indicate that early signing or symbolic gesturing does not hamper verbal development and may, in fact, enhance it. [3]
In another investigation, forty infants were followed from the age of eight months to twenty months where half of the mothers modeled signs or gestures for a limited number of target set signs, whereas the remaining half of the mothers focused on spoken language input (Kirk, Howlett, Pine & Fletcher, 2013). The mothers in the sign/gesture-input conditions became more sensitive to their infants’ nonverbal cues than the mothers in the speech-only condition. Numerous studies have shown that use of baby signs is related to more responsiveness from caregivers and helps infants and caregivers to be more insync with each other when interacting (Góngora & Farkas, 2009; Norman & Byrne, 2021; Olson & Masur, 2013; Paul et al., 2019; Vallotton, 2009; 2012; Zammit & Atkinson, 2017). This increased sensitivity to infants’ nonverbal cues may be an important benefit of sign input as such sensitivity may contribute to closer caregiver-infant bonding. [3]
In an attempt to explain the positive outcomes associated with baby-signing in their research, Goodwyn and Acredolo suggested that the children’s symbolic gestures or signs may have elicited more spoken language input from the children’s parents as well as indicated to the parents the specific topics in which the children were interested in. There are, however, other possible interpretations. One is that combining sign and spoken language input may facilitate the vocal production of typically developing babies as it does for many children with Down syndrome (Özçalişkan et al., 2016) or autism (Özçalişkan et al., 2017). A second possibility is that because “baby-signing” typically involves caregivers producing signs for only the key words in their utterances, this combining of signs and spoken language may help infants segment the speech stream by making the signed words more prominent, thus facilitating their acquisition (Mueller & Acosta, 2015). [3]
Along with the claim of potentially fostering more rapid spoken language development, the early use of signs also has been associated with fewer and less severe temper tantrums in infancy and early childhood (Acredolo et al., 2002). Additional support for this claim of improved social behavior is seen in a study of hearing infants who were taught manual signs early in their lives. Once these infants acquired minimal functional sign skills, their incidence of crying and whining decreased substantially (Thompson et al., 2007). [3]
Caregivers can easily learn basic signs and use them with infants and toddlers. Using baby signs per se is not necessary. Baby signs are based on signed languages and often require unnecessary financial purchases. Baby signs are sometimes modified to be easier to manually produce for young children, but young children natively acquire sign languages and naturally produce signs that caregivers can understand even if they are not exact replicates of the adults’. Two free resources to learn signs are Lifeprint created by Dr. Bill Vicar and the ASL Sign Bank.
[1] Image from Michael D. Fetters is licensed under CC by SA 3.0
[2] Corina et al., (2013). Cross-linguistic differences in the neural representation of human language: Evidence from users of signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 587. CC by 3.0
[3] Bonvillian et al., (2020). Simplified signs: A manual sign-communication system for special populations. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. CC by 4.0
[4] Image from Michael D. Fetters is licensed under CC by SA 3.0
[5] Image from Michael D. Fetters is licensed under CC by SA 3.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/13%3A_Supporting_Language_in_Group_Care/13.03%3A_Strategies_that_Support_Language_Development/13.3.07%3A_Strategies_that_Support_L.txt |
Shared Reading
Is reading books with infants and toddlers important? Most likely, you quickly answered this question with a resounding “yes!”. While most people might strongly agree that reading with young children is an important activity, only 37.2% of infants and toddlers nationally are read to everyday (Keating et al., 2021). Reading is so important because it maximizes the kinds of experiences that optimally predict language learning. A study of 3,547 children between 1 to 2 years of age, found that children who were read to for at least eleven minutes everyday had stronger reading, spelling, and grammatical skills in both third grade and fifth grade (Brown, Wang & McLeod, 2022). There are at least three ways in which book reading influences language learning: [1]
• First, it offers children the opportunity to hear new vocabulary items embedded in varied grammatical sentences. Books written for children use well-formed, relatively short sentences that are rich in varied vocabulary. Furthermore, books often use the same words in diverse grammatical constructions, offering implicit lessons in how words are used. The texts of books tend to have more words that are less commonly used than does spoken language (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001) and books encourage use of a wider range of words than would occur in everyday conversations. Indeed, shared reading is a robust predictor of children’s vocabulary and reading comprehension abilities (Demir‐Lira, Applebaum, Goldin‐Meadow & Levine, 2019; Sénéchal, 2011). [1]
• The second way in which book reading enriches children’s language development is that it promotes joint attention and interest. Consider all the ways in which books help children maintain their attention. Children’s books often use bold colors and strong contrasts and typically depict illustrated objects and animals that appeal to young children. The page of the book provides a clear focus for attention, and, unlike movable toys such as balls and trucks, books are held and remain relatively stationary. An attentive adult can easily notice what a child is attending to and build on it with commentary. In turn, children are able to draw an adult’s attention to interesting areas of the pictures using a broad range of cues including gestures, sounds, and words. Thus, attention can be managed by the child as well as the adult. [1]
• Finally, book reading helps children learn language because it requires the participants, both caregiver and child, to be active and engage in responsive interactions about word meanings. It is an opportunity for a caregiver to focus on the child and make efforts to be responsive to their interests. When caregivers and young children communicate during book reading and move away from the text, they are engaging in a language-rich activity that yields even more varied vocabulary and diverse sentence structures (Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, Whitehurst & Epstein, 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1988). Dialogic reading occurs when adults follow the child’s interest and engage in conversation about material on the printed page or about experiences the child has had that relate to the story. Book reading becomes an “up close and personal” experience when done in this way and yields the most in the way of language learning (Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992). [1]
Additionally, the frequency of shared reading, the age at which caregivers begin to read to children and repeated reading of books are important factors that further the benefits of shared reading for language development.
The importance of reading frequency for children from birth to age three is clearly revealed by numerous studies (Rodriguez & Tamis‐LeMonda, 2011). Just reading one picture book every day can lead to an increase of approximately 78,000 words each year (Logan, Justice, Yumus & Chaparro-Moreno, 2019). Findings of a large study finding caregivers’ reports of daily book reading at age 14 months related to vocabulary and language comprehension at 14 and 24 months (Raikes et al., 2006). A longitudinal study focused on 1,046 children examined language and cognitive abilities at 14, 24, and 36 months of age (Rodriguez et al., 2009). Literacy experiences at each of the three ages was related to language and cognitive skills at three years of age.[1]
There is also evidence that the age at which parents begin to read to children is important. One observational study found that children in households where reading was reported with children as young as eight months had stronger early language growth (Debaryshe, 1993). An intervention study compared the effects of interactive reading when their babies were 4 months old and when babies were 8 months old. Only the condition with older babies was effective, with improved language abilities being found when the babies were 12 and 16 months old (Karrass & Braungart-Rieker, 2005). [1]
Repeated readings of the same books can also increase children’s engagement (Fletcher & Jean-Francois, 1998; Morrow, 1988) and enhance their language learning through shared reading (Snow & Goldfield, 1983). Children who read a familiar book talk more than when reading a novel book (Fletcher & Reese, 2005). Moreover, parents and children talk more about related content or their own experiences when re-reading the same book, which also increases children’s world knowledge (Haden et al., 1996; Hayden & Fagan, 1987). For children with lower language abilities, repeated readings of the same book increase engagement in comparison to readings of different books (Morrow, 1988). Repeated readings provide multiple opportunities for repeated imitation (Ninio, 1983) and processing of novel words in a meaningful context (Sénéchal, 1997) as books contain more unique words compared to child-directed speech (Montag, Jones & Smith, 2015). Experimental studies have found that children’s expressive vocabulary is enhanced after two or more readings of the same book, whereas one reading often does not result in significant vocabulary gains (Horst, Parsons & Bryan, 2011; McLeod & McDade, 2011; Sénéchal & Cornell, 1993; Sénéchal, 1997;). [3]
[1] Dickinson et al., (2012). How reading books fosters language development around the world. Child Development Research. CC by 3.0
[2] Image from Brina Blum on Unsplash.
[3] Grolig (2020). Shared storybook reading and oral language development: A bioecological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1818. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/13%3A_Supporting_Language_in_Group_Care/13.03%3A_Strategies_that_Support_Language_Development/13.3.08%3A_Strategies_that_Support_L.txt |
Dialogic Reading
Imagine you are sitting down to read a book with a toddler. You open the book and Figure \(1\) shows what is on the first page. Take a moment to look at the page in Figure \(1\) and consider how you would read this page with a toddler.
For many of us, we read books with children by focusing on the text. Reading the words on the pages is a great start, but there can be so much more to discuss! Variation in how books are read and discussed has been found to be important. Ninio (1980) examined interactions between Israeli caregivers and infants between 17 and 22 months of age. Caregivers tended to use one of three interactional routines, asking one of two types of questions “What’s that?,” “Where’s that?,” or simply naming objects. A large study of the reading approaches of 126 caregivers found variability in how they read to children at age 7 and 24 months (Britto, Brooks-Gunn & Griffin, 2006). Caregiver reading style was related to language growth, with children showing greater language growth when they were encouraged to participate in the reading and supported in their understanding; however, this reading style was found in only 30 of the 126 caregivers. [2]
One of the most common methods to improve caregivers’ reading with young children is dialogic reading as it is not commonly implemented when caregivers read with infants and toddlers (Huebner & Meltzoff, 2005). To encourage caregivers to see that reading should be about more than just the words on pages, reading with infants and toddlers is best perceived as an interaction between the caregiver, the child and the book. Perceiving book reading as more of an interaction is oftentimes referred to as dialogic reading. Dialogic reading uses techniques that encourage the caregiver to be responsive to the child with conversations that follow the child’s interest and lead. Dialogic reading typically involves recasts, expansions, and open-ended questions, all of which have been shown to have a positive impact on a child's language development (Baker & Nelson, 1984; Cleave et al., 2015; Farrar, 1990; Girolametto & Weitzman, 2002; Huttenlocher et al., 2010; Nelson, 1977). A meta-analysis of dialogic reading found that it loses its value with the older children (Mol, Bus, De Jong & Smeets, 2008). It may be that the method is best suited to book reading with infants, toddlers, and younger preschool children. [2] [3]
One reason dialogic reading is so beneficial for children’s language development is because it involves quality language-boosting practices. For example, the child-directed speech delivered during interactive shared book reading contains higher levels of syntactic and lexical diversity than the speech children are exposed to during play-based activities (Cameron-Faulkner & Noble, 2013; Demir‐Lira, Applebaum, Goldin‐Meadow & Levine, 2019; Noble et al., 2018; Salo, Rowe, Leech & Cabrera, 2016), and high levels of syntactic and lexical diversity in speech directed to children are linked to higher levels of syntactic and lexical diversity in children's speech (Huttenlocher et al., 2002). Interactive shared book reading has also been shown to foster higher levels of joint attention, responsiveness, and contingent talk, all of which have been shown to support language development (Carpenter et al., 1998; Farrant & Zubrick, 2013; McGillion, Pine, Herbert & Matthews, 2017; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986). It also encourages the caregiver to use additional language-boosting practices, which have all been shown to support children's language development, including expanding, recasting, and asking open-ended questions (Baker & Nelson, 1984; Cleave et al., 2015; Girolametto & Weitzman, 2002; Huttenlocher et al., 2010). []
Many studies that have trained caregivers in dialogic reading strategies report positive gains in young children’s language outcomes (Chacko, Fabiano, Doctoroff & Fortson, 2018; Grolig, Cohrdes, Tiffin-Richards & Schroeder, 2020; Kim & Riley, 2021; Lonigan et al., 1999; Opel, Ameer & Aboud, 2009; Purpura, Napoli, Wehrspann & Gold, 2017; Simsek & Erdogan, 2015; Towson, Gallagher, & Bingham, 2016; Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992). For example, Valdez-Menchaca and Whitehurst (1992) trained teachers to read using a dialogic reading style that involved asking more open-ended questions and responding to children's attempts to answer these questions with low-income Mexican toddlers. Children who received the dialogic reading intervention scored significantly higher on measures of both expressive and receptive language than children in the control group. [3]
Many studies have found that asking basic comprehension questions during shared reading increases the effects on oral language skills in comparison to reading story books aloud without asking questions (Flack, Field & Horst, 2018; Wasik, Hindman & Snell, 2016). Asking such literal comprehension questions both serves to attain joint attention and to establish a fundamental understanding of concepts and events. Discussing the meanings of new words in the context of the story and in other contexts facilitates a deeper word understanding (Coyne et al., 2009). [5]
By implementing the PEER sequence, the caregiver: [3]
• prompts the child to say something about the book,
• evaluates the child's response,
• expands the child's response, and
• repeats the prompt to help the child learn from the expansion.
A fundamental element of dialogic reading is the use of prompts to begin the PEER sequence while reading with a child. The acronym CROWD stands for five recommended prompts:[3] [6]
• Completions
• Example: “Five little monkeys jumping on the _____”. The child fills in “bed” to participate in completing the thought.
• Recalls
• Example: What happens after the wolf huffs and puffs? The child recalls the story and puts that into their own words.
• Open questions
• Example: “Tell me what is happening in this picture.” The child practices putting their own thoughts into words.
• Wh-questions
• Example: What is that? Why is that happening? At many different levels children can put their thoughts into words.
• Distancing questions
• Example: What happened when we made your birthday cake? Children remember past events and relate them to the present and future.
Let’s take another look at the page from a children’s book presented earlier. Imagine creating an interaction with the child about this page using the PEER and/or CROWD dialogic reading strategies. After imagining what you might say using the dialogic reading strategies, reflect on how the quantity and quality of your language was impacted.
[1] Haathibhai by Pratham Books is licensed under CC by 4.0
[2] Dickinson et al., (2012). How reading books fosters language development around the world. Child Development Research. CC by 3.0
[3] Noble et al., (2020). The impact of interactive shared book reading on children's language skills: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(6), 1878-1897. CC by 4.0
[4] Image from Head Start ECLKC is in the public domain.
[5] Grolig (2020). Shared storybook reading and oral language development: A bioecological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1818. CC by 4.0
13.04: Conclusion
Conclusion to Supporting Language Development in Group Care
Language develops rapidly during the first three years of life and the quantity and quality of language exposure is important not only for later language development, but also for later cognitive and academic abilities. Caregivers play an essential role in exposing children to a high quantity and high quality of language and can use many strategies to improve their ability to do so. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/13%3A_Supporting_Language_in_Group_Care/13.03%3A_Strategies_that_Support_Language_Development/13.3.09%3A_Strategies_that_Support_L.txt |
Introduction to Multilingualism
Many infants and toddlers around the world, and a growing number in the U.S. are learning more than one language. In order to design the most responsive and linguistically enriching care and educational experiences for multilingual infants and toddlers, it is important for caregivers to have a good understanding of the unique contexts that shape the development of children learning multiple languages, in which ways they differ from those of monolingual children and practices to best support their multilingual development. This section will explain what multilingualism means, address common misconceptions, describe how infants and toddlers develop multiple languages and provide strategies for caregivers to best support multilingual children.
14.02: Defining Multilingualism
What is Multilingualism?
What does it mean to be multilingual? Across educational and research fields, a number of different terms and definitions have been used to describe children who are multilingual. The term multilingual may encompass or overlap substantially with other terms frequently used, such as ‘bilingual’, ‘dual language learner’, ‘English language learner’ and ‘children who speak a language other than English’. For the purpose of this section, the term multilingual refers to children who are learning two (or more) languages at the same time, or learning an additional language while continuing to develop their native language(s). [1]
Multilingualism is a complex construct that has been redefined over the past several decades. Scholars once defined multilinguals exclusively as a small group of speakers who were perfectly “balanced” in their languages (Lambert, Havelka, Gardner, 1959). The definition of multilingualism has since expanded to include individuals with varying degrees of proficiency and different language experiences. An individual’s multilingual status is not a trait that can be directly measured一multilingualism cannot be determined in the same way as someone’s height, for example. When measuring multilingualism, researchers often rely on a combination of factors, such as language proficiency and amount of exposure, to determine an individual’s multilingual status (Anderson, Mak, Keyvani Chahi & Bialystok, 2018; Li, Sepanski & Zhao, 2006, 2014; Marian, Blumenfeld & Kaushanskaya, 2007; Marian & Hayakawa, 2020). [1]
In order to account for the full spectrum of multilinguals’ experiences and language abilities, some scholars have proposed that multilingualism should be viewed as a continuous variable (Baum & Titone, 2014; de Bruin, 2019; Kaushanskaya & Prior, 2015; Marian & Hayakawa, 2020; Takahesu Tabori, Mech & Atagi, 2018). Under such an approach, the continuum of being multilingual would span the range from completely monolingual (i.e., never having any exposure to a second language) to fully proficient multilingual (i.e., “balanced” across languages).Figure \(3\) shows a visual representation of a continuous model of multilingualism. Other models of multilingualism may even combine both categorical and continuous models (Kremin & Byers-Heinlein, 2021). Clearly, being multilingual is much more complex than simply learning or knowing two or more languages. [3]
Each multilingual child’s language learning experience is unique: children differ in terms of the specific languages they are learning, when they start learning each, and how they experience them. Contexts for multilingualism may be very different across families, child care programs, communities, and cultures (Rowe & Weisleder, 2020). Taking this diversity into account is key to understanding early multilingual development. As a result, each multilingual child will have their own developmental path (de Bruin, 2019)一there are nearly as many ways to grow up multilingual as there are multilingual children! [6]
Despite the diversity, a common factor across multilingual development is the crucial role of the quantity and quality of exposure infants and toddlers receive in their different languages (Marchman, Fernald & Hurtado, 2010; Ramírez‐Esparza, García‐Sierra & Kuhl, 2017). For example, we would not expect a child to learn a language they only hear for 5 minutes per day (low quantity) or to learn a language from 5 hours a day of isolated vocabulary words recited from an audiotape (low quality). It is difficult to know exactly what combination of quantity and quality is required, but some studies estimate that children need a minimum of 10% to 25% of overall exposure in a language to achieve fluency in it, which will only occur if their language experience is rich and varied (Place & Hoff, 2011). If children do not receive sufficient high-quality multilingual exposure, they are unlikely to become proficient in all of their languages. [7]
[1] US Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). Policy statement on supporting the development of children who are dual language learners in early childhood programs is in the public domain.
[2] Image from Saradhi Photography on Unsplash.
[3] Kremin & Byers-Heinlein (2021). Why not both? Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(6), 1560-1575. CC by 4.0
[4] Image adapted from Kremin & Byers-Heinlein (2021). Why not both? Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(6), 1560-1575. CC by 4.0
[5] Image from Kremin & Byers-Heinlein (2021). Why not both? Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(6), 1560-1575. CC by 4.0
[6] Fibla et al., (2021 preprint). Bilingual language development in infancy: What can we do to support bilingual families? CC by 4.0
[7] Fibla et al., (2021 preprint). Bilingual language development in infancy: What can we do to support bilingual families? CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/14%3A_Multilingualism/14.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Multilingual Children
Many children around the world are multilingual. Recent estimates suggest that approximately 7,000 languages are currently spoken worldwide in only 196 Countries (Simons & Fennig, 2018). This suggests that the vast majority of the world’s population is consistently exposed to two or more languages and can be considered multilingual (Baker, 2006; Jonak, 2015; Marian & Shook, 2012). Reported rates of multilingualism in places such as Europe (67%), Canada (55%), India (25%), and the United States (20%) indicate that multilingualism is both common and increasing (Luk, 2017; Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, 2001). The current rates for the number of multilingual children are often even higher than that for adults. For example, in the U.S. 26% of 5 to 17 year children nationwide are multilingual, although rates differ by state. In the U.S. the state of California has the highest percentage of multilingual children at 43%, while only 2% of children in West Virginia are multilingual (Kids Count Data Center, 2019). An estimated 15% of children in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006), 18% to 25% of children in Canada (Schott et al., 2021), 29% of children in parts of Spain (Statistical Institute of Catalonia, 2007) and 90% of children in Singapore (Wu et al., 2020) grow up multilingual. [1] [2] [3]
It is much more challenging to find estimates of the number of children under age three that are multilingual. Data from Canada provides unique insight into estimates of infant and toddler multilingualism and how rates differ geographically even within the same country. Across Canada, 15.6% of children aged 0 to 4 and 20.4% of children aged 5 to 9 years of age are multilingual. Broken down by province/region, the rate of child multilingualism was highest in Northern Canada (Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut), with nearly one in three children speaking two languages at home, in most cases an Indigenous language and English. Nearly one in four children aged 0 to 4 in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Montréal, spoke at least two languages at home. In Calgary and Edmonton, rates were one in six for children aged 0 to 4. Provinces with larger cities had higher overall rates of multilingualism (i.e., British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec). Across all provinces, the rate of multilingualism among 5 to 9 year olds was higher than 0 to 4 year olds, which could be due to some children acquiring a community language at school and then starting to use that language at home. This pattern has been documented in the United States for native Spanish-speaking children learning English (Hammer, Lawrence & Miccio 2008). [4]
Rates of multilingualism amongst children between 0 to 9 years of age across Canada
Children who are multilingual are a highly diverse group from varied family backgrounds with a wide variety of life and language experiences. In the U.S., children in a multilingual home, are likely to have parents without a high school education, are likely to be growing up under economic challenges, and are likely to be raised in specific cultural contexts that may differ from mainstream U.S. norms. (Winsler et al., 2014). In addition, it has been found that children with immigrant parents (who are likely to be multilingual) are more likely than those with parents born in the U.S. to live in two-parent families (Hernandez & Napierala, 2012); immigrant mothers are more likely to be married, less likely to be depressed, and more likely to have larger families than nonimmigrant mothers (Mistry, Biesanz, Chien, Howes, & Benner, 2008). These sociocultural factors represent a constellation of strengths and potential challenges for multilingual children growing up in the U.S. [7] | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/14%3A_Multilingualism/14.03%3A_Demographics_of_Multilingual_Children.txt |
Beliefs and Misconceptions
Caregiver beliefs and knowledge about multilingualism affect their caregiving practices, which in turn can impact children’s developmental outcomes. As infant and toddler multilingualism becomes a prominent phenomenon across the U.S. it is critical to examine how caregivers’ beliefs and knowledge regarding multilingualism relates to childrens’ language experiences in group care and childrens’ developmental outcomes over time. [7]
One common concern about multilingualism is that early exposure to multiple languages is confusing for children. Research does not support this concern. Young infants can perceive the difference between different languages within the first few days or months of life (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 2001; Byers-Heinlein, Burns & Werker, 2010). Infancy and toddlerhood represent a sensitive period for language acquisition, when the brain is particularly receptive to the properties of language (Kuhl et al., 2005; Werker & Tees, 2005). For this reason, multilingual children exposed to their languages earlier in development become better at them, and will speak and process them in a more native-like manner (Bialystok, 2001; Zhao, Boorom, Kuhl & Gordon, 2021). [3]
Another common concern is that childhood multilingualism can cause language disorders and delays. Research does not support this concern. Language disorders and delays occur in multilingual children at the same rates as in monolingual children (Kohnert, Ebert & Pham, 2020; Peña et al., 2011). In fact, many children with various developmental disabilities also grow up multilingual, including children with specific language impairments (Paradis et al., 2011), children with Down Syndrome (Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2005), and children with autism spectrum disorder (Gonzalez‐Barrero & Nadig, 2019). Importantly multilingual children with developmental disabilities should have difficulties across their languages, not just with one language (Kohnert, 2010; Peña, Iglesias & Lidz, 2001; Restrepo & Kruth, 2000). Multilingualism neither causes nor facilitates/aggravates a possible condition of dyslexia or any specific language disorders in general (Crescentini, Marini & Fabbro, 2012). To ensure accurate assessment of the language development of multilingual infants and toddlers, caregivers must assess all of the child’s languages (Nayeb et al., 2021) [1] [3] [8]
14.05: How Multilingualism is Different
Uniqueness of Multilingualism
As the population of young multilingual children continues to increase across the U.S., there has been a corresponding explosion of research about their development. These research findings provide a scientific basis for designing child care program approaches, and assessment procedures. [7]
Some features of multilinguals’ language development may look like speech or language delays (Sandhofer & Uchikoshi, 2013). The ongoing challenges of processing more than one language and frequently switching between languages results in a different set of language and cognitive strengths and needs for multilingual children than those of monolingual children (Francis, 2021). Young children who are learning through two languages initially make slower progress in each of their languages than monolingual children (Sandhofer & Uchikoshi, 2013). In addition, they typically have smaller vocabularies in each of their languages than monolingual children, but their total vocabulary size (the sum of what children know in all of their languages) is similar to monolingual children (Core, Hoff, Rumiche & Señor, 2013). Young multilinguals also take longer to recall words from memory and have lower scores on verbal fluency tasks, as their language processing is more complex than that of monolingual children (Petitto et al., 2011). Most often these differences are temporary and disappear as young multilinguals become more proficient in both of their languages (Conboy, 2013). It is important to remember that these early differences in the language development of young multilinguals are just that—differences and not delays! They are a byproduct of the challenges of hearing, processing, and making meaning from multiple language systems during the early childhood years. [1]
[1] Luo et al., (2021). Parental beliefs and knowledge, children’s home language experiences, and school readiness: The dual language perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/14%3A_Multilingualism/14.04%3A_Multilingualism-_Beliefs_and_Misconceptions.txt |
Language Discrimination
One potential challenge for infants growing up with regular exposure to multiple languages is in discriminating between languages. Being able to separate the languages from very early on seems crucial given that the child has to establish different linguistic systems for the languages. [1]
Early research on monolingual infants has demonstrated that newborns are able to discriminate between different languages but only if the languages belong to different rhythmic classes. For example, French newborns could discriminate English from Japanese, Spanish and Italian but not from Dutch (Nazzi, Bertoncini & Mehler, 1998; Ramus et al., 2000). The only study on multilingual exposure effects with newborns tested infants from multilingual English–Tagalog mothers who regularly used both languages during pregnancy (Byers-Heinlein, Burns & Werker, 2010). The experiment tested discrimination using a habituation paradigm in which infants were first exposed to either English or Tagalog sentences until their sucking rates to a special pacifier decreased below a predefined criterion (habitituation) and then were presented with sentences from the other language. Results revealed that both monolingual and multilingual infants showed an increase in their sucking after the language change, demonstrating that multilingual newborns were able to discriminate between both languages, just like monolinguals. [1]
At the age of 4 months, monolingual infants begin to discriminate languages of the same rhythmical class from their native language (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 2001; Chong, Vicenik & Sundara, 2018; Molnar, Gervain & Carreiras, 2014; Nazzi, Jusczyk & Johnson, 2000) suggesting that they have acquired some inventory of cues that help them separate their native language from other languages. Similar to monolinguals, multilinguals are able to discriminate between languages at the same age as monolinguals (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 2001; Garcia, Guerrero-Mosquera, Colomer & Sebastian-Galles, 2018). For example, monolingual Basque and multilingual Spanish/Basque infants were first habituated with stimuli from one language, and then tested with stimuli from both languages. Results showed that both groups were able to discriminate between the two languages (Molnar, Gervain & Carreiras, 2014). This suggests that by the age of 4 months multilingual infants have detected some properties that separate their two languages and that they can assign these properties specifically to one of their languages. [1]
Growth of Word Learning
Word learning starts in the second half of the first year of life, with some evidence for knowledge of a limited number of words as early as 6 months (Bergelson & Swingley, 2012; Tincoff & Jusczyk, 1999, 2012). Word learning then increases, often with a sharp acceleration, in the second year of life (Fenson, Dale, Reznick, Bates, Thal & Pethick, 1994). This early development is characterized by extensive individual variability in the sizes of both receptive and productive vocabularies. [1]
Since multilingual infants' input is distributed over more than one language, they are likely to receive less input in each of their languages than monolinguals, which can have an impact on early lexical development. Moreover, since multilingual infants will vary in terms of the relative amount of input they receive in their languages, the languages might not develop at the same speed. Recent studies support these points. When multilinguals are evaluated on each of their languages separately, studies report that they lag behind monolinguals starting in the second year of life (Core, Hoff, Rumiche & Señor, 2013) and the relative amount of exposure for each language is related to the growth of that specific language (Grüter, Hurtado, Marchman & Fernald, 2014). [1]
One crucial aspect when comparing monolingual and multilingual infants' trajectories of word learning is in how vocabulary is counted. One is conceptual vocabulary: counting every referent for which a child has a word for in either language (a French–German child would get a 1 for knowing either chien, hund, or both); another approach is total vocabulary, counting every word known across both languages (the same child would get a 2 for knowing both chien and hund). Considering how to measure multilingual vocabulary growth, especially when comparing to monolinguals, is critical as the results can vary greatly (Hoff et al., 2012). For example, a study comparing English–German and English monolingual 24 to 27 month old toddlers found that the multilinguals' total vocabularies were significantly larger than both their conceptual vocabularies and the English vocabularies of English-learning children (Junker & Stockman, 2002). Evidence also suggests that vocabulary growth is influenced by language dominance, with higher vocabulary scores in the dominant as compared to the non-dominant language (Hoff et al., 2012). What is clear is that when multilinguals' vocabulary levels are evaluated using measures that take into account both of their languages, they fall within a similar range as monolingual infants. When assessing the language development of multilinguals, the development of all of their languages should always be considered (Nayeb et al., 2021). [1]
Besides charting the growth trajectory of word learning through vocabulary knowledge, some studies have explored word learning by investigating the speed at which multilingual infants recognize words in each of their languages. Previous research with monolinguals has revealed that speed of language processing is related to later cognitive and language outcomes (Fernald, Perfors & Marchman, 2006; Hurtado, Marchman & Fernald, 2007; Marchman & Fernald, 2008). In a study with Spanish/English 30 month old multilinguals, results revealed that processing speed in each of the children’s languages was related to their vocabulary in that specific language (Marchman, Fernald & Hurtado, 2010). Similar findings were also shown in another study with 16 to 22 month old Spanish/English multilinguals (DeAnda, Hendrickson, Zesiger, Poulin-Dubois & Friend, 2018). This research suggests that language processing speed and vocabulary acquisition are linked in multilinguals, as had been found in monolinguals, but that this link is language specific. [1]
[1] Höhle et al., (2020). Variability and stability in early language acquisition: Comparing monolingual and bilingual infants' speech perception and word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 56-71. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/14%3A_Multilingualism/14.06%3A_The_Science_of_Multilingualism_Development.txt |
Multilingual children grow to know and use multiple languages, and their development is not akin to “two monolinguals in one person” (Grosjean, 1989). One reason is that children’s experience is divided between their different languages. Moreover, multilingual children must engage in a constant “mental juggling” of their two languages (Kroll et al., 2011; Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Bosworth, Binder, Tyler & Morford, 2021), which can present challenges and opportunities for cognition, language representation, and processing (Marian & Shook, 2012). The experience of being multilingual can have an impact on both brain and cognitive development. [1]
Brain Development
Research with multilingual infants indicates that the human brain is adept at acquiring multiple languages simultaneously (Ferjan Ramírez et al., 2016; Garcia-Sierra, Ramírez-Esparza, & Kuhl, 2016), and that infants who grow up multilingual, efficiently monitor and control their languages (Byers-Heinlein, Morin-Lessard, & Lew-Williams, 2017). Studies also show that acquiring multiple languages in infancy, compared to acquiring an additional language in later childhood or adolescence, results in more efficient neural language processing (Berken, Gracco & Klein, 2017; Klein, Mok, Chen & Watkins, 2014) and higher brain tissue density in regions supporting language, memory, and attention (Mechelli et al., 2004). [2]
Multilingualism sculpts the brain’s functional and structural organization (Arredondo, Aslin & Werker, 2021; Hayakawa & Marian, 2019; Pliatsikas, 2020). For example, multilingual infants show different brain responses to native and non-native speech sounds compared to monolingual infants (Conboy & Kuhl, 2011; Garcia-Sierra et al., 2011), and multilingual children recruit different brain areas during sentence processing (Jasinska & Petitto, 2013). Adult research shows that the age of acquisition of a second language affects the brain’s language networks (Berken, Gracco, & Klein, 2017), and functional connectivity (Kousaie, Chai, Sander, & Klein, 2017). Moreover, multilingualism also affects the structure of both gray (Andrea et al., 2004; Ressel et al., 2012) and white matter (Kuhl et al., 2016) in adults. Looking at the tissue in the brain, there are regions that predominantly contain neuron cell bodies and dendrites and regions that are largely composed of just axons. These two regions are often referred to as gray matter (the regions with many cell bodies and dendrites) or white matter (the regions with many myelinated axons). Patterns of structural differences appear to depend on whether the languages were acquired simultaneously from birth, or sequentially before age five (Berken, Gracco, Chen & Klein, 2015), suggesting that timing of multilingualism interacts with brain development. [1] [3]
Garcia et al., (2018) analyzed the brain activity of 4.5 month old monolingual and multilingual infants in their native language and two foreign languages. Figure \(1\) shows the event related potential (ERP) waveforms of monolingual (left side) and multilingual (right side) infants to native (blue), Italian (green) and German (red) languages. The ERP component they looked at was the P200. Most ERP components are referred to by a letter (usually N or P) indicating polarity (negative/positive), followed by a number indicating the latency or timing delay between the presentation of a stimulus and the specific brain response in milliseconds. So the P200 component refers to a positive spike around 200 milliseconds after the stimulus. [4]
Although both groups of infants showed a P200 response to all languages, monolinguals showed shorter latencies (less processing time) of the P200 component for their native language compared to the language of the different rhythmic class (German). In other words, the P200 waveform for monolinguals listening to their native language occurred earlier than their responses for the non-native languages, especially German. This can be seen in Figure \(1\) by the early peaking of the waveform for their native language. In contrast, multilinguals did not show a statistically significant difference in the latency of the P200 component for any of the languages. This lack of differences may reflect multilinguals’ reduced familiarity with each of their languages since multilinguals’ speech input is split across multiple languages. Therefore, multilinguals’ P200 response to their native language would be more similar to the one elicited by the unfamiliar languages for monolinguals. The results point in the direction of different language discrimination strategies for multilingual and monolingual infants. While only monolingual infants show early discrimination of their native language based on familiarity, multilinguals perform a later processing pattern which is compatible with an increase in attention to the speech signal. This is the earliest evidence found for unique brain specialization induced by multilingualism. [6]
Neuroimaging studies suggest that monolingual infants activate a left-lateralized brain network in response to spoken language, which is similar to the network involved in processing spoken and signed language in adulthood. Left-lateralization to language refers to the brain processing language primarily on the left side. How does language experience, like being multilingual, impact this left-lateralization process? To answer this question, researchers conducted a functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) experiment with sixty infants between the ages of 4 to 8 months (Mercure et al., 2020), some infants were spoken language monolinguals and some were spoken language multilinguals, but neither of these two groups had ever been exposed to sign language. [7]
Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) measures hemodynamic (blood flow) responses elicited from neuronal activation by shining near-infrared light into the brain. Figure \(2\) shows an infant and a toddler wearing the fNIRS cap during an experiment. As this light passes through the head, some of it is absorbed by the blood flowing through the brain. When brains are active, they require oxygen from the bloodstream一the harder a particular area of the brain is working, the more oxygenated blood will be sent to that area and the more light will be absorbed there. Because the fNIRS cap measures how much light comes back out of the brain, the areas with less light shining through them are the most active. [7] [9]
As shown in Figure \(4\), across all infants, viewing sign language elicited a significant increase in oxygenated blood mainly in the right temporoparietal area when all infants were considered together as a single group. In monolinguals, sign language elicited an increase in oxygenated blood in the temporoparietal area of both hemispheres. In multilinguals, a significant increase of oxygenated blood was observed in the right temporoparietal area. Results indicate that the neural tissue supporting language is plastic in infancy and influenced by language input and language modality (spoken modality versus signed modality), suggesting that there may be different neural paths to language development based on different language experiences. [17]
As shown in Figure \(4\), across all infants, viewing sign language elicited a significant increase in oxygenated blood mainly in the right temporoparietal area when all infants were considered together as a single group. In monolinguals, sign language elicited an increase in oxygenated blood in the temporoparietal area of both hemispheres. In multilinguals, a significant increase of oxygenated blood was observed in the right temporoparietal area. Results indicate that the neural tissue supporting language is plastic in infancy and influenced by language input and language modality (spoken modality versus signed modality), suggesting that there may be different neural paths to language development based on different language experiences. [7]
Although research on the brain development of infant and toddler multilingualism is a growing area with more questions than answers, the research so far seems to suggest that, like what behavior research has discovered, the development of multilinguals is somewhat unique and different from that of monolinguals.
Cognitive Development
Does being multilingual lead to enhanced cognitive abilities? Many claim that the experience of multilingualism leads to a cognitive advantage in executive functioning, a view that has gained substantial traction within the popular media. According to the prevailing multilingual advantage hypothesis, because the mental representations for each language are always “turned on”, multilinguals become highly practiced at selecting and controlling attention after years of experience managing conflicts between competing phonological and lexical mental representations. Over the course of time, these practice effects generalize to problems outside the domain of language and contribute to a bilingual advantage in executive functioning (Bialystok, 2011, 2017; Bialystok, Craik & Luk, 2012; Kroll & Bialystok, 2013). Research suggests that potential cognitive advantages to being multilingual appear early, even within the first three years of life. [11]
The idea that each language known by a multiglinal is always “turned on” suggests that even when they are speaking, writing, listening or thinking in one language, mental representations for the other language(s) are simultaneously activated (Kroll, Bobb & Hoshino, 2014). For example, Figure \(5\) has three pictures in it: a piece of paper, cheese (wedges and slices) and a wrist watch. In an eye-tracking experiment, researchers showed participants arrays of stimuli containing multiple pictures (Shook & Marian, 2012), similar to this. As participants looked at the pictures, they heard a statement that named one specific picture in the array and all the participants needed to do was look at the picture named. So if a participant was looking at the array of pictures in Figure \(5\) and heard “cheese”, all they would need to do was look at the picture of cheese. Quite simple, huh? The results however revealed something interesting.
Some of the participants looked at another picture before looking at the named picture in every trail. To find out why, we need to look closer to the backgrounds of the participants. In this study, participants included hearing English monolinguals and hearing American Sign Language(ASL)/English multilinguals. The pictures were carefully selected to contain pictures with ASL translations that shared phonological features. The ASL signs for cheese and paper are phonologically similar. To illustrate, Figure \(6\) shows the ASL signs for ‘cheese’ and ‘paper’. These two signs share the phonological feature of handshape. The findings from the study revealed that the ASL/English multilinguals spent more time looking at signs that were phonologically similar to the named picture (Shook & Marian, 2012). The results suggest that even though the study was conducted in English and did not involve ASL at all, ASL was simultaneously activated when English was activated. This study supports numerous others in finding that the mental representations of each language are always active in multilinguals (Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Villwock, Wilkinson, Piñar & Morford, 2021).
Enhanced cognitive abilities, mainly related to executive function, appear early, even in infancy and toddlerhood (Barac, Bialystok, Castro & Sanchez, 2014). Bilingual toddlers between 24 and 31 months of age show enhanced inhibitory control, another executive function, compared to monolingual toddlers (Crivello et al., 2016). A study even found evidence of enhanced cognitive abilities in infancy! Seven month old infants have greater cognitive control, another executive function, compared to monolingual infants (Kovács & Mehler, 2009). [14]
It is important to note that not all studies have found cognitive advantages related to multilingualism (Giguere, Dickson, Tulloch & Hoff, 2022). A mounting number of large-scale comparisons of multilingual and monolingual adults (Lehtonen et al., 2018; Nichols et al., 2020; Paap et al., 2013, 2015), however, have cast doubt on the multilingual advantage account. Despite many studies claiming to show supportive evidence from sets of multilinguals tested across the lifespan, these multilingual effects are currently the subject of intense research debate. For example, in a study of over 11,000 people, when confounding variables were controlled for, multilinguals did not show any advantage in executive function (Nichols et al., 2020). As with adult studies, large meta-analyses on the overall research with multilingual children have found little support for a cognitive advantage (Gunnerud et al., 2020; Lowe, Cho, Goldsmith & Morton, 2021). [15]
[1] Byers-Heinlein et al., (2019). The case for measuring and reporting bilingualism in developmental research. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1). CC by 4.0
[2] Ramírez & Kuhl (2020). Early second language learning through SparkLing™: Scaling up a language intervention in infant education centers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 14(2), 94-103. CC by 4.0
[3]Anatomy and Physiology” on OpenStax is licensed under CC by 4.0.
[4]Event-related potential” from Wikipedia is licensed under CC by SA 3.0
[5] Image from Garcia et al., (2018). Evoked and oscillatory EEG activity differentiates language discrimination in young monolingual and bilingual infants. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-9. CC by 4.0
[6] Garcia et al., (2018). Evoked and oscillatory EEG activity differentiates language discrimination in young monolingual and bilingual infants. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-9. CC by 4.0
[7] Mercure et al., (2020). Language experience impacts brain activation for spoken and signed language in infancy: Insights from unimodal and bimodal bilinguals. Neurobiology of Language, 1(1), 9-32 CC by 4.0
[8] Images adapted from Mercure et al., (2020). Language experience impacts brain activation for spoken and signed language in infancy: Insights from unimodal and bimodal bilinguals. Neurobiology of Language, 1(1), 9-32 CC by 4.0 and Soltanlou & Artemenko (2020). Using light to understand how the brain works in the classroom. Frontiers in Young Minds, 8, 88. CC by 4.0
[9] Aanestad et al., (2021) What is happening in children’s brains when they are playing pretend? Frontiers in Young Minds, 9, 644083.
[10] Image adapted from “The brain and spinal cord” on OpenStax is licensed under CC by 4.0
[11] Lowe et al., (2021). The bilingual advantage in children’s executive functioning is not related to language status: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Science, 32(7), 1115-1146.
[12] Images adapted from Unsplash.
[13] Images adapted from Hochgesang, Crasborn, & Lillo-Martin (2022). ASL Signbank. New Haven, CT: Haskins Lab, Yale University. CC by NC SA 4.0
[14] Espinosa (2015). Challenges and benefits of early bilingualism in the US context. Global Education Review, 2(1). CC by 3.0 NC
[15] Leivada et al., (2021). On the phantom-like appearance of bilingualism effects on neurocognition: (How) should we proceed? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1), 197-210. CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/14%3A_Multilingualism/14.07%3A_Effects_of_Multilingualism_on_Development.txt |
Caregivers play a key role in supporting the language development of multilingual infants and toddlers (Adamson et al., 2021; Grüter, Hurtado, Marchman & Fernald, 2014). Let’s now take a look at various language strategies caregivers can implement with young multilinguals.
Supporting Heritage Languages
All young children in multilingual environments have the potential to learn multiple languages at the same time and develop a similar level of proficiency in each language (Albareda-Castellot, Pons, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2011; Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997). Proficiency requires sufficient exposure and high quality learning opportunities in each language, however, in the U.S. this is rarely the case (Hoff et al., 2012), despite many parents expressing a preference for child care providers who speak the child’s heritage language (Ward, Oldham LaChance, & Atkins, 2011). The term heritage language refers to a language that is spoken at home, but not by the majority of society which uses the societal language. In the U.S. multilingual infants and toddlers are more likely to be in multilingual care when they are 9 months old, less likely at 24 months and very unlikely to receive multilingual childcare services once they are 52 months of age and attending center-based childcare (Espinosa et al., 2017). Multilingual children are exposed to their heritage language in child care less and less as they get older, reflecting the change from care primarily provided by relatives during infancy and early toddlerhood to more center-based care during later toddlerhood and during the preschool years. Relatives were most likely, and caregivers in centers least likely, to use the family’s heritage language. This research suggests that in the U.S. multilingual infants and toddlers who attend childcare programs have fewer opportunities to develop proficiency in both of their languages as English-only learning is most commonly offered in center-based programs. [1] [2] [3]
Center-based caregivers can do a lot to support the multilingual development of infants and toddlers. Caregivers can adapt pedagogical practices to include use of children’s heritage languages in simple ways, such as with posters hung on the wall, books and songs一all including heritage languages. Encourage active engagement with family and community members, who share the same heritage languages as children, as an integral part of the classroom. If possible, hiring staff that use the same languages with enrolled children can be emphasized in job searches. Caregivers can also take the time to learn common words and basic phrases in a child’s heritage language. [1]
Language Quantity and Quality
Just like with monolingual children, the quantity and quality of language multilingual children are exposed to is important (Adamson et al., 2021; Grüter, Hurtado, Marchman & Fernald, 2014). Quantity refers to the amount of language and quality refers to how language is shared with children. Critically, the quantity and quality of the language environment provided by caregivers matters more than the language caregivers use (Song, Luo & Liang, 2021; Unsworth, 2016). Thus, caregivers should primarily communicate with infants and toddlers in the language(s) they are most proficient in so as to maximize the quality of their language input. [5]
Caregivers who expose children to more language, have children with greater language abilities (Hoff, 2006; Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). In one longitudinal study, Spanish/English multilingual toddlers were assessed at 30 months and then again at 36 months of age (Hurtado, Grüter, Marchman & Fernald, 2014). The results revealed that toddlers who were exposed to more language showed greater language abilities. Importantly, the amount of exposure in a particular language was related to the level of growth in that language. So for Spanish/English multilingual toddlers, children who received a higher level of Spanish exposure relative to English, showed greater development in Spanish compared to English. Some research has also found a cross-language relationship with multilingual children, showing that a strong foundation of a heritage language can support the acquisition of an additional language, like English (Cha & Goldenberg, 2015; Kim, Curby & Winsler, 2014; Willard et al., 2021). Spanish/English multilingual toddlers who had stronger Spanish language processing skills at two years of age had stronger English language skills at 4 ½ years of age (Marchman, Bermúdez, Bang & Fernald, 2020). This research is especially important as it provides scientific validation for supporting heritage languages in English-based childcare programs.
Quality of language exposure can include various ways of sharing language with infants and toddlers. When children engage in more frequent and higher-quality language interactions with caregivers they demonstrate better long-term language and academic outcomes (Adamson et al., 2021; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Huttenlocher et al., 2010; Pace et al., 2019; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Although many studies focus on English-speaking families (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Masek et al., 2021), high-quality, early language interactions also support the communication skills of children from other cultural and linguistic backgrounds. For example, studies investigating Spanish-speaking caregivers’ use of more complex, elaborative language, found that it promoted children’s narrative skills (Escobar, Melzi & Tamis‐LeMonda, 2017; Hammer & Sawyer, 2016; Luo et al., 2014; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2014). Additionally, more frequent back-and-forth conversations in caregiver–child interactions when the children were 2.5 years of age predicted later language and literacy development in Spanish/English multilingual children (Adamson et al., 2021). [6]
Quality language exposure can occur during any and every interaction caregivers have with infants and toddlers. Let’s now discuss several strategies caregivers can use to improve the quality of language they share with children.
Infant-directed Language
When caregivers interact with infants, their speech often takes on specific, distinguishing features known as infant-directed speech (Fernald et al., 1989). Infant-directed speech (IDS) is produced by caregivers of most (although not all) linguistic and cultural backgrounds and is typically characterized by a slow, melodic, high-pitched, and exaggerated cadence (Broesch & Bryant, 2015; Farran, Lee, Yoo & Oller, 2016; Fernald et al., 1989). From early in life, infants tune their attention to IDS, preferring to listen to IDS over adult-directed speech at birth (Cooper & Aslin, 1990), as well as later in infancy (Cooper & Aslin, 1994; Cooper et al., 1997; Fernald, 1985; Hayashi, Tamekawa & Kiritani, 2001; Kitamura & Lam, 2009; Newman & Hussain, 2006; Santesso et al., 2007; Werker & McLeod, 1989). [7]
Just like monolingual infants, multilingual infants prefer to listen to IDS compared to adult-directed speech (Byers-Heinlein et al., 2021). IDS is an important aspect of quality language exposure to infants not only because they prefer to listen to it, but also because it is related to greater language growth (García-Sierra, Ramírez-Esparza, Wig & Robertson, 2021). Caregivers who use more IDS have infants and toddlers with greater language abilities (Kalashnikova & Carreiras, 2021; Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). Multiple studies have found that greater exposure to IDS is related to a larger vocabulary size in multilingual infants (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2017; Rosslund, Mayor, Óturai & Kartushina, 2021;). [7]
Reading
Reading with infants and toddlers is a powerful way to increase both the quantity and quality of language they are exposed to. Just reading one picture book every day can lead to an increase of approximately 78,000 words each year (Logan, Justice, Yumus & Chaparro-Moreno, 2019). Practices such as shared book reading, where a caregiver reads to a child, can support language acquisition (Dolean, 2021; Escobar, Melzi & Tamis‐LeMonda, 2017; Tsybina & Eriks-Brophy, 2010) and literacy abilities (Rodriguez & Tamis‐LeMonda, 2011; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002). However, some research suggests that caregivers may tend to emphasize one language over the other in their literacy practices, leading to unbalanced exposure to children’s languages (Gonzalez-Barrero et al., 2021). Furthermore, caregivers often lack access to literacy materials in heritage languages and multilingual formats (Ahooja et al, 2021; Mosty, Lefever & Ragnarsdóttir, 2013; Zhang & Slaughter-Defoe, 2009). For example, Vietnamese families in Taiwan have very few children’s books in Vietnamese at home (Yeh et al., 2015) and Chinese families living in San Francisco have very few resources in Chinese for young children at home (Lao, 2004). [9] [10]
To support the multilingual language development of infants and toddlers through reading, child care programs should have various age-appropriate multilingual books that represent the languages of the children enrolled. Multilingual caregivers who share a heritage language with children, should read in their shared language. Child care programs can invite multilingual family members and community members to come into the program to read with children in their heritage languages. To improve access to age-appropriate books, child care programs can consult enrolled families for quality books and even create multilingual books themselves!
Reading with all children, but especially with infants and toddlers, should be about more than just simply reading the words on the pages. To improve the quality of shared reading, caregivers can implement dialogic reading strategies. Dialogic reading strategies help caregivers create an interaction with a child during shared reading. Dialogic reading typically involves recasts, expansions, and open-ended questions in an attempt to scaffold the interactive reading experience, all of which have been shown to have a positive impact on a child's language development (Baker & Nelson, 1984; Cleave et al., 2015; Girolametto & Weitzman, 2002; Huttenlocher et al., 2010; Opel, Ameer & Aboud, 2009). These strategies are known as the PEER sequence. By implementing the PEER sequence, the caregiver: [12]
• prompts the child to say something about the book,
• evaluates the child's response,
• expands the child's response, and
• repeats the prompt to help the child learn from the expansion.
A fundamental element of dialogic reading is the use of prompts to begin the PEER sequence while reading with a child. The acronym CROWD stands for five recommended prompts: [12]
• Completions
• Recalls
• Open questions
• Wh-questions
• Distancing questions
[1] Espinosa (2015). Challenges and benefits of early bilingualism in the US context. Global Education Review, 2(1). CC by 3.0 NC
[2] Espinosa et al., (2017). Child care experiences among dual language learners in the United States: Analyses of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort. AERA Open, 3(2), 2332858417699380. CC by 4.0
[3] Meir & Janssen (2021). Child Heritage Language Development: An interplay between cross-linguistic influence and language-external factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 651730-651730. CC by 4.0
[4] Image from Ramírez & Kuhl (2020). Early second language learning through SparkLing™: Scaling up a language intervention in infant education centers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 14(2), 94-103. CC by 4.0
[5] Luo et al., (2021). Parental beliefs and knowledge, Children’s home language experiences, and school readiness: The dual language perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. CC by 4.0
[6] Rumper et al., (2021). Beyond translation: Caregiver collaboration in adapting an early language intervention. Frontiers in Education, 6.
[7] Byers-Heinlein et al., (2021). A multilab study of bilingual infants: Exploring the preference for infant-directed speech. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 2515245920974622. CC by 4.0
[9] Fibla et al., (2021 preprint). Bilingual language development in infancy: What can we do to support bilingual families? CC by 4.0
[10] Ahooja et al., (2021, preprint). Family language policy among Québec-based parents raising multilingual infants and toddlers: A study of resources as a form of language management. CC by 4.0
[12] Noble et al., (2020). The impact of interactive shared book reading on children's language skills: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(6), 1878-1897. CC by 4.0
14.09: Conclusion
Conclusion for Multilingualism
Recognition of the value and benefits of raising multilingual children is growing here in the U.S. Unfortunately, many misconceptions about multilingualism continue to persist and most center-based child care programs are predominantly English-based. Nevertheless, there are many strategies caregivers can use to support the development of heritage languages and English that help establish a strong foundation for later language, literacy, cognitive and academic outcomes. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/14%3A_Multilingualism/14.08%3A_Strategies_for_Caregivers_Working_with_Multilingual_Infants_and_Toddlers.txt |
Introduction to Emotional Development
It is impossible to imagine life without emotion. We treasure our feelings: the joy at a ball game, the pleasure of a loved one’s touch, or the fun with friends on a night out. Even negative emotions are essential, such as the sadness when a loved one dies, anger when treated unfairly, fear that overcomes us in a scary or unknown situation, or guilt and shame when our wrongs are made public. Emotions invigorate life experiences and give those experiences meaning and flavor.[1]
Research and theory often divide emotions into 2 general categories: basic emotions (primary emotions) and self-conscious emotions (secondary emotions). Basic emotions appear first and include interest, happiness, anger, fear, surprise, sadness, and disgust. Self-conscious emotions include envy, pride, shame, guilt, doubt, and embarrassment. Unlike primary emotions, secondary emotions appear as children develop a self-concept and require social interactions to know when to feel such emotions (Akimoto & Sanbinmatsu, 1999) [1].
The core features of emotional development include the ability to identify and understand one's feelings, accurately read and comprehend emotional states in others, manage and express strong emotions constructively, regulate one's behavior, develop empathy for others, and establish and maintain relationships (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2004). Infants experience, express, and perceive emotions before they fully understand them. In learning to recognize, label, manage, and communicate their emotions, and to perceive and attempt to understand the emotions of others, children build skills that connect them with family, peers, teachers, and the community[2] .
[1] Hwang, H. & Matsumoto, D. (2021). Functions of emotions is licensed CC-BY-SA
[2] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development . Is used with permission
[1] Image by Nina Kuchkovskiy is licensed CC: BY-NC
15.02: Theories of Emotion
Exploring the Theories of Emotion
Our experiences, backgrounds, and cultures inform our emotions. Therefore, people may have different emotional experiences when confronting similar circumstances. Several theories of emotion try to explain how the various components of emotion interact with one another[1].
Below is a table of several theories surrounding emotional development. As an infant and toddler caregiver, it may not be necessary to understand each theory’s details, but knowing multiple theories exist that explain the process of emotional development is important.
The theories outlined in the table come from[1]
Theories of Emotion
Theory
Major Components
James-Lange Theory
• Emotions arise from physiological arousal
• You only experience a feeling of fear after physiological arousal takes place
• Different arousal patterns are associated with different feelings
Cannon-Bard Theory
• Physiological arousal and emotional experience occur simultaneously yet independently (Lang, 1994)
• Emotional reactions are separate and independent of the physiological arousal, even though they co-occur
Facial Feedback Hypothesis
• A person’s facial expression affects emotional experience (Adelman & Zajonc, 1989; Boiger & Mesquita, 2012; Buck, 1980; Capella, 1993; Soussignan, 2002)
• Suppression of facial expression lowers the intensity of some emotions experienced by participants (Davis, Senghas & Ochsner, 2009).
• Intensities of facial expressions affect emotional reactions (Soussignan, 2002).
• If something insignificant occurs and you smile as if you just won the lottery, you will be happier about the little things than you would be if you only had a tiny smile
• If you walk around frowning all the time, it might cause you to have fewer positive emotions than you would if you had smiled
Schachter-Singer Two-Factor Theory
• Considers both physiological arousal and emotional experience
• Physiological arousal is interpreted in context to produce the emotional experience
• Depends on labeling the physiological experience, which is a type of cognitive appraisal
Cognitive-Mediational Theory
• Our appraisal of the stimulus determines our emotions
• This appraisal mediates between the stimulus
• and the emotional response, and it is immediate and often unconscious
• The assessment precedes a cognitive label
Automatic Emotional Regulation (AER)
• Non-deliberate control of emotions influences the things you attend to, your appraisal, your choice to engage in an emotional experience, and your behaviors after the emotion is experienced (Mauss, Bunge & Gross, 2007; Mauss, Levenson, McCarter, Wilhelm & Gross, 2005)
• People develop an automatic process that works like a script or schema, and the process does not require deliberate thought to regulate emotions
• AER works like riding a bicycle. Once you develop the process, you just do it without thinking about it
Constructivist Theory of Emotional Development
• Emotions are not built into the brain at birth, but instead, they are constructed based on your experiences
• Emotions are predictions that create an understanding of the world
• 2 identical physiological states can result in different emotional states depending on your predictions
• Example: A brain predicting a churning stomach in a bakery could lead to a brain constructing hunger. However, a brain experiencing a churning stomach while waiting for medical test results could lead a brain to construct worry. Thus, a brain can construct 2 different emotions from the same physiological sensations
Appraisal Theory
• You have thoughts (a cognitive appraisal) before you experience an emotion
• The emotion you experience depends on your thoughts (Frijda, 1988; Lazarus, 1991)
• Appraisal theory explains the way 2 people can have 2 completely different emotions regarding the same event
[1] Emotion and Motivation is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by OpenStax
[2] Stangor, C. and Walinga, J. (2014). Introduction to Psychology – 1st Canadian Edition – The BC Open Textbook Project (opentextbc.ca) is licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Diving into the Underlying Biology of Emotional Development
The limbic system, which is the area of the brain involved in emotion and memory Figure \(1\)), includes the hypothalamus, thalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus. The hypothalamus activates the sympathetic nervous system of any emotional reaction. The thalamus serves as a sensory relay center whose neurons project to the amygdala and the higher cortical regions for further processing. The amygdala plays a role in processing emotional information (Fossati, 2012). The hippocampus is the area that integrates emotional experience with cognition (Femenía, Gómez-Galán, Lindskog, & Magara, 2012)[1].
Amygdala
The amygdala has received a great deal of attention from researchers in understanding the biological basis for emotions, especially fear and anxiety (Blackford & Pine, 2012; Goosens & Maren, 2002; Maren, Phan, & Liberzon, 2013).
Hippocampus
The hippocampus is also involved in emotional processing. Like the amygdala, research demonstrates that hippocampal structure and function are linked to a variety of mood and anxiety disorders.[1]
[1]Emotion and Motivation is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by OpenStax
15.04: Emotional Beginnings
Origins of Emotions
At birth, infants exhibit 2 emotional responses: attraction and withdrawal. They show interest in pleasant situations that bring comfort, stimulation, and pleasure, and they withdraw from unpleasant stimulation such as bitter flavors or physical discomfort. At around 2 months, infants exhibit social engagement in the form of social smiling as they respond with smiles to those who engage their positive attention (Lavelli & Fogel, 2005).
Social smiling becomes more stable and organized as infants learn to use their smiles to engage their parents and caregivers in interactions.
[1] Image by Joy Poeng is licensed CC BY-NC
[2] Image by Rachel Klippenstein-Gutierrez is licensed CC BY-NC
[3] Image by Bethany Morgun is licensed CC BY-NC
15.05: Emotion and Self- Regulation
Self-Regulation
Emotional self-regulation refers to strategies we use to control our emotional states to attain goals (Thompson & Goodvin, 2007). As a construct, emotional regulation reflects the interrelationship of emotions, cognitions, and behaviors (Bell & Wolfe, 2004). This regulation requires effortful control of emotions and initially requires assistance from caregivers (Rothbart, Posner & Kieras, 2006).
The developing ability to regulate emotions has received increasing attention in research literature (Eisenberg, Champion & Ma, 2004). Researchers have generated various definitions of emotional regulation, and debate continues over the most valuable and appropriate way to define this concept (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004). Children's ability to regulate their emotions appropriately can contribute to perceptions of their overall social skills and the extent to which peers like them (Eisenberg et al., 1993). Poor emotional regulation can impair children's thinking, compromising their judgment and decision-making[1].
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development . Is used with permission
15.06: Caregiver Role in Emotional Regulation
Caregivers and Regulating Emotions
Responsiveness to infants' signals contributes to their development of emotional regulation (Zaar, n.d). Young infants have minimal capacity to adjust their emotional states and depend on their caregivers to help soothe themselves. By 4 to 6 months, babies can begin to shift their attention away from upsetting stimuli (Rothbart et al., 2006). Older infants and toddlers can more effectively communicate their need for help and crawl or walk towards or away from various situations (Cole, Armstrong & Pemberton, 2010). This aids in their ability to self-regulate. Temperament also plays a role in children's ability to control their emotional states, and individual differences are noted in the emotional self-regulation of infants and toddlers (Rothbart & Bates, 2006)[1].
[1] Child Growth and Development by Jean Zaar is licensed CC-BY-NC
[2] Image by Nina Kuchkovskiy is licensed CC: BY-NC
15.07: Emotional Competencies
Emotionally Compentent
Emotional competence refers to the emotion-related abilities an individual needs to deal with a changing environment (Saarni, 1999). Saarni (1999) specified 8 skills of emotional competence: (1) awareness of one's emotional state, (2) ability to discern others' emotions, (3) ability to use the express terms of emotion, (4) capacity for empathic and sympathetic involvement, (5) ability to discriminate inner and outer emotional states, (6) capacity for adaptive coping with emotions, (7) emotional communication within relationships, and (8) capacity for emotional self-efficacy.
One critical outcome of developing emotional competence contributes to readiness for learning. Emotional competence also contributes to the development of social relationships, both with single individuals (friendships) and groups (peer-group entry).[1]
Theories of sociocultural development such as Vygotsky's (1986) argue that higher order psychological functions have social origins. Children's cognitive, communication, and language development are all influenced by skills acquired during joint activities (Vygotsky, 1986; Winsler, Carlton, & Barry, 2000). This framework values communication and language as socioculturals tool for thought, self-regulation, and development of competencies, including emotional competencies. Vygotsky's theory of private speech may be critical for supporting the development of Saarni's (1999) proposed skills. Private speech can help children identify and label emotions (Skills 1–5) and may function as a tool for planning, guiding, and monitoring problem-solving activity (Skills 6–8).
[1] Understand and empathise is shared under a CC BY-SA license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.
[2] Image by Marie Harris is licensed CC By-NC | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.03%3A_The_Biology_of_Emotions.txt |
Recognizing Self
Children begin to recognize themselves during the second year of life as they gain a sense of self separate from their primary caregiver. In a classic experiment by Lewis and Brooks (1978), children 9 to 24 months were placed in front of a mirror after a spot of rouge was placed on their nose and their mothers pretended to wipe something off the child's face. If the child reacted by touching their nose rather than the "baby" in the mirror, it suggested that the child recognized the reflection as him or herself. Lewis and Brooks found that somewhere between 15 and 24 months, most infants developed a sense of self-awareness.[1]
In 2003, after extensive analysis of existing research, Phillippe Rochat established a theory around The 5 Stages of Self-Awareness. These stages outline how children learn to identify themselves and the caregivers in their lives as separate, distinct entities. The 5 stages span from birth until age 5 (Rocat, 2003).
Stages of acquiring self-awareness
Stage 1 – Differentiation (from birth)
Immediately after birth, infants demonstrate a sense of their own body as a differentiated entity: an entity among other entities in the environment (Rochan, 2003). They can differentiate the self from the non-self. A newborn knows there is a difference between his image and the background images in a mirror and between his or her environment. Another sign of differentiation occurs when infants contact objects by reaching for them. The infant recognizes the difference between himself and the environment and also gains a sense of how his body is situated relative to that environment (Krisch, 2021).
Stage 2 – Situation (by 2 months)
In addition to differentiation, infants at this stage can also situate themselves in relation to a person. In one experiment, infants imitated tongue orientation from an adult model.
Stage 3 – Identification (by 2 years)
At this stage, the more common definition of self-awareness comes into play, where infants can identify themselves in a mirror through the "rouge test" and begin to use language to refer to themselves. Between the ages of 18 months and 2 years, children learn that the image in the mirror is not only distinct from the rest of the environment (Level 1) and not only distinct from the in-mirror environment (Level 2), but a representation of themselves (Level 3, “identification”). At 18 months, an infant will reach for a mark painted on her body, using only the image in the mirror as an indication that something on herself is amiss (Kirsch, 2021).
Stage 4 – Permanence (2 - 3 years)
This stage occurs after infancy when children know that their sense of self exists across time and space. Rochan describes the permanence state as the “Me-But-Not-Me” dilemma. As toddlers journey towards full self-awareness, they identify the image in the mirror as “self” but still frequently revert to seeing the image as an odd third-person version of self. That can be hard to grasp (and a bit terrifying to imagine) (Kirsch, 2021). It is important to note that Stage 4 permanence develops slowly. Infants still oscillate between an awareness of the self and an awareness of seeing someone else facing them (Rochat 2003).
Stage 5 – (4 to 5 years) Self-consciousness or meta-self-awareness
In stage 5, the young child first realizes that the image in the mirror is not just “me” (Level 3) and not just “me” permanently (Level 4) but the “me” that everyone else sees. 4-year-olds often respond to this realization by becoming mirror-shy, hiding their faces whenever they see their reflections. Now that they know what everyone else sees, they are unsettled (Kirsch, 2021).
[1] Child Growth and Development by Jean Zaar is licensed CC-BY-NC
[2] Image by Rachel Klippenstein-Gutierrez is licensed CC BY-NC | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.08%3A_Development_of_Sense_of_Self.txt |
Developing Empathy
During the first 3 years of life, children begin to develop the capacity to experience another person's emotional or psychological state (ZahnWaxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990). The following definitions of empathy are found in research literature: "knowing what another person is feeling," "feeling what another person is feeling," and "responding compassionately to another's distress" (Levenson & Ruef 1992, p. 234). The concept of empathy reflects the social nature of emotion, as it links the feelings of 2 or more people (Levenson & Ruef, 1992). Since human life is relationship-based, one vitally important function of empathy over the life span is to strengthen social bonds (Anderson & Keltner, 2002). Research has shown a correlation between empathy and prosocial behavior (Eisenberg, 2000). Prosocial behaviors such as helping, sharing, comforting, and showing concern for others illustrate the development of empathy (Zahn, Waxler, et al., 1992). The experience of empathy is thought to be related to the development of moral behavior (Eisenberg, 2000). Adults model prosocial/empathic behaviors for infants in various ways. The behaviors are modeled through caring interactions with others and by nurturing the infant. Quann and Wien (2006) suggest that one way to support the development of empathy in young children is to create a culture of caring in the early childhood environment. "Helping children understand the feelings of others is an integral aspect of the curriculum of living together. The relationships among teachers, between children and teachers, and among children are fostered with warm and caring interactions" (p.28).[1]
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development . Is used with permission
15.10: Emotions and Cognition
Relationship Between Emotions and Cognition
Brain research indicates that emotion and cognition are profoundly interrelated processes. Specifically, "recent cognitive neuroscience findings suggest that the neural mechanisms underlying emotion regulation may be the same as those underlying cognitive processes" (Bell & Wolfe, 2004, p. 366). Emotion and cognition work together, jointly informing the child's impressions of situations and influencing behavior. Most learning in the early years occurs in the context of emotional support (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000). "The rich interpenetrations of emotions and cognitions establish the major psychic scripts for each child's life" (Panksepp, 2001). Together, emotion and cognition contribute to attentional processes, decision making, and learning (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1999).
Cognitive processes like decision making are also affected by emotion (Barrett et al., 2007). The brain structures involved in the neural circuitry of cognition influence emotion and vice versa (Barrett et al., 2007). Emotions and social behaviors affect the young child's ability to persist in goal-oriented activity, seek help when needed, and participate in and benefit from relationships. Young children who exhibit healthy social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment are more likely to have good academic performance in elementary school (Cohen et al., 2005; Zero to Three, 2004). Historically, the sharp distinction between cognition and emotion may be more of an artifact of scholarship than a representation of how these processes occur in the brain (Barrett et al., 2007). Recent research strengthens the view that early childhood programs support later positive learning outcomes in all domains by promoting healthy social-emotional development (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2004; Raver, 2002; Shonkoff, 2004; )[1] .
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development. Is used with permission
[2] Image by Nina Kuchkovskiy is licensed CC: BY-NC | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.09%3A_Empathy.txt |
Exploring the Connection Between Language and Emotion
Young children's growing language skills are vital to their emotional development. Language opens new avenues for communicating and regulating emotions (Campos, Frankel, & Camras, 2004). It helps children more effectively negotiate acceptable outcomes in emotionally charged situations.[1]
Growing evidence from developmental and cognitive science demonstrates that knowing words helps infants and adults acquire and use language concepts throughout their lifespan; this evidence suggests that language is key to developing emotional structures.[2]
Practitioners have theorized that infants use the phonological sound as a cue for differentiating between environmental sensations. This is particularly relevant for emotion categories, where the word anger, for example, can tie together multiple modalities of sensorimotor experience (such as bodily sensations, situations, or behaviors). These emotion categories also serve as "glue" for different instances of anger that are not perceptually regular or consistent with one another. For example, being angry at one's computer may not look or feel the same as being angry about an insult. Emotion labels may be an important cue for helping infants and young children understand emotion categories and apply them to their own experiences and observations. No research has directly examined this hypothesis.[2]
2-year-olds use the straightforward emotion labels "angry" and "happy" in daily interactions, yet 2-year-olds cannot distinguish between more specific unpleasant emotion categories until they start reliably using additional negative emotion terms in daily interactions (Widen & Russell, 2008). As children acquire emotional words and start using them in everyday life with caregivers, they become increasingly competent at perceiving and labeling facial expressions in their culture's emotion categories. Just as words help infants generalize between otherwise perceptually distinct objects during learning, toddlers show a "language superiority effect" when categorizing facial expressions. Language superiority effect means 2- and 3-year-olds are better able to accurately place pictures of facial expressions in a box labeled with a word (e.g., anger) as compared to a box labeled with a face (e.g., an angry face), an effect that increases over early childhood (Russell & Widen, 2002). Studies also demonstrate a link between children's emotional understanding and linguistic development, which suggest that children's advances in emotional understanding develop at the same rate as their advances in language comprehension (Harris et al., 2005).[2]
Caregivers' conceptual knowledge about emotions and communication skills can transfer to their children. For instance, 2– to 4-year-old children’s emotional utterances correlate with the emotion labels that their mothers know and use (Cervantes & Callanan, 1998). Children whose mothers used more emotion terms when they were 18 months old were able to produce more emotion words at 24 months (Dunn et al., 1987). Children whose caregivers discussed emotions more when children were 36 months old also had better emotional understanding at 6 years of age (Dunn et al., 1991). An adult’s explanation of internal states and attributes (such as hungry, sad, or nice) scaffold children's abilities to identify and describe the same experiences in themselves and others (Saarni, 1999; Yehuda, 2005). Use of words helps children acquire complex information about an emotion category (Lindquist, 2015) By contrast, caregivers who lack conceptual knowledge about emotion or struggle to communicate this knowledge with words decrease the child's opportunities to develop a conceptual understanding of emotion.
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development . Is used with permission
[2] Lindquist, K. A., MacCormack, J. K., & Shablack, H. (2015). The role of language in emotion: predictions from psychological constructionism. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 444. CC BY | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.11%3A_The_Role_of_Language_in_Emotion.txt |
Self-Efficacy
An infant’s developing sense of self-efficacy includes an emerging understanding that he has abilities and can make things happen. Self-efficacy is related to a sense of competency and identified as a basic human need (Connell, 1990). The development of a child’s sense of self-efficacy may be seen in play or exploratory behaviors when they act on an object to produce a result. For example, a child pats a musical toy to make a sound come out. Older infants may demonstrate recognition of ability through "I" statements, such as "I did it" or "I'm good at drawing."[1]
Young children have little understanding of what they can and cannot do, so the development of realistic self-efficacy is a fundamental process:
Very young children lack knowledge of their own capabilities and the demands and potential hazards of different courses of action. They would repeatedly get themselves into dangerous predicaments were it not for the guidance of others. They can climb to high places, wander into rivers or deep pools, and wield sharp knives before they develop the necessary skills for managing such situations safely…Adult watchfulness and guidance see young children through this early formative period until they gain sufficient knowledge of what they can do and what different situations require in the way of skills (Bandura, 1986, p. 414).
During infancy, the development of perceived causal efficacy (the perception that one affects the world by one's actions) appears to be an essential aspect of developing a sense of self. As the infant interacts with her environment, she can cause predictable events, such as the sound that accompanies shaking a rattle. The understanding that one's actions can influence the environment is something Alfred Bandura referred to as personal agency: the ability to act as an agent of change in one's world. The infant also begins to understand that certain events affect people differently than they affect the child. For example, if a model touches a hot stove, it does not hurt the infant, so the infant begins to recognize their uniqueness and actual existence as an individual. During this period, interactions with the physical environment may be more important than social interactions since the physical environment is more predictable and easier to learn about (Bandura, 1986, 1997). However, social interaction quickly becomes highly influential (Kelland, 2020).
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development is used with permission.
[2] Image by Rachel Klippenstein-Gutierrez is licensed CC BY-NC
15.13: Impulse Control
Controlling Emotions and Impulses
Children's developing capacity to control impulses helps them adapt to social situations and follow rules. As infants grow, they become increasingly able to exercise voluntary control over behavior such as waiting for needs to be met, inhibiting potentially hurtful behavior, and acting according to social expectations, including safety rules. Group care settings provide many opportunities for children to practice their impulse control skills. Peer interactions often offer natural opportunities for young children to practice impulse control as they learn about cooperative play and sharing. Young children's understanding or ignorance of requests made of them contributes to their responses (Kaler & Kopp, 1990). [1]
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development . Is used with permission
[2] Image by Amanda Taintor is licensed CC BY-NC
15.14: Expression of Emotion
The Importance of Emotional Expressions
Children express their emotions early in infancy through facial expressions, vocalizations, and body language.
Infants respond more positively to adult vocalizations containing a positive affective tone (Fernald, 1993). Tronick (1989) describes how the expression of emotion is related to emotional regulation and communication between mother and infant: “the emotional expressions of the infant and the caretaker function to allow them to mutually regulate their interactions . . . the infant and the adult are participants in an affective communication system.” (p.112). It appears the experience of positive emotions contributes significantly to emotional well-being and psychological health (Fredrickson, 2000, 2003; Panksepp, 2001). Neurophysiology and cognitive, social, and emotional factors play a part in the developmental process of social smiling (Messinger & Fogel, 2007). The ability to use words to express emotions gives young children a valuable tool in gaining assistance or social support (Saarni et al., 2006). Temperament may also play a role in children's expression of emotion. Young children's expressions of positive and negative emotions impact developing social relationships. Positive emotions appeal to social partners and enable relationships to form, while problematic management or expression of negative emotions leads to difficulty in social relationships (Denham & Weissberg, 2004). The use of emotion-related words appears to be associated with how likable preschoolers are to their peers: children who use emotion-related words are typically better liked by their classmates (Fabes at al., 2001).[2]
[1] Image by Joy Poeng is licensed CC BY-NC
[2] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development . Is used with permission | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.12%3A_Knowing_What_They_Can_Do.txt |
Understanding and Awareness
Emotions are expressed both verbally through words and nonverbally through facial expressions, voices, gestures, body postures, and movements. People constantly express emotions when interacting with others, and others can reliably judge those emotional expressions (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002; Matsumoto, 2001). Emotions have signal value to others and influence those around us and our social interactions. Emotions and their expressions communicate information to others about our feelings, intentions, relationship with the target of the emotions, and the environment. Because emotions have this communicative signal value, they help solve social problems by evoking responses from others, signaling the nature of interpersonal relationships, and providing incentives for desired social behavior (Keltner, 2003). [1]
A parent’s belief that emotions are valuable rather than dangerous correlates to their child’s ability to recognize their parents’ emotional facial expressions (Castro et al., 2014). Avoiding emotional expression may create a more impoverished environment for the child to practice their developing emotion-relevant skills (Dunsmore et al., 2009). Additionally, families who avoid talking about emotions with their child (due to a belief that emotions are dangerous) do not help the child acquire the conceptual knowledge necessary for learning how to differentiate between different emotional facial expressions.[2]
Remarkably, young children begin developing social understanding very early in life. Before the end of the first year, infants are aware that other people have perceptions, feelings, and other mental states that affect their behavior and are different from the infant’s mental states.[3]
Emotion is displayed through a variety of mechanisms. In addition to facial expressions, tone of voice, behavior, and body language all communicate information about emotional states. Body language is the expression of emotion through body position or movement. Research suggests that we are sensitive to the emotional information communicated through body language, even when we're not consciously aware of it (de Gelder, 2006; Spielman, 2020; Tamietto et al., 2009).
Although developmental scientists once strongly believed infants are egocentric—focused on their own perceptions and experience—they now realize the opposite is true. Infants at an early stage are aware that people have different mental states (Wellman, 2011). This motivates them to figure out what others are feeling, intending, wanting, and thinking, as well as how these mental states affect others’ behavior. Infants are beginning to develop a theory of mind, and although their understanding of mental states begins simply, it expands rapidly (Wellman, 2011). For example, suppose an 18-month-old watches an adult repeatedly try to drop a necklace into a cup but fail each time. In this case, the child will immediately put the necklace into the cup himself, completing what the adult intended to do but failed to accomplish. In doing so, the child reveals his awareness of the intentions behind the adult's behavior (Meltzoff, 1995). Carefully designed experimental studies have shown that, by late preschool years, young children can understand that another's beliefs can be incorrect, memories can affect how you feel, and emotions can be hidden from others (Wellman, 2011). Social understanding grows significantly as children's theory of mind develops.4]
How do these achievements in social understanding occur? One answer is that young children are compassionate observers of other people. They make connections between their emotional expressions, words, and behavior to derive simple inferences about mental states (Gopnik, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 2001). Some scientists believe that infants are biologically prepared to perceive people uniquely, as organisms with an inner mental life, which facilitates their interpretation of people's behavior regarding those mental states (Leslie, 1994; Thompson, 2021) This is especially likely to occur in relationships with people the child knows well, which supports the ideas of attachment theory. Growing language skills give young children words with which to represent these mental states, such as “mad” or “wants”, and talk about them with others. Thus, in conversation with their parents about everyday experiences, children learn much about people's mental states from how adults talk about them ("Your sister was sad because she thought Daddy was coming home.”) (Thompson, 2006b). Developing social understanding is based on children's everyday interactions with others and their careful interpretations of what they see and hear.[4]
[1] Hwang, H. & Matsumoto, D. (2021). Functions of emotions is licensed CC BY-SA
[2] Lindquist, K. A., MacCormack, J. K., & Shablack, H. (2015). The role of language in emotion: predictions from psychological constructionism. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 444. CC BY
[3] Thompson, R. (2021). Social and personality development in childhood is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA
[5] Image by Nina Kuchkovskiy is licensed CC BY-NC
[6] Image by Amanda Taintor is licensed CC BY-NC | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.15%3A_Social_Understanding_and_Self-Awareness.txt |
Recognizing Emotions
Despite different cultural emotional display rules, our ability to recognize and produce facial expressions of emotion appears to be universal. Even congenitally blind individuals make the same facial expressions of emotions, despite never having had the opportunity to observe these facial displays of emotion in other people. Research findings suggest patterns of activity in the facial muscles involved in generating emotional expressions: this was indicted in the late 19th century in Charles Darwin's (1872) book The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. Substantial evidence exists for 7 universal emotions associated with distinct facial expressions. These include happiness, surprise, sadness, fright, disgust, contempt, and anger (Figure \(1\) (Ekman & Keltner, 1997, Elkman et al., 1969, Ekman and Friesen, 1971). [1]
In terms of development, it appears that most of the facial components of human expression can be observed shortly after birth. Expressions like enjoyment and interest are present from the first days of life (Sullivan & Lewis, 2003). Researchers initially thought that infants’ facial expressions corresponded to adults’ facial expressions (see Differential emotion theory in Izard & Malatesta, 1987), but it’s now known that facial expressions in infancy are not present like their adult-counterparts (Oster, 2005). Emotion in infancy cannot be compared to emotion in adulthood. Sroufe (1996) described precursor emotions in infancy. Precursor emotions do not have the same degree of cognitive evaluation as emotions of adults. Sroufe described how wariness and frustration can manifest as crying and distress. This observation agrees with the study of Camras et al. (2007) that does not find different facial expressions for fear and anger at 11 months.
Differences between adult and infant facial expressions can also be linked to the motor structure of infant faces. Camras et al. (1996) noted that infants may produce facial expressions in an unrelated situation because of an enlarged recruitment among facial muscles during movement. For example, infants 5 to 7 months raise their brows as they open their mouth, producing an expression of surprise.
Holodynski and Friedlmeier (2006) proposed that infants learned adult-like expressions from a sociocultural based internalization model: caregivers reproduced infant expressions in a selective and exaggerated form, allowing children to learn the connection between their emotion and a given facial expression.[1]
The appearance of adult-like expressions is not well understood (Oster, 2005). Bennett et al. (2005) showed that the organization of facial expressivity increases during infancy. 12-month-old infants showed more specific expression to a situation than 4-month-old infants. It seems that children keep learning how to produce facial expressions through late childhood. Ekman et al. (1980) demonstrated that the ability to produce facial expression improves between 5 and 13 years. However, young children do not perfectly produce all facial expressions. The production of facial expression depends on age and the targeted emotion. Joy is well-produced at 3 years old while anger, sadness, and surprise are still not mastered at 6 years old. Field and Walden (1982) also found that positive emotions are easier to produce than negative emotions. However, Lobue and Thrasher (2014) asked children to imitate facial expressions of an adult and found no effects of age or emotion subtype on the production of facial expression for children between 2 and 8 years old.[2]
Facial expressions of emotion are important regulators of social interaction. This concept has been investigated through social referencing (Klinnert, Campos & Sorce, 1983), the process whereby infants seek out information from others to clarify a situation and then use that information to act. The strongest demonstration of social referencing to date comes from work on the “visual cliff”. In the first study to investigate this concept, Campos and colleagues (Sorce, Emde, Campos, & Klinnert, 1985) placed mothers on the far end of a "cliff" from the infant. First, mothers smiled at their infants and placed a toy on top of the safety glass to attract them: infants invariably began crawling to their mothers. When the infants were in the center of the table, however, the mother then posed an expression of fear, sadness, anger, interest, or joy. The results varied according to the emotion expressed: no infant crossed the table when the mother showed fear, 6% crossed when the mother showed anger, 33% crossed when the mother showed sadness, and approximately 75% of the infants crossed when the mother showed joy or interest.
Other studies provide similar support for facial expressions as regulators of social interaction. In one study (Bradshaw, 1986), experimenters posed facial expressions of neutrality, anger, or disgust toward babies as they moved toward an object and measured the amount of inhibition the babies showed in touching the object. The results for 10- and 15-month-olds were the same: anger produced the greatest inhibition, followed by disgust, then neutrality. This study was later replicated (Hertenstein & Campos, 2004) using joy and disgust expressions, altering the method so that the infants were not allowed to touch the toy (compared with a distractor object) until 1 hour after exposure to the expression. At 14 months of age, significantly more infants touched the toy when they saw joyful expressions, but fewer touched the toy when the infants saw disgust.[3]
[1] Thompson, R. (2021). Social and personality development in childhood is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA
[2] Grossard et. al. (2018) Children Facial Expression Production: Influence of Age, Gender, Emotion Subtype, Elicitation Condition and Culture. is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
[3] Hwang, H. & Matsumoto, D. (2021). Functions of emotions is licensed CC BY-SA
[4] Image by Molly Ram is licensed CC BY-NC | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.16%3A_Facial_Expression_and_Recognition_of_Emotions.txt |
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence, as defined by Salovey and Mayer in Emotional Intelligence (2020), is a "subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own emotions and others' emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's own thinking and actions" (Bechtoldt, 2008). Emotional intelligence is the capacity to acknowledge emotions in self and others, then leverage emotional information to adapt thinking and behavior to the environment and achieve one’s goal.[1]
Emotional Intelligence: The Goleman Theory
While Salovey and Mayer were the first to publish an article on emotional intelligence, true popularity of the term and concept of EI didn't occur until Dan Goleman published "Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ" (Bechtoldt, 2008). Goleman claims that EI is more critical than Intelligence Quotient (IQ) for enjoyment of a successful life and maintaining fruitful, secure relationships with others (Karafyllis & Ulshofer, 2008). Goleman proposed a new definition of intelligence which includes qualities such as optimism, self-control, and moral character. He suggests that, unlike general intelligence, which is viewed as stable over time, EI can be learned and increased at any time during one's life (Karafyllis & Ulshofer, 2008). Goleman also proposed that EI has a moral dimension, stating that "emotional literacy goes hand in hand with education for character and moral development and citizenship" (Karafyllis & Ulshofer, 2008, p.135).[2]
The image below illustrates the key competencies of emotional intelligence and demonstrates the connection between elements of emotional development in infants and toddlers and emotional intelligence.
[1] Image by Marie Harris is licensed CC By-NC
[2] Eric. (n.d.). Emotional Intelligence at work by Daniel Goleman: Self-Master - Part 1 is licensed CC BY-SA
15.18: Cultural Elements of Emotional Development
Culture and Emotions
Because culture impacts how people display emotion, people from varying cultural backgrounds can have very different cultural display rules of emotion. A cultural display rule is one of a collection of culturally specific standards that governs the types and frequencies of acceptable emotional displays (Malatesta & Haviland, 1982). Some cultural groups appear to express certain emotions more often than other cultural groups (Tsai, Levenson, & McCoy, 2006). Cultural groups also vary by the emotions and emotional states they value (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006). For example, research has shown that individuals from the United States express negative emotions like fear, anger, and disgust both alone and in the presence of others. In contrast, individuals from Japan only do so while alone (Matsumoto, 1990). Furthermore, individuals from cultures that tend to emphasize social cohesion are more likely to suppress emotional reactions so they can evaluate which response is most appropriate in each context (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Nakagawa, 2008). One study suggests that cultural differences in exposure to specific emotions through storybooks may contribute to young children's preferences for particular emotional states (such as excited or calm) (Tsai et al., 2007).[1]
Cultures also inform us about what to do with our emotions—how to manage or modify them—when we experience them. This often occurs by managing our emotional expressions through cultural display rules (Friesen, 1972). These cultural rules are learned early in life and specify the management and modification of our emotional expressions according to social circumstances. Some are taught to laugh at their boss's jokes even when they are not funny; others learn that "big boys don't cry". Culture affects how individuals express their emotions and how people experience them. Emotional regulation is also influenced by culture and the historical era in which a person lives. This cultural variability in regulation processes is significant (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992). "Cultures vary in terms of what one is expected to feel, and when, where, and with whom one may express different feelings" (Cheah & Rubin 2003, p. 3).[3]
A crucial aspect of culture comes from the transmission of emotional meaning to its members: one way this occurs is through the development of worldviews (including attitudes, values, beliefs, and norms) related to emotions (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013; Matsumoto et al., 2008). Emotion-related worldviews provide guidelines for desirable emotions, which facilitate norms for regulating individual behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Cultural backgrounds tell us which emotions are ideal and which are not (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006). The cultural transmission of information related to emotions occurs in many ways, not the least of which is from caregivers to children (Schönpflug, 2009; Tsai, Louie, Chen, & Uchida, 2007). As a caregiver for infants and toddlers, how might your culture's emotional norms conflict at times with the emotional/cultural norms of the children in your care?[4]
[1] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development . Is used with permission
[2] Image by David_Miram is in the public domain
[3] Image by @ablissfulbirth is in the public domain
[4] Hwang, H. & Matsumoto, D. (2021). Functions of emotions is licensed CC-BY-SA | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.17%3A_Pulling_the_Pieces_Together.txt |
A Strategy to Support Emotional Development
Emotional Competence and Self-Regulation, ECSEL, is based on the emotional foundations of learning and cognition. ECSEL aims to help young children develop emotional competence on their path toward effective self-regulation. It teaches emotional competence to children as young as infants, helping enhance emotion regulation, self-regulation, and promote a positive sense of self, mental health, and well-being .[1]
Promoting the growth of self-regulation development and co-regulation from birth through age 2[1]
Developmental Stage
Characteristics of Self-Regulation in Infants
How Caregivers Can Provide Co-Regulation
Infancy (birth to age 1)
• Orient attention away from stressors
• Engage caregivers as resources for comfort
• ●Begin to self-soothe
• Interact in warm, responsive ways
• Anticipate and respond quickly to child's needs
• Provide physical and emotional comfort when a child is stressed
• Modify environment to decrease demands/stress
Toddlerhood (ages 1–2, approximately)
• Begin to select and shift attention (attentional control)
• Adjust behavior to achieve simple goals
• Delay gratification and inhibit responses for short periods when there is structure and support
• Emotions are stronger than cognitive regulation
• Feelings of attachment support prosocial goals
• Reassure/calm the child when upset by removing the child from situations or speaking calmly and giving affection
• Model self-calming strategies
• Teach rules and redirecting to regulate behavior
Caregivers of infants and toddlers must pay attention to and document children’s feelings and emotional responses: suggest words for and help children name their feelings rather than telling children what they feel. This strategy gives children a vocabulary for feelings and communicates that they are the ones who know their feelings best. Emotional language support helps children understand what causes their feelings. Offer children, rather than tell them, possible explanations to help determine the cause of their emotion. Pay attention to your own emotional responses as young children are keenly sensitive to tone of voice and facial expressions. Model respectful, appropriate expressions of emotion, facial expressions, and tone of voice that matches feelings. Loud or intensely angry tones can be overwhelming and frightening for children.[2]
Caregivers support regulation of emotions by learning each child's preferred way of being comforted. Identify or name for children what helps them feel comforted. Acknowledge when children seek comfort or comfort themselves. Collaborate with children in providing comfort for them. Keep in mind children are able to comfort themselves. Demonstrate acceptance for all of the feelings children express. Young children use social referencing, meaning they look to adults to "read" how things are going throughout the day. When someone is crying, a teacher can provide a calm, accepting, and empathic tone to help children learn that crying is natural and related to feelings of sadness, frustration, fear, and anger. Likewise, a teacher who responds calmly when angry or afraid helps children learn that such feelings are valid and appropriate.[2]
[2] California Department of Education (CDE Press). Development Foundations: Social-Emotional Development . Is used with permission
15.20: Conclusion
Conclusion to Emotional Development
Understanding the function and origin of emotional development provides a caregiver with foundational knowledge to support development in holistic ways. A caregiver’s focus often falls to physical development, neglecting the critical support of healthy emotional development. However, evidence demonstrates that communication with family members and caregivers about emotions during early childhood is essential for children to develop healthy emotions. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/15%3A_Emotional_Development/15.19%3A_Emotional_Competence_and_Self-Regulation-_A_Strategy_to_Support_Emotional_Development.txt |
Introduction to Social Development
"How have I become the kind of person I am today?" Every adult ponders this question from time to time. Answers may include the influences of parents, peers, temperament, a moral compass, a strong sense of self, and critical life experiences such as parental divorce. Social development encompasses many influences and addresses questions about how people uniquely develop. Are humans a product of nature or nurture? How enduring are the influences of early experiences? Social development refers to the long-term changes in relationships and interactions involving self, peers, and family. It includes positive changes, such as how friendships develop, and negative changes, such as aggression or bullying. The study of social development offers perspective on these and other issues, demonstrating the complexity of external impacts on developing infants and toddlers. [1]
[1] Thompson, P. (2019). Foundations of Educational Technology is licensed CC BY
16.02: What is Social Development
Defining Social Development
In childhood, social development emerges through social influences, biological maturation, and the child's representations of the social world and the self. Understanding social development requires looking at children from 3 perspectives that interact to shape development. The first is the social context where each child lives, especially the relationships that provide security, guidance, and knowledge. The second is biological maturation which includes developing social and emotional competencies and underlying differences of individual temperament. The third is a child's growing representations of who they are and the social world around them. Social development is best understood as the continuous interaction between these social, biological, and representational aspects of psychological development.[1]
[1] Thompson, R. (2022). Social and personality development in childhood Is licensed CC BY-NC-SA
[2] Image by @pixabay is in the public domain
16.03: Theories of Social Development
Erikson and Psychosocial Theory
One of the best-known theories of social development is the Eight Psychosocial Crises described by Erik Erikson.[1] Erik Erikson (1902‐1994) believed we know what motivates us throughout life. We make conscious choices in life, focusing on meeting particular social and cultural needs rather than purely biological ones. For instance, humans are driven by the need to experience the world as a trustworthy place, feel we are capable individuals, believe we can contribute to society, and possess confidence in having lived a meaningful life. These are all psychosocial problems. Erikson divided the lifespan into 8 crises, usually called stages. Each stage or crisis consists of psychosocial tasks to accomplish. Erikson believed that an individual’s personality takes shape throughout his lifespan in the face of life’s challenges. According to Erikson, successful development involves positively dealing with and resolving the goals and demands of each crisis. If a person does not resolve a crisis successfully, it may hinder his ability to deal with later crises.
Psychosocial Stages
1. Trust vs. mistrust (0‐1 year): the infant must have basic needs met consistently to feel that the world is a trustworthy place.
2. Autonomy vs. shame and doubt (1 ‐2 years): mobile toddlers have newfound freedom they like to exercise, and they learn some essential independence by being allowed to do so.
3. Initiative vs. guilt (3 ‐5 years): preschoolers like to initiate activities and emphasize doing things "all by myself."
4. Industry vs. inferiority (6‐11 years): school-aged children focus on accomplishments and begin making comparisons between themselves and their classmates.
5. Identity vs. role confusion (adolescence): teenagers try to gain a sense of identity by experimenting with various roles, beliefs, and ideas.
6. Intimacy vs. isolation (young adulthood): in our 20s and 30s, we make some of our first long‐term commitments in intimate relationships.
7. Generativity vs. stagnation (middle adulthood): In our 40s through the early 60s, we focus on being productive at work and home and are motivated to feel that we've contributed to society.
8. Integrity vs. despair (late adulthood): we look back on our lives and hope to see that we have lived well and have a sense of integrity because we lived according to our beliefs.
The first 3 stages form a foundation for discussions on emotional and social development during the lifespan. These stages or crises can occur more than once: for instance, a person may struggle with a lack of trust beyond infancy under certain circumstances.
Crises of Infants and Preschoolers: Trust, Autonomy, and Initiative
From the day they are born, infants face a crisis (in Erikson's paradigm) about trust and mistrust. They are happiest if they can eat, sleep, and excrete according to their schedules, regardless of whether their schedules are convenient for their caregiver. Unfortunately, a young infant is in no position to control or influence a caregiver's scheduling needs, so the infant faces a dilemma about how much to trust or mistrust the caregiver's helpfulness. It is as if the infant asks "If I demand food (or sleep, or a clean diaper, etc.) now, will my caregiver be able to help me meet this need?" Hopefully, between the 2 of them, caregiver and child resolve this choice in favor of the infant's trust: the caregiver proves to be adequate in attentiveness, and the infant risks trusting the caregiver's motivation and skill.[1]
Caregivers who are consistently and appropriately responsive and sensitive to their infant's needs help the infant develop a sense of trust; the infant will see the world as a safe, predictable place. Unresponsive or inconsistent caregivers who do not meet their infant's needs can elicit feelings of anxiety, fear, and mistrust; the infant may see the world as unpredictable and unsafe. If infants are treated cruelly, or their needs are not met appropriately, they will likely grow up with a sense of mistrust for people in the world.[2]
As soon as the first crisis resolves, a new one develops over autonomy and shame. The child (now a toddler) may trust their caregiver, but their trust contributes to the desire to assert autonomy by taking care of basic personal needs, such as feeding, toileting, or dressing. At this stage of development, you will often hear toddlers say things like “me-do-it” as they exert their autonomy. Given the child's lack of experience in these activities, self-care is risky at first: the toddler may feed (or use the toilet, dress themselves, etc.) clumsily and ineffectively. The child's caregiver risks overprotecting the child by criticizing their early efforts unnecessarily, causing the child to feel shame for even trying.[1] Erikson believed that toddlers should be allowed to explore their environment as freely as safety permits, fostering their understanding of independence that later grows self-esteem, initiative, and overall confidence. If denied the opportunity to act on their environment (within developmentally appropriate measures), toddlers may begin to doubt their abilities, leading to low self-esteem and feelings of shame (Berger, 2005). Hopefully, the new crisis resolves in favor of autonomy through the combined efforts of the child to assert independence and of the caregiver to support the child.
About the time a child is of preschool age (3-5 years old) the autonomy exercised during the previous period becomes more elaborate, extended, and focused on objects and people other than the child. The child at an early education center, for example, may now undertake to build the "biggest city in the world" out of all available unit blocks, even if other children want some of the blocks for themselves. The child's projects and desires create a new crisis of initiative and guilt because the child soon realizes that acting on impulses or desires can sometimes negatively affect others: more blocks for one child may mean fewer for someone else. As with the crisis over autonomy, caregivers must support the child's initiatives whenever possible without making the child feel guilty for desiring to have or do something that affects others' welfare. By limiting behavior where necessary—but not limiting internal feelings—caregivers demonstrate support of this newfound ability to take the initiative. Expressed in Erikson's terms, the crisis resolves in favor of initiative.[1]
Criticisms of Erickson's Theory
Criticisms of Erikson's theory stem from his focus on stages and his assumption that completing one stage is a prerequisite for the subsequent development crisis (Marcia, 1980). His theory also focuses on the social expectations found in certain cultures, but not in all. For instance, the idea that adolescence is a time of searching for identity might translate well in the middle‐class culture of the United States, but not as well in cultures where the transition into adulthood coincides with puberty through rites of passage and where adult roles offer fewer choices.[2]
[1] Thompson, P. (2019). Foundations of Educational Technology is licensed CC BY
[2] Child Abuse, Neglect, and Foster Care is shared under a not declared license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Diana Lang | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/16%3A_Social_Development/16.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Social Cognitive Learning Theory
Social Learning Theory, or learning by watching others, was developed by Albert Bandura (1977). Social Learning Theory holds that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences. Young children frequently learn behaviors through imitation: they learn by modeling or copying the behavior of others, especially when they do not know what else to do.[1] This is called observational learning. Bandura theorized that the observational learning process consists of 4 parts. The first is attention. To learn, one must pay attention to what one is observing. The second part is retention: one must retain the observed behavior in one's memory. The third part of observational learning, initiation, acknowledges that the learner must be able to execute or initiate the learned behavior. Lastly, the observer must be motivated to engage in observational learning (Bouton & Lang, 1960). Bandura’s theory states that when people observe a model performing a behavior and experiencing its consequences, they remember the sequence of events and use this information to guide subsequent behaviors. Watching a model can also prompt the viewer to engage in previously learned behavior (Bandura, 1986, 2002).[2]
Do Parents Socialize Children or Do Children Socialize Parents?
Bandura (1986) suggests an interplay between environment and individual. People are not merely the product of their surroundings; instead, people influence their surroundings. There is also an interplay between personalities and how events are interpreted. This concept is called reciprocal determinism. An example of this might be the interaction between parents and children. Parents influence their child's environment, and children influence parents as well. Parents may respond differently with their first child than with their fourth. Perhaps they try to be the perfect parents with their firstborn, but by the time their last child comes along, they have very different expectations of themselves and their child. Our environment creates us, and we make our environment.[4]
Criticism of Social Cognitive Theory
One of the main criticisms of social cognitive theory is that it lacks unification: the different aspects of the theory appear disconnected. The theory is also so broad that not all its parts are fully understood or integrated into a single explanation of learning. It is limited because not all social learning can be directly observed, and it ignores maturation. Understanding how a child learns through observation and how an adult learns through observation is not differentiated, and developmental factors are not acknowledged.[2]
[1] Contemporary Theories on Development is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Martha Lally & Suzanne Valentine-French
[2] Zhou, Molly and Brown, David, "Educational Learning Theories: 2nd Edition" (2015). Education Open Textbooks. CC BY-NC-SA
[3] Image by Rebekah Creasy is licensed CC: BY-NC
[4] Psyc 200 Lifespan Psychology by Laura Overstreet is Licensed CC BY: Attribution
16.05: The Early Months of Social Development
Early Social Development
Young infants seek relationships. They actively explore what they can do with their bodies, people close to them, and the environment. They are not empty vessels waiting to be filled with information, but rather "active participants in their development, reflecting the intrinsic human drive to explore and master one's environment" (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000 Core Concepts of Development). As seen in Figure \(1\), their active engagement with the social and physical world works hand in hand with the care they receive from adults, especially when the adults are responsive to them.
Infants develop quickly by extending their abilities in all domains and creating more complex ways of relating to people and things. They send messages to adults in various ways and expect responses from adults. For example, when looking into the faces of adults, infants may see enlarged dilated pupils—a common sign of interest and pleasure—and, in response, they smile more (Hess, 1975). Children in the 3-to-4-month range show highly differentiated social-emotional behavior. By 3 months, infants learn to alter responses to adults according to how the adults respond to them: infants increase vocalizations when adults acknowledge these vocalizations with a smile, a vocal response, or light touch. The interest of others stimulates the infant's interest (Crick, 1984). [2]
[1] Image by Rebekah Creasy is licensed CC: BY-NC
[2] California Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Foundations, 2009 by the California Department of Education is used with permission | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/16%3A_Social_Development/16.04%3A_Overview_of_Social_Cognitive_Learning_Theory.txt |
Relationships and Social Development
Children's experiences of relationships contribute to their expanding repertoire of social skills and broadened social understanding. In these relationships, children develop expectations for specific people (for example, experiences that lead to secure or insecure attachments to parents), acquire knowledge of how to interact with adults and peers, and create a self-concept based on how others respond to them.[1] Relationships with parents, other family members, and caregivers provide critical context for infants' social development. Parents and caregivers are an infant's initial social partner, and the quality of this early caregiver-infant relationship has been linked to many different positive outcomes. Establishing close relationships with adults is related to children's emotional security, sense of self, and evolving understanding of the world around them. Interactions with adults are a frequent and regular part of infants' daily lives, and infants as young as 3 months of age have demonstrated the ability to discriminate between the faces of unfamiliar adults (Barrera & Maurer, 1981). By 4 months of age, a child’s power in relationships, along with the impact of these relationships, is evident. Infants become more skilled at reading others' behavior and adapting their own behavior. They also gain skills to make themselves more engaging and effective socially. 4-month-olds will send clear messages, become quiet in anticipation as someone comes near to care for them, seek adults' attention with smiles and laughter, participate in extended back and forth interaction with others, and engage in simple social imitation.[2]
Close relationships with adults who provide consistent nurturance strengthen a child’s capacity to learn and develop. These special relationships influence the infant's emerging sense of self and understanding of others. Infants use relationships with adults in many ways: for reassurance that they are safe, for assistance in alleviating distress, for help with emotion regulation, and for social approval or encouragement. These relationships play a crucial part in development across all domains. For example, parental responses to the infant's vocalizations support language development (see Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2014 for reviews) and direct gaze sharing between a parent and infant promotes connections and communication (Leong et al., 2017).[3]
Social Understanding
Remarkably, young children begin developing social understanding very early in life. Before the end of the first year, infants are aware that other people have perceptions, feelings, and other mental states that affect their behavior and that differ from their own mental states.[1]
Children begin to understand other people's responses, communication, emotional expression, and actions during the infant and toddler years. These developments include an infant's understanding of what to expect from others, how to act, and which social scripts are used for specific social situations. Recent research suggests that infants' and toddlers' social understanding is related to how often they experience adult communication about the thoughts and emotions of others (Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2008).[2]
"At each age, social cognitive understanding contributes to social competence, interpersonal sensitivity, and an awareness of how the self relates to other individuals and groups in a complex social world" (Thompson, 2006, pg.26). Even in early infancy, social understanding is critical because of the social nature of humans (Wellman & Lagattuta, 2000).[2]
Responding to Infants' Cues as Part of Social Development Through Joint Attention and Social Referencing
Humans can actively engage with other people's mental states, such as when they enter situations of joint attention (Malle, 2022). Joint attention is described as the ability to coordinate visual attention with another person and then shift the gaze toward an object or event (Mundy, 1998); it does not require the gazer to be aware of the follower's reaction (Emery, 2000). The definition sounds more complicated than it is. If you point to an object around a 3-year-old, notice how you both check in, ensuring that you are jointly engaging with the object. Such shared engagement is critical for children to learn the meaning of objects: both their value (is it safe and rewarding to approach?) and the words that refer to them (what do you call this?). When I hold up my keyboard and show it to you, we are jointly attending to it, and if I say it's called "Tastatur" in German, you know that I am referring to the keyboard and not to the table on which it had been resting.[4]
Literature reports 2 main components of joint attention: (1) response to joint attention and (2) initiation of joint attention.
Responding to joint attention is the ability to shift visual attention following another's social cues such as gaze or pointing, whereas initiating joint attention is the ability to direct another person's attention through gaze or gestures with the aim of sharing an experience (Seibert & Mundy, 1982). Responding to joint attention and initiating joint attention are considered interrelated aspects of joint attention, emerging at different times during development (Mundy et al., 2007). Responding to joint attention usually develops between 6 and 9 months of age, whereas initiating joint attention starts approximately at 9 months of age with significant variability across individuals.[5]
Social Referencing
Young children begin developing social understanding very early in life. Before the end of the first year, an infant is aware that other people have perceptions, feelings, and different mental states affecting their behavior.[1] An understanding that other mental states differ from the infant’s own can be readily observed in the phenomena of social referencing. [1] Social referencing is the tendency of an infant to gather information from a caregiver to regulate his behavior in an ambiguous situation (in which the infant does not have enough information to decide how to react) (Fawcett & Liszkowski, 2015; Schieler et al., 2018; Stenberg, 2009; Striano et al., 2006; Walden and Kim, 2005; Zarbatany and Lamb, 1985). Social referencing emerges around 7 to 10 months of age and forms a foundation for social learning and social appraisal in adulthood (Walle et al., 2017).[1]
In social referencing, an infant looks to a trusted caregiver's face when confronted with an unfamiliar person or situation (Feinman, 1992). If the caregiver seems calm and reassuring, the infant responds positively as if the situation is safe. If the caregiver looks fearful or distressed, the infant is likely to react with wariness or distress because the caregiver's expression signals danger. Infants display remarkable insight and awareness: even though they are uncertain about the unfamiliar situation, the caregiver is not. By "reading" the emotion in the caregiver’s face, infants can learn about whether the circumstance is safe or dangerous, and how to respond. [1]
In the past, developmental scientists believed infants were egocentric—focused on their perceptions and experience—but research now indicates the opposite is true. From an early age, infants are aware that people have different mental states, which motivates them to figure out what others are feeling, intending, wanting, and thinking, and how these mental states affect their behavior. Infants are beginning to develop a theory of mind, and although their understanding of mental states begins very simply, it expands rapidly (Wellman, 2011)Social understanding grows significantly as children's theory of mind develops.[1]
How do these achievements in social understanding occur? Young children are remarkably sensitive observers of other people. They make connections between their emotional expressions, words, and behavior to derive simple inferences about mental states (e.g., concluding that what Mommy is looking at is in her mind) (Gopnik, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 2001). This connection is especially likely to occur in relationships with people the child knows well, consistent with the ideas of attachment theory. Growing language skills give young children words with which to represent these mental states (e.g., "mad," "wants") and talk about them with others. Through conversation with their caregivers about everyday experiences, children learn much about people's mental states from how adults talk about them ("Your sister was sad because she thought Daddy was coming home.”) (Thompson, 2006). Developing social understanding depends heavily upon children's everyday interactions with others and their careful interpretations of what they see and hear.[1]
Disturbances in Infant-Caregiver Relationships: Maternal Depression and Infant and Toddler Social Development
Infants repeatedly participate in daily, interactive routines with their primary caregivers, most often their mothers. An infant is typically in tune with the emotional signals in their caregivers' voices, gestures, movements, and facial expressions. Maternal depression compromises the infant and mother’s ability to mutually regulate the interaction. Most commonly, depression impacts the relationship through 2 interactive patterns observed in depressed mothers: intrusiveness or withdrawal. Intrusive mothers display a negative affect and disrupt the infant's activity. The infant experiences anger, turns away from the mother to limit her intrusiveness, and internalizes an angry and protective coping style. Withdrawn mothers are disengaged, unresponsive, affectively flat and do little to support the infant's activity. Infants cannot cope with or self-regulate this negative state and develop passivity, withdrawal, and self-regulatory behaviors (e.g., looking away or sucking on the thumb) (Hart et al., 1998; Tronick, 1989).
Infants and toddlers of depressed mothers can develop serious emotional disorders such as infant depression and attachment disorders (Luby, 2000). Early mental health disorders might be reflected by delayed development, inconsolable crying, or sleep problems. Older toddlers may exhibit aggressive or impulsive behavior. In early care and education settings, children with social and emotional problems tend to have a hard time relating to others, trusting adults, being motivated to learn, and calming themselves to tune into teaching—all necessary skills to benefit from early educational experiences. Studies reveal the long-lasting effects of maternal depression. Older children of mothers depressed during infancy show poor self-control, aggression, poor peer relationships, and difficulty in school (Embry & Dawson, 2002). These problems increase the likelihood that the child will be placed in special education, held back to repeat a grade, or drop out of school. Each of these problems can prevent a child from reaching optimal development, result in missed opportunities for success over the child's lifespan, and impose increased costs to society (Onunaku, 2005).
When Relationships Cause Damage: Abuse and Neglect
It is challenging to know how much child abuse occurs. Infants cannot talk, and toddlers and older children who are abused usually do not tell anyone about the abuse. They might not define it as abuse, they might be scared to tell a trusted adult, they might blame themselves for being abused, or they might not know with whom they could talk about their abuse. Whatever the reason, children usually remain silent, making it very difficult to know how much abuse occurs. Up-to-date statistics on the different types of child abuse in the United States can be found at the U.S. Children's Bureau website .[7]
All types of abuse are complex issues, especially within families. There are many reasons people may become abusers- poverty, stress, and substance abuse are common characteristics shared by abusers, although abuse can happen in any family.
Children who experience abuse or neglect are at risk of developing lifelong social, emotional, and health problems, particularly if neglected before the age of 2. However, it is essential to note that not all children who experience abuse and neglect will have the same outcomes. There are many ways to foster stable, permanent, safe, secure, nurturing, loving care for children affected by adverse childhood experiences.
Trauma-Informed Care
Traumatic experiences can significantly alter a person's perception of themselves, their environment, and the people around them. As traumatic experiences accumulate, responses become more intense and have a greater impact on functioning. Ongoing exposure to traumatic stress can impact all areas of people's lives, including biological, cognitive, and emotional functioning, as well as social interactions, relationships and identity formation. Because people who have experienced multiple traumas do not relate to the world in the same way as those who have not had these experiences, they require services and responses that are sensitive to their unique experiences and needs.[9]
Toxic stresses, such as abuse and neglect, are strongly linked to poor health outcomes across one’s lifespan and trauma-informed care is one approach to caregiving based on these effects. Caregivers in trauma-informed care strive to understand children’s behavior in the context of previous traumas they have experienced. Trauma-informed care for infants and toddlers begins with first recognizing the prevalence and potential impact these stresses can have during the first 3 years. Caregivers also provide supportive care, enhancing children’s feelings of safety and security, to prevent their re-traumatization in a current situation that may potentially overwhelm their coping skills.[10]
[1] Thompson, R. (2022). Social and personality development in childhood Is licensed CC BY-NC-SA
[2] California Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Foundations, 2009 by the California Department of Education is used with permission
[3] Zosh J.M. et. al., (2018) Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum Licensed (CC BY)
[4] Malle, B. (2022). Theory of mind. licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA
[5] Billeci, L., Narzisi, A., Campatelli, G. et al. Disentangling the initiation from the response in joint attention: an eye-tracking study in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. Is licensed CC BY
[6] Ehli S, Wolf J, Newen A, Schneider S and Voigt B (2020) Determining the Function of Social Referencing: The Role of Familiarity and Situational Threat. (CC BY).
[7] Child Abuse, Neglect, and Foster Care is shared under a not declared license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Diana Lang
[8] Child, Family, and Community (Laff and Ruiz) is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Rebecca Laff and Wendy Ruiz
[9] Ayre, K., & Krishnamoorthy, G. (2020). Understand and empathise is licensed under CC BY-SA.
[10] Sanders & Hall (2018). Trauma-informed care in the newborn intensive care unit: Promoting safety, security and connectedness.CC by NC SA 4.0
[11] Image by Joy Poeng is licensed CC BY-NC
[12] Image by Rachel Klippenstein-Gutierrez is licensed CC BY-NC | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/16%3A_Social_Development/16.06%3A_Relationships.txt |
Play and Social Development
Play is a valued process, not only for enjoyment and leisure but also for learning. Through play, children develop a sense of identity and an understanding of their social and cultural worlds. Children use play to explore and understand cultures, communities, and friendships (Paris, Beeve, & Springer, 2021). We gain a lot through playing, not just as children but also as adults. Play involves the mutual, sometimes complex, coordination of goals, actions, and understanding. For example, as infants, children get their first encounter with sharing (of each other's toys). Through these experiences, children develop friendships that provide additional security and support to those offered by their parents.[1]
Different Theories of Play
Cognitive theories presented a significant shift in theorizing about play by directing research toward the development of children's thinking processes and intellectual development. Piaget's (Piaget, 1962) developmental theory suggests that children progress through a series of distinct phases in their thought processes. According to his theory, children engage in types of play that mirror their current level of cognitive development. The role of play is to help them consolidate and practice recently acquired concepts and skills to prepare the child for the next spurt in learning and development. Vygotsky (1978) also believed that play has several roles in cognitive development. However, he differed from Piaget in maintaining that, when children play before they become actualized in real-life situations, they reveal potential new abilities. By creating their own scaffolding, children stretch themselves in areas like self-control, cooperation, memory, language use, and literacy by using private speech to direct, control, and structure their play interactions (Bodrova & Leong, 1996). According to Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1978), play promotes development by serving as a scaffold within the child's proximal development zone, helping them attain higher levels of functioning. Bruner (Bruner, 1972) focused on how childhood play contributes to problem-solving abilities that are important later in life. He argued that the means are more important than the ends when playing; children do not worry about accomplishing goals, which allows them to experiment with novel combinations of objects and behaviors that they are unlikely to try if under pressure to achieve a goal. Therefore, play promotes flexible problem solving, making it adaptively advantageous in human development and evolution.[2]
Stuart Brown (2010) argues that play is evolutionary and has the following properties:
• Purposeless/done for its own sake
• Voluntary
• Inherent attraction
• Freedom from time
• Diminished consciousness of self
• Improvisational potential
• Continuation desire
Gray (2013) also provides a list of features to describe play (with some overlap of Brown’s list). His conceptualization maintains that play:
• Is directed and chosen by the child
• Is as an activity in which the focus is not the end-state or a goal, but the means itself
• Consists of a structure that comes from the minds of the players and not external constraints
• Is imaginative and separate from real life
• Involves mental non-stressed activity.[3]
Parten's Stages of Play
Mildred Parten (1932) observed 2 to 5-year-old children and noted 6 types of play. She labeled 3 types as non-social (unoccupied, solitary, and onlooker) and 3 types as social play (parallel, associative, and cooperative). The list below describes each type of play. Younger children engage in non-social play more than older children; by age 5, associative and cooperative play are the most common forms of play (Dyer & Moneta, 2006).[1]
This list explains how children's play changes as they grow and develop social skills.
Unoccupied Play (Birth-3 Months): At this stage, an infant is making many movements with their arms, legs, hands, feet, etc. They are learning about and discovering how their body moves.
Solitary Play (3 Months-2 Years): This is the stage when a child plays alone. They are not interested in playing with others quite yet.
Spectator/Onlooker Behavior (2 Years): During this stage, a child begins to watch other children playing but does not play with them.
Parallel play (2+Years): A child plays alongside or near others but does not play with them.
Associative play (3-4 Years): When a child starts to interact with others during play, but there is not a large amount of interaction at this stage.
Cooperative Play (4+ years): When a child plays together with others and has an interest in both the activity and other children involved in playing.
Regardless of the differences in approaches and definitions, what contemporary theories have in common is the belief that play mirrors development. As the child grows and matures, play's appearance, function, and implications may change.
Infants gradually learn to identify commonalities with others and engage in social interactions. The development of such abilities relies on the personal experiences shared between people in specific contexts (Liebal et al., 2013). Social play may offer vibrant opportunities for children to acquire joint attention skills. Throughout the first year of life, during play especially, together infants and their caregivers begin to construct social games, such as peek-a-boo (Bruner & Sherwood, 1976; Fantasia et al., 2014; Gustafson et al., 1979; ). Social attention is a crucial ability for the emergence of play situations. Social attention allows children to focus on other
people's characteristics such as facial expressions, gaze direction, gestures, and vocalizations. When the direction of another's attention has been identified (for example, through gaze following or point following), we can shift our attention to focus simultaneously on the same external object or event as our partner (Bourjade, 2017).[5]
Play as Interaction with Peers: Building Friendships
Interactions with peers provide the context for social learning and problem solving, including the experiences of social exchanges, cooperation, turn-taking, and the demonstration of the beginning of empathy.[6] In peer relationships, children learn to initiate and maintain social interactions with other children. They also develop skills for managing conflicts, such as turn-taking, compromise, and bargaining. Before the age of 1, infants not only react emotionally to their peers’ emotional states but also engage with them in simple forms of interaction involving behaviors within their motor abilities. For example, Vandell and Wilson (Vandell, 1987) showed that interactions between infants become increasingly reciprocated from 6- to 9-months, as reflected by the presence of turn-taking.[7]
In order to foster adaptive social development, it is important to understand the factors contributing to establishing relationships with peers, such as empathy and prosocial behaviors (Howes, 1992; Sebanc, 2007; Vandell, 1980). Evidence suggests that before their first birthday, infants are sensitive and respond to their peers’ emotions, which could represent potential precursors of empathy and prosocial behaviors (Decety, 2010; Decety, 2012; Geangu).[7]
Social interactions with peers also allow older infants to experiment with varying roles in small groups and in different situations, such as relating to familiar versus unfamiliar children. Interactions are stepping stones to relationships.[6] Over time, infants develop close relationships with children they know, such as other children in the family, childcare setting, or neighborhood. Relationships with peers provide young children with the opportunity to develop strong social connections.
Toddlers’ relationships with their peers have many positive developmental outcomes later on, including higher levels of emotional mental health and school success (Ladd, 1987; Tomada, 2005; Taylor, 1994; Vandell , 2000). A toddler’s ability to empathize with her peers, to comfort and to share toys with them, increases her chances of becoming a friend or preferred play partner.
Young children's expression of positive and negative emotions may play a significant role in developing social relationships. Positive emotions appeal to social partners and enable connections to form, while problematic management or expression of negative emotions leads to difficulty in social relationships (Denham & Weissberg, 2004). In Fabes’ 2001 study, children who used emotion-related words were better liked by their classmates ( Fabes et al., 2001).[6]
[1] Thompson, R. (2022). Social and personality development in childhood Is licensed CC BY-NC-SA
[2] Lynn A. Barnett, "Children's Perceptions of Their Play: Scale Development and Validation", is licensed CC BY
[3] Zosh J.M. et. al., (2018) Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum Licensed (CC BY)
[4] Contemporary Theories on Development is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Martha Lally & Suzanne Valentine-French
[6] California Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Foundations, 2009 by the California Department of Education is used with permission
[7] Crespo-Llado, M.M., Vanderwert, R., Roberti, E. et al. Eight-month-old infants’ behavioral responses to peers’ emotions as related to the asymmetric frontal cortex activity. is Licensed (CC BY)
[8] Image by Nina Kuchkovskiy is licensed CC: BY-NC
[9] Image by Anonymous is licensed CC: BY-NC
[10] Image by Amanda Taintor is licensed CC BY-NC
16.08: Conclusion
Conclusion to Social Development
Although closely linked with emotional development in most infant/toddler development discussions, social development is worthy of its own exploration: significant milestones in social development occur for infants and toddlers. A caregiver’s understanding of the foundations of social development plays a critical role in supporting and developing each social milestone. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/16%3A_Social_Development/16.07%3A_Social_Development_Through_Play.txt |
Introduction to Supporting Social and Emotional Development in Group Care
Today’s infants spend more time in care than any other time in history. Caregivers must spend time intentionally supporting the social-emotional development of infants and toddlers. Research indicates that the ways teachers interact with children is crucial in determining how they develop. (Curby and Brock, 2013) Early relationships are essential for healthy social-emotional development in infants. The most fundamental need of infants and toddlers is to have close, nurturing relationships that help them build a sense of emotional security.[1] Because of the social and relationship-based nature of young children's learning, responsive caregiving supports the foundation for most other learning in young children. (Jarvis, 2020).
[1] California Department of Education, 2019 Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission
17.02: Overall Influence of Care on Development
The Research
Previous research shows that children's early experiences in outside-home care promote the development of both disadvantageous and favorable developmental outcomes, depending on the total amount, the quality, and the timing of the childcare exposure (Maccoby and Lewis, 2003; Belsky, 2006; Vandell et al., 2010; Huston et al., 2015; Brownell and Drummond, 2018). Conclusions from the prior evidence in early childhood education and care tend to vary depending on the age of the child. For children aged 0–3 years, the research evidence is mixed, with some studies indicating benefits for outside-home care, some reporting negative effects, and some studies finding no effects at all (Melhuish, 2015). Several studies have shown that a high level of cumulative time spent in outside-home childcare, especially before the age of 4.5 years, is related to elevated levels of aggression, assertiveness, and disobedience in adolescence (Belsky, 2006; Vandell et al., 2010; Huston et al., 2015). By contrast, some studies have found that center-based childcare in the infant and toddler years may contribute to the development of social competence and prosocial behavior (Brownell and Drummond, 2018) or lower levels of later emotional or behavioral difficulties compared to informal childcare (Gomajee et al., 2017). Numerous studies have explored the benefits of center-based childcare, preschool and other forms of group-based care for children 3 years and older (Melhuish, 2015). Overall, previous findings suggest that the effects of early childcare depend on the child's developmental preparedness for outside-home care (e.g., metacognition and 'theory of mind' in the early years; Wellman et al., 2001; Chatzipanteli et al., 2014), as well as the characteristics of the care environment (such as quality of care). At age 3, children typically have not developed sufficient knowledge or skills to engage in social interaction without constant adult guidance (Rubin and Pepler, 1995; Huston et al., 2015). High quality, structural features in an early care environment (e.g., group size and/or child-to-staff ratio, and training, permanence, sensitivity and responsiveness of caretakers) have been raised as one major explanation for findings where center-based childcare may be beneficial even when the child is less than 3 years old (Brownell and Drummond, 2018).[1]However, high quality, center-based childcare can be challenging to achieve and maintain, which places more pressure on the child's developmental preparedness to cope in the care environment.
Most often, center-based care from ages 0 to 3 (or even up to 4.5 years) has been seen as a risk for a child's later social development (Belsky, 2006; Vandell et al., 2010). Yet some studies have shown that if center-based daycare is of sufficient quality, it may do no harm or even be beneficial for the socio-emotional development of children under the age of 3 (Gomajee et al., 2017; Brownell and Drummond, 2018). It is possible that due to the limited self-control, theory of mind, and language capabilities of a young child, the quality of childcare (e.g., peer group sizes and adult-to-child ratio) tends to matter more in the toddler years than in the preschool years, regardless of the form of care. This may explain why previous findings with children aged 0–3 years vary more than with older children: the benefits of group-based outside-home care for later development is more evident (Melhuish, 2015). Children closer to preschool age can cope in groups more independently than toddlers, likely making them less dependent on the quality of care.[1 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/17%3A_Supporting_Social_and_Emotional_Development_in_Group_Care/17.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Supporting Social-Emotional Development
During the first 4 months of life, babies begin to engage with the world and its people (Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology 1995). Infants' motivation to seek relationships and build knowledge drives them to move their bodies, focus their attention, and send and receive signals (the basis for development and learning in all domains). Their active engagement with the social and physical world works hand in hand with the care they receive from adults, especially when the adults are responsive to them.[1]
Noticing and responding during this rapid developmental period can be challenging for caregivers. To be in tune with young infants, adults need to know when an infant wants a social response and when an infant is making a discovery through individual exploration and observation.[1]
Early care centers must establish policies and practices to support responsive caregiving, so infants learn to regulate their emotions and to develop a sense of predictability, safety, and responsiveness in their social environments. The importance is so great that research experts have broadly concluded that, in the early years, "nurturing, stable and consistent relationships are the social-emotional development key to healthy growth, development, and learning" (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2000, p. 412). High-quality relationships increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for young children. Professionals working in childcare settings can support the social–emotional development of infants and toddlers in various ways: interacting directly with young children, communicating with families, arranging the physical space in the care environment, and planning and implementing curriculum.
Emotions drive early learning. Infants and toddlers are active, curious learners who experience pleasure when receiving a positive response from a nurturing adult or when making a discovery. This pleasure motivates children to continue engaging in positive interactions, exploring, and learning. The emotional responses of infants and toddlers communicate their interests and needs. It is important for caregivers to read infant and toddler cues to pick up on learning interests and meet needs. By reading emotional cues, caregivers determine whether to engage in interaction with a child or wait quietly to see what the child will do next. Emotional cues let teachers know if children are ready for more interaction, want more complexity added to their play, or are tired and need quiet time. Responsiveness to a child's emotional cues strengthens the teacher–child relationship and creates new possibilities for the child's learning in the social–emotional domain and in all other developmental domains.[2]
Children are learning from their interactions with caregivers every moment of every day. Through relationships with children, educators provide an environment in which children can learn and thrive in the company of a trusted adult. Caregiving routines offer essential social experiences and support for infants and toddlers because they happen regularly and consistently. By experiencing and participating in these routines, children learn what it means to be nurtured in a caring way. Children also learn to engage in reciprocal, responsive interactions in supportive relationships with adults.
Caregivers should understand how important adults are for modeling, demonstrating affection and responsiveness to the needs of young children, and teaching interaction attitudes and skills.[1]
• Consider what is culturally appropriate for the child and include non-verbal gestures (such as a warm smile, a wave hello, a reassuring touch, and eye contact) that convey "you are welcome here."
• Notice and acknowledge prosocial behavior.
• Create a prosocial environment: model prosocial interactions, create cozy areas for 2, provide opportunities for children to cooperate and help others, and create small groups for stories and meals.
• Recognize children's signals, cues, unique temperaments, likes and dislikes. (Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, 2018; Interactions matter, 2016)
• Create a program with predictable daily routines.
• Model behavior, attitudes and healthy emotional responses in interactions with children and other adults.
• Establish developmentally and culturally appropriate expectations for children's behavior, especially concerning self-control and self-regulation.
• Narrate for children what they are observed doing and expressing, providing language to describe their thoughts and feelings and to clarify others' feelings.
• Provide specific feedback to children about their efforts, reinforcing their choices that support learning and linking their actions to outcomes.
• Coach and guide children's behavior by using positive, respectful phrasing and tone to prompt problem solving and to give brief instructions and reminders.
• Help infants and toddlers understand emotional cues (facial expressions, body language, tone of voice). This can be fostered by allowing the children to play freely with their peers (learning through experience), or by modeling your own thought processes by thinking out loud ("I wonder what it means when Hayden is crying?") (Paris et.al., 2021)
• Create a positive environment that allows infants and toddlers to explore freely, in which they often hear "yes" and seldom hear "no."
• Provide materials that relate to feelings and emotional expressions such as books, stories and songs about feelings.
[1] Image by Anonymous is licensed CC: BY-NC
[2] California Department of Education, 2019 Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission
[3] Image by NappyStock is in the public domain
17.04: Physical Environments Supporting Social-Emotional Develop
Supporting Social-Emotional Development in Environment Design
Childcare centers must also consider how the environment can be designed to support social-emotional development. If the environment is set up to make it easy for children and caregivers to make eye contact and communicate with each other, caregivers can be emotionally and physically available to children and the children can develop a secure base for learning. Care routines are more emotionally satisfying in environments that are arranged for interaction and the children's participation. The environment influences everyone's moods—children and teachers alike—and the amount of stress experienced in the childcare setting. An environment with ample fresh air, peaceful colors, different kinds of lighting, places to move freely, and easy access to play materials promotes a sense of calm that allows children and teachers to focus on exploring and learning together.[1]
Caregivers can arrange the physical environment in many ways to scaffold and support peer interactions and relationships. Environments should provide spaces for small groups of children to explore materials and each other. Non-mobile infants who cannot physically move closer to peers or see peers should be placed on their backs, 1 to 3 feet apart at various times during the day so they can see and hear each other.[1]
Additional Environment Suggestions to Support Social-Emotional Development:
• Provide soft, easy-to-hold toys which allow infants and toddlers to give and take toys with other children.
• Create individual, small group, and open spaces in the environment.
• Offer places where children can feel "alone" (e.g., individual cardboard boxes, carpeted riser boxes, cubby spaces).
• Provide small areas where a child can be with 1 or 2 friends and open spaces where groups of children can gather.
• Make a collection of small cards with each child's picture.
• Stock multiples of popular toys so children can engage in parallel and associative play (this also reduces peer conflict).
[1] California Department of Education, 2019 Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission
[2] Infant Environment by Jennie Powell is used with permission
17.05: Conclusion
Conclusion to Supporting Social-Emotional Development in Group Care
Caregivers offer an incredible gift by recognizing and giving appropriate responses to an infant's early developmental achievements. This attention communicates that the infant's path is progressively moving along and is understood and supported. It lays the foundation for the young infant's emerging emotional security and attachment relationships, which are essential for learning and development throughout the early years.[1]
[1] California Department of Education, 2019 Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/17%3A_Supporting_Social_and_Emotional_Development_in_Group_Care/17.03%3A_Practices_Supporting_Social-Emotional_Development.txt |
Introduction to Attachment and Reciprocal Relationships
Some of the most rewarding experiences in people's lives involve developing and maintaining close relationships. For example, some of the most significant sources of joy include falling in love, starting a family, being reunited with distant loved ones, and sharing experiences with close others. And not surprisingly, some of the most painful experiences in people's lives involve disrupting critical social bonds, such as separation from a spouse, losing a parent, or being abandoned by a loved one.
Why do close relationships play such a profound role in human experience? Attachment theory is one approach to understanding the nature of close relationships. In this section, we review the origins of the theory, the core theoretical principles, and how attachment influences human behavior, thoughts, and feelings across the life course.[1]
[1] Attachment Through the Life Course by R. Chris Fraley is licensed under CC: BY-NC-SA
18.02: Attachment Theory
Bowlby
Attachment theory was developed initially in the 1940s by John Bowlby, a British psychoanalyst who attempted to understand the intense distress experienced by infants who had been separated from their parents. Bowlby (1969) observed that infants would go to extraordinary lengths to prevent separation from their parents or reestablish proximity to a missing parent. For example, he noted that children who had been separated from their parents would often cry, call for their parents, refuse to eat or play, and stand at the door in desperate anticipation of their parents' return. At the time of Bowlby's initial writings, psychoanalytic writers held that these expressions were manifestations of immature defense mechanisms operating to repress emotional pain. However, Bowlby observed that such expressions are common to many mammalian species and speculated that these responses to separation might serve an evolutionary function.[1]
Phases of Attachment
According to Bowlby, there are 4 phases of attachment (table 1[2]). Infants and Toddlers go through stages or milestones similar to physical, cognitive, and language development stages.
Bowlby Phases of Attachment
Stage
Age
Characteristics
Pre-attachment Phase
Birth - 6 weeks
The innate signals attract the caregiver (grasping, gazing, crying, smiling while looking into the adult's eyes).
When the baby responds positively, the caregivers remain close by.
The adults encourage the infants to remain close as it comforts them.
Babies recognize the mother's fragrance, voice, and face.
They are not yet attached to the mother and don't mind being left with unfamiliar adults as they have no fear of strangers.
Attachment in Making
6 weeks to 6 to 8 months
Infants respond differently to familiar caregivers than to strangers. The baby would smile more to the mother, babble to her, and become quiet more quickly whenever picked by the mother.
The infant learns that their actions affect the behavior of those around them.
They tend to develop a "Sense of Trust" where they expect the caregiver's response when signaled.
They do not protest when they get separated from their caregiver.
Clear Cut
6 to 8 months - 18 months - 2 Years
The attachment to a familiar caregiver becomes evident.
Babies show "separation anxiety" and get upset when an adult they rely on leaves them.
This anxiety increases between 6 -15 months, and its occurrence depends on the temperament and the context of the infant and the behavior of the adult.
The child would show signs of distress if the mother leaves, but with the supportive and sensitive nature of the caretaker, this anxiety could be reduced.
Formation of Reciprocal Relationship
18 months to 2 years
With the rapid growth in representation and language by 2 years, the toddler can understand a few factors that influence the parent's coming and going and predict their return, leading to a decline in separation protests.
The child can negotiate with the caregiver to alter their goals via requests and persuasions.
The child depends less on the caregiver along with age.
[1] Attachment Through the Life Course by R. Chris Fraley is licensed under CC: BY-NC-SA
18.03: Attachment Behavior vs. Attachment Bond
Behaviors and Bonds
While Bowlby focused on phases of attachment, Mary Ainsworth (a student of Bowlby) believed attachment is a secure base from which to explore. She found that adult attachment representations, the construct of how adults remember their own childhood experiences, might influence the attachment categorization of their children. In attachment theory, it is important to distinguish attachment behavior and attachment bond. Attachment behavior is behavior on the part of the infant that promotes proximity to the attachment figure, such as smiling and vocalization (Carlson & Sroufe; Cassidy). Attachment bond, however, is described by Ainsworth and Bowlby not as a dyadic and reciprocal relationship existing between the infant and his caregiver but rather as the infant's interpretation of his relationship with his mother (Cassidy). Evidence supports the positive influence of secure mother-child attachment on later development (Slade & Aber, 1992). A secure attachment system serves as a foundation for the expression of emotions and communication in future relationships, provides opportunities for self-regulation of affect (the ability to consider emotional processes before responding), and creates the potential for resilience (Belsky & Cassidy; Carlson & Sroufe; Cassidy; Karen, 1990).[1]
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a Creative Commons CC: BY-NC-SA
[1] Image by Marie Harris is licensed CC By-NC | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/18%3A_Attachment_and_Reciprocal_Relationships/18.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
The Experiment
Ainsworth continued studying the development of attachment in infants. Ainsworth and her colleagues created a laboratory test that measured an infant's attachment to their parent. The test is called The Strange Situation Technique because it is conducted in a context unfamiliar to the child and therefore likely to heighten the child's need for his or her parent (Ainsworth, 1979).[1]
During the procedure, which lasts about 20 minutes, the parent and the infant are first left alone while the infant explores the room full of toys. Then a strange adult enters the room and talks for a minute to the parent, after which the parent leaves the room. The stranger stays with the infant for a few minutes, and then the parent again enters, and the stranger leaves the room. A video camera records the child's behaviors during the session, which trained coders later code. The investigators were especially interested in how the child responded to the caregiver leaving and returning to the room, referred to as the "reunion." Based on their behaviors, the children are categorized into one of four groups. Each group reflects a different kind of attachment relationship with the caregiver. One style is secure, and the other three styles are referred to as insecure. [1]
• A child with a secure attachment style usually explores freely while the caregiver is present and may engage with the stranger. The child will typically play with the toys and bring one to the caregiver to show and describe from time to time. The child may be upset when the caregiver departs but is also happy to see the caregiver return.
• A child with a resistant (sometimes called ambivalent) attachment style is wary about the situation in general, particularly the stranger, and stays close or even clings to the caregiver rather than exploring the toys. When the caregiver leaves, the child is extremely distressed and is ambivalent when the caregiver returns. The child may rush to the caregiver, but then fails to be comforted when picked up. The child may still be angry and even resist attempts to be soothed.
• A child with an avoidant attachment style will avoid or ignore the mother, showing little emotion when the mother departs or returns. The child may run away from the mother when she approaches. The child will not explore very much, regardless of who is there, and the stranger will not be treated much differently from the mother.
• A child with a disorganized/disoriented attachment style seems to have an inconsistent way of coping with the stress of the strange situation. The child may cry during the separation, but avoid the mother when she returns, or the child may approach the mother but then freeze or fall to the floor. [1]
The Strange Situation Technique
Stages
Event
Secure
Insecure-Avoidant
Insecure-Resistant
Insecure-Disorganized
1
Exploration with caregiver in the room
Explores freely
High exploration, but unfocused
Stays close to caregiver
Chaotic exploration
2
Stranger enters room and talks with caregiver
May interact with stranger
Indifferent to stranger
Afraid of stranger when caregiver present
Afraid or uncertain about stranger
3
Caregiver leaves room and child is left alone with stranger
May be upset when caregiver leaves
Not upset when caregiver leaves
High distress when alone with stranger
Unpredictable (may be upset or not)
4
Reunion with caregiver
Happy to see caregiver return
Ignores or avoids caregiver
Ambivalent: wants contact with caregiver but is upset at them
Reacts to return of caregiver with distress
How common are the attachment styles among children in the United States? It is estimated that about 65 percent of children in the United States are securely attached. Twenty percent exhibit avoidant styles, and 10 to 15 percent are ambivalent. Another 5 to 10 percent may be characterized as disorganized (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).[1]
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a Creative Commons CC: BY-NC-SA
18.05: Contact Comfort
Harlow's Research
When Bowlby was initially developing his attachment theory, there were alternative theoretical perspectives on why infants were emotionally attached to their primary caregivers (most often, their biological mothers). Bowlby and other theorists, for example, believed that there was something important about the responsiveness and contact provided by mothers. Other theorists, in contrast, argued that young infants feel emotionally connected to their mothers because mothers satisfy more basic needs, such as the need for food. The child comes to feel emotionally connected to the mother because she is associated with the reduction of primary drives, such as hunger, rather than the reduction of drives that might be relational in nature.[1]
In a classic set of studies, psychologist Harry Harlow placed young monkeys in cages that contained two artificial surrogate "mothers" (Harlow, 1958). One of those surrogates was a simple wire contraption; the other was a wire contraption covered in cloth. Both of the surrogate mothers were equipped with a feeding tube so that Harrow and his colleagues had the option to allow the surrogate to deliver or not deliver milk. Harlow found that the young macaques spent a disproportionate amount of time with the cloth surrogate as opposed to the wire surrogate. Moreover, this was true even when the infants were fed by the wire surrogate rather than the cloth surrogate. This suggests that infants' strong emotional bond with their primary caregivers is rooted in something more than whether the caregiver provides food per se. Harlow's research is now regarded as one of the first experimental demonstrations of the importance of "contact comfort" in establishing infant-caregiver bonds.[1]
[1] Attachment Through the Life Course by R. Chris Fraley is licensed under CC: BY-NC-SA | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/18%3A_Attachment_and_Reciprocal_Relationships/18.04%3A_Ainsworth_Strange_Situation.txt |
Creating a Model of Attachment
As research accumulated showing the long-term effects of the quality of attachment between young children and their caregivers, researchers became very interested in why — as in "Why does attachment at an early age predict later aspects of social, emotional, and cognitive development?" They began exploring possible mediating mechanisms to answer this question, looking for the pathways through which attachment exerts its effects. Research has uncovered several mechanisms, including neurophysiological pathways (e.g., children in securely attached dyads have lower levels of stress reactivity), but among the most interesting are young children's (and the later older children's, adolescents', and adults') internal working models of close relationships (Crittenden, 1999; Dykas & Cassidy, 2011; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).[1]
As attachment develops, day-to-day interactions between infant and caregiver form the basis of the infant's internal working model – a set of beliefs and expectations they build about the availability and reliability of their attachment figures (Sherman, Rice, & Cassidy, 2015). These internal working models are constructed starting at a very young age, about the age of four months, as soon as children can mentally represent their experiences. It is as if over the first few years of life infants are "taking mental notes" about how these important relationships function, and the effects of these expectations can be seen in the ways infants wait after sending out distress signals to see if their caregiver is on the way or they need to escalate their communications. The specific, repeated experiences babies have with their caregivers become more generalized and internalized over time, indicating whether the attachment figure can be counted on for dependable comfort and protection in times of distress and serve as a secure base from which the infant can explore the world. This internal representation then informs what types of behavior can be expected from others, i.e., whether a person will pick them up when they are upset or should be turned to for comfort when sad.[1]
As children start to interact and form relationships with others, like other family members, preschool teachers, and peers, their internal working models form the basis of their expectations for how people will respond to them and therefore shape their behavior in relationships. Negative experiences with one caregiver may, for example, create the expectation that people are not to be trusted. So young children are less able to be their authentic selves or reach out to others when they are upset and need comfort. Because these internal working models influence children's behavior, they may shape the quality of their subsequent relationships, all the way up until adolescence and young adulthood (Allen & Miga, 2010). For example, adolescents with insecure-resistant internal working models may show ambivalence about close romantic relationships, both intensely wanting them and being resentful about how their needs are being met (Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010).[1]
Though these internal representations tend to stay somewhat stable for children with secure attachments, they can continue to grow and change as children age and gather more social experiences. For example, consistent, warm, and caring interactions with other attachment figures, such as grandmothers or preschool teachers, have the power to change those beliefs allowing children to rework a negative internal working model into a positive one. Internal working models can be reworked at any age, as children encounter family members, neighbors, teachers, or other adults who provide high-quality care. For adolescents, close and caring friendships can provide opportunities to reconsider and expand their understanding of relationships. The good news is that, as adults, we can become aware of our internal working models of relationships and see how we may be bringing things from previous relationships into subsequent ones in ways that are causing us problems. Then we can intentionally rework our expectations about others in ways that make it easier for us to form secure relationships with our friends, romantic partners, and eventually our children.[1]
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a Creative Commons CC: BY-NC-SA
18.07: Support for Caregivers
Caregivers and Attachment
Sometimes parents need help in responding consistently to their infant's needs. A positive and strong support group can help a parent and child build a strong foundation by offering assistance and positive attitudes toward the newborn and parent. In a direct test of this idea, Dutch researcher van den Boom (1994) randomly assigned some babies' mothers to a training session in which they learned to better respond to their children's needs. The research found that these mothers' babies were more likely to show a secure attachment style than the mothers in a control group that did not receive training.[1]
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a Creative Commons CC: BY-NC-SA
18.08: Attachment and Culture
Culture
In the years that have followed Ainsworth's ground-breaking research, researchers have investigated various factors that may help determine whether children develop secure or insecure relationships with their primary attachment figures. Some cultural differences in attachment styles have been found (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000). For example, German parents value independence, and Japanese mothers are typically by their children's sides. As a result, the rate of insecure-avoidant attachments is higher in Germany, and insecure-resistant attachments are more elevated in Japan. However, these differences reflect cultural variation rather than actual insecurity (van Ijzendoorn and Sagi, 1999). [1]
One of the critical determinants of attachment patterns is the history of sensitive and responsive interactions between the caregiver and the child. In short, when the child is uncertain or stressed, the ability of the caregiver to provide support to the child is critical for their psychological development. It is assumed that such supportive interactions help the child learn to regulate their emotions, give them the confidence to explore the environment and provide them with a safe haven during stressful circumstances.[2]
It is essential to note that the attachment theory work of Bowlby and Ainsworth focused on Westernized caretaking ideals in their determination of healthy, secure attachment. What is considered "ideal" in Westernized culture is not necessarily prioritized in other cultures. Sensitivity and caution are required in determining if observed attachment patterns are adaptive within the child's environment.[2] Overall, secure attachment is the most common type of attachment seen in every culture studied thus far (Thompson, 2006). [1]
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a Creative Commons CC: BY-NC-SA
[2] Culture and Psychology is licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA
[3] Image by piqsels is in the public domain | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/18%3A_Attachment_and_Reciprocal_Relationships/18.06%3A_Internal_Working_Models_of_Attachment.txt |
Separation Anxiety
All children and teens feel some anxiety. It is a normal part of growing up. Separation anxiety is normal in very young children. Nearly all children between 18 months and 3 years old have separation anxiety and are clingy to some degree.[1]
Even securely attached toddlers find separation challenging. Separation anxiety can be seen in many forms. As caregivers or parents, we might see it in various ways. Some characteristics that infants and toddlers may experience are :
• Tears at drop off
• Asking to be held during transition times or for long periods throughout the day
• Extra clingy during transitions
• Challenges with nap, diapering, mealtime
• Night terrors during sleep at home, or calling out a parent's name during sleep
• Intense reactions and behaviors to situations that would not normally impact them.
How to support children during separation anxiety
Age
Developmental Stage
What You Can Do
Birth to 8 months
Although infants recognize a voice, face, smell, and caregiving style, as long as their needs are being met they can easily be comforted by another caregiver.
A new caregiver may not immediately be able to read a baby's unique cues for attention, diaper changes, and hunger. The caregiver can observe the baby with the parent to learn as much as possible about how they communicate needs.
8 months to 2 years
During this stage of development, it is expected that separation anxiety begins, and children may become frightened and upset when their parents leave.
Reminding children that mommy or daddy always comes back can help ease fears. Transitional objects such as a special blanket or soft, snuggly toy can also alleviate anxiety. Providing experiences that focus on sensory exploration can be calming when children are distressed.
2 to 5 years
Preschoolers usually handle separation reasonably well, but life stresses like a new sibling, problems in the family or a new caregiver can trigger separation anxiety.
Sometimes children cope by regressing to earlier behavior like tantrums, thumb sucking, or baby talk. Reading children's books with separation themes can help your children with their feelings. Providing opportunities for children to role-play using puppets can help them work through their feelings of fear or sadness.
How to support children during separation anxiety[1]
[1] Children’s Home Society of California - Family Education Program - Separation Anxiety Easing the transition from home to child care - www.chs-ca.org
18.10: Attachment Disorder
Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD)
Another attachment pattern is reactive attachment disorder (RAD). Students with RAD typically have serious aggression problems, often hurting others and showing little empathy or remorse. Safety-seeking behaviors, anxiety, and depression are characteristic of the condition and an inability to be genuinely affectionate with others or develop strong connections. Students with RAD feel the need to be in control and may demonstrate bossy, argumentative, and defiant behaviors. Reactive attachment disorder is a mental health disorder diagnosed according to the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Here it is characterized as a stress-related disorder that can only be caused by a lack of adequate care (social neglect) during childhood. Children with RAD demonstrate withdrawn, internalizing type behaviors. RAD is only diagnosed in children and must be evident within the first five years of life.
RAD is a deficit in the child's capacity to manage their feelings. If we think about RAD from the perspective of the child with it, characteristics could be described as follows:
• I do relationships and conflict poorly because my social, emotional, and behavioral skills are ineffective in my interactions with others. My difficulties' frequency, duration, and intensity in many settings set me apart.
• Why am I like this? My need for comfort, nurturing, and connection as a baby/young child were not met. My world is or has been one of neglect, fear, and hurt. As a result, I cannot articulate my feelings and thoughts.
• I threaten, I throw tantrums; I am aggressive, I am demanding of your attention, I am manipulative, charming, and angry. Behaving like this is the only way I can control relationships. (Flaherty, 2011)[1]
Remember that it is not our place to diagnose but to understand. Regardless of the type of attachment difficulty a child may have, they all need:
• Safety
• A caring adult who will be there
• Emotional support
• Understanding
• Behavior support
• Routines and consistency
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed CC BY-NC-SA | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/18%3A_Attachment_and_Reciprocal_Relationships/18.09%3A_Attachment_and_Separation_Anxiety.txt |
Introduction to Temperament
Perhaps you have spent time with several infants. How were they alike? How did they differ? How do you compare your siblings or other children you have known well? Have you heard stories from your parents or grandparents about what you were like as a baby? If you have any videos of yourself as a baby, what do they depict about how you thought about the world? You may have noticed that some infants seem to be more comfortable, friendly or in a better mood than others and that some are more sensitive to noise or more easily distracted. These differences may be attributed to temperament. Temperament refers to innate neurophysiologically-based characteristics of infants, including mood, activity level, and emotional reactivity, noticeable soon after birth.[1]
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0,
19.02: Overview of Temperament
Overview
It is estimated that 40–60% of the observed variability in personality is due to temperament characteristics or traits (Cloninger et al., 1993; Bouchard, 1994; Loehlin et al., 1998; Robins, 2005) ( Fisher, Island, Rich, Marchalik, and Brown 2015). Temperamental traits are biologically based characteristics present early in life that contribute to individual differences in regulating and modulating emotion, attention, behavior, and motor activity (Rothbart, 1981, 2007; Gartstein and Rothbart, 2003) (Spinelli, Fasolo, Shah, Genovese and Aureli, 2018). Temperament is an inherited pattern of cognition, emotion, motivation, and behavior; it is influenced by experience (Terracciano et al., 2005; Roberts and Mroczek, 2008) but is mainly stable across the lifespan (Bouchard, 1994; McCrae et al., 2000; Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000). According to Rothbart et al. (2000), “temperament arises from our genetic endowment. It influences and is influenced by the individual's experience, one of the outcomes is the adult personality." Although some theorists argue that there is no rigid distinction between personality and temperament (McCrae et al., 2000), elements of temperament traditionally include behavioral dispositions from childhood to adulthood, observable in preverbal infants and generalizable to non-human animals (Rothbart et al., 2000; Clark, 2005) ) ( Fisher, Island, Rich, Marchalik, and Brown 2015). Because development emerges through bidirectional interactions between the infant and his environment (Sameroff, 1975), temperament can influence how the infant receives and responds to stimuli in his environment, impacting subsequent development.[1]
[1] Fisher HE, Island HD, Rich J, Marchalik D and Brown LL (2015) Four broad temperament dimensions: doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01098 is licensed CC BY
19.03: Temperament Dimensions
Dimensions of Temperament
In a landmark study in 1956, Chess and Thomas (1996) evaluated 141 children's temperament based on parental interviews. Referred to as the New York Longitudinal Study, infants were assessed on 9 dimensions of temperament.[1] Behaviors for each one of these traits are on a continuum. These traits include:
• Activity level
• Rhythmicity (regularity of biological functions)
• Approach/withdrawal (how children deal with new things)
• Adaptability to situations
• Intensity of reactions
• ·Threshold of responsiveness (how intense a stimulus must be for the child to react)
• Quality of mood
• Distractibility
• Attention span
• Persistence
The Temperament Chart explains these traits in more detail.[2]
Temperament Traits Chart
Dimensions
Typical Behavioral Indicator
The Child...
Activity Level refers to the general level of motor activity when one is awake or asleep. Motor activity involves large and small muscle movements like running, jumping, rolling over, holding a crayon, picking up toys, etc.
High Activity
is squirmy and active.
Low Activity
prefers less noise and movement.
Distractibility is the ease with which one can be distracted; or conversely, his level of concentration or focus.
High Distractibility
is very distracted by discomfort, noticing even small signals such as hunger, being sleepy, etc.
Low Distractibility
can handle discomfort, does not seem very bothered at all.
Intensity refers to the energy level of one's emotional response, both positive and negative.
High Intensity
has strong or intense positive and negative reactions.
Low Intensity
has muted emotional reactions.
Regularity relates to the predictability of biological functions such as eating, sleeping, etc.
Highly Regular
has predictable appetite, sleep, and elimination patterns.
Irregular
has unpredictable appetite, sleep, and elimination patterns.
Sensitivity describes how responsive one is to physical stimuli such as light, sound, and textures.
High Sensitivity
is sensitive to physical stimuli, including sounds, tastes, touch, and temperature changes; is a picky eater; and has difficulty sleeping in a strange bed.
Low Sensitivity
is not sensitive to physical stimuli, including sounds, tastes, touch, and temperature changes; can fall asleep anywhere; and tries new foods easily.
Approachability is one's initial response to new places, situations, or things.
High Approaching
eagerly approaches new situations or people.
Low Approaching
is hesitant and resistant when faced with new situations, people, or things.
Adaptability describes how easily one adjusts to changes and transitions.
High Adaptability
requires very small amount of time to feel ok in new situations.
Low Adaptability
may cry or stay close to a caregiver before approaching a new situation.
Persistence relates to the length of time one continues in activities in the face of obstacles.
High Persistence
continues with a task or activity in the face of obstacles and does not get easily frustrated.
Low Persistence
moves on to a new task or activity when faced with obstacles and gets frustrated easily.
Mood is one's tendency to react to the world primarily in a positive or negative way.
Positive mood
reacts to the world in a positive way and is generally cheerful.
Serious Mood
reacts in an observant, sometimes more serious way and tends to be thoughtful about new situations.
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0,
[2] U.S Department of Health and Human Services. (2018, May 30). Introduction to Temperament. ECLKC. is in the public domain | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/19%3A_Temperament/19.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Types of Temperament
Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig, and Korn found that these broad patterns of temperamental qualities are remarkably stable through childhood.[1] Based on the infants' behavioral profiles, most infants can be categorized into 3 general types of temperament.:[2]
Table Types of Temperament
Types of Temperament
Type
Percentage
Description
Easy
40%
- Able to quickly adapt to the routine and new situations
- Remains calm
- Easy to soothe
- Usually in a positive mood
Difficult
10%
- Reacts negatively to new situations
- Has trouble adapting to routine
- Usually negative in mood
- Cries frequently
Slow-to-warm
15%
- Low activity level
- Adjusts slowly to new situations
- Often negative in mood
The percentages do not equal 100% as some children could not be placed neatly into one of the categories.[3] Approximately 65% of children fit one of the patterns. Of the 65%, 40% fit the easy pattern, 10% fell into the difficult pattern, and 15% were slow to warm up. Each category has its strength and weakness, and one is not superior to another.[4] Children's long-term adjustment depends on the fit of their temperament with the nature and demands of the environment in which they find themselves. Caregivers’ responses appear to be more important than child temperament.[5]
[1] Culture and Psychology by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
[2] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0,
[3] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0,
[4] Culture and Psychology by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
[5] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0,
19.05: Goodness of Fit
The Importance of Fit
An important aspect of Thomas & Chess's (1977) research considers the interaction of child temperament with caretaker personality and parenting style. They proposed that a match between the needs of a child's temperament with parental care would enhance the healthy development of self-regulation and the child's sense of self. This critical balance is known as goodness of fit.[1] A caregiver's ability to accurately read and work well with a child determines the goodness of fit between the child's temperament, parenting and caregiving. The goal for parents and caregivers in an infant or toddler center is to provide a good fit or match, meaning their styles align well and communication and interaction can flow. Temperamentally active children can do well with parents who support their curiosity but could have problems in a more rigid family.[2]
This goodness of fit between child temperament and parental demands and expectations can cause struggles. Rather than assuming discipline alone will improve children's behavior, temperament knowledge may help a parent, teacher, or other caregiver gain insight to work more effectively with a child. It is helpful to view temperamental differences as varying styles rather than 'good' or 'bad' behavior. For example, a persistent child may be difficult to distract from forbidden things such as electrical cords, but this persistence may serve her well in other areas such as problem-solving.[3]
What is most beneficial about the goodness of fit concept is that it does not require adults and children to have matching temperaments. The parent or caregiver does not have to change who they are; they can alter or adjust their caregiving methods to positively support their child's natural way of responding to the world. For example, if a child is highly active, a caregiver may pack extra activities in the diaper bag for waiting times at visits to the doctor, grocery store, etc. For a child who needs some extra time in approaching new activities, giving the child time to adjust and feel safe sets them up for more success. [4]
[1] Culture and Psychology by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
[2] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0,
[3] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0,
[4] U.S Department of Health and Human Services. (2018, May 30). Introduction to Temperament. ECLKC. is in the public domain
19.06: Temperament Culture and Environment
Factors Effecting Temperament
Thomas and Chess also studied temperament and environment. One sample consisted of white middle-class families with high educational status; Puerto Rican working-class families made up the other sample. They found several differences. Parents of middle-class children were more likely to report behavior problems before the age of 9, and the children had sleep problems. This report may be because children start preschool between the ages of 3 and 4. De Vries (1974) followed Masai (tribe in East Africa) infants and mothers for several years during a period of famine. The researcher found that Masai infants who were more demanding were more likely to survive during periods of environmental stress than infants who were more docile. The researcher suggested that infants who were more aggressive and demanding – or in temperament terms, more difficult – were more likely to be fed and have their needs met than docile infants who might have been easier to ignore. The findings from these cross-cultural studies of temperament demonstrate how interaction between ecology, temperament, and culture impact an individual.[2]
[1] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0,
[2] Culture and Psychology by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licens | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/19%3A_Temperament/19.04%3A_Temperament_Styles.txt |
The Influence of Language on Temperament
The developmental role of temperament has been primarily studied in the social-emotional domain, where it is usually associated with external and internal problems, challenging behaviors (i.e., Ullsperger et al., 2016; Rubin et al., 2017), and social competence (i.e., Baer et al., 2015; Penela et al., 2015). However, temperament also plays a role in language acquisition and partially accounts for the variability in how much language a child has and how language is acquired (e.g., the age of the first word and rate of vocabulary development and syntactic emergence) during the first 2 years of life (Bates et al., 1991; Lieven, 1997). Research in the language domain focused on caregiver (typically parents) contributions, with a large portion looking into the mother's quality and input of language. These studies find consistent results on the impact of those factors on infant language outcomes (see Soderstrom, 2007 for a review). Fewer studies exist on how a child contributes to language development, such as the influence of temperamental traits on language acquisition. One potential explanation for the differences in available research studies is the failure to consider an approach (Sameroff, 1975) which includes both the child's contributions to language development (i.e., temperament) and the caregiver's role (e.g., quality of the maternal input).[1]
The first year of life is characterized by the rapid emergence of the infant's ability to decode the streams of speech directed to them and begin to associate sounds with symbolic meaning. Two characteristics based on temperament, attentional control and the capacity for self-regulation, are thought to support or inhibit language development (Canfield and Saudino, 2016). However, research has not universally agreed on this point. Infants who demonstrated better attentional abilities also demonstrated higher language comprehension at the end of the first year (Dixon and Smith, 2000; Morales et al., 2000) and greater language vocabulary at 21 months (Dixon and Shore, 1997; Dixon and Smith, 2000; Salley et al., 2013). These findings suggest that greater sustained attention to the environment might facilitate a child's abilities to focus on events rich in language, contributing to vocabulary development. However, other research yielded contradictory findings (Kubicek and Emde, 2012; Pérez-Pereira et al., 2016). These disparities indicate a need for additional research. Overall, the literature suggests that greater expressions of positive affect may foster more significant social exchanges in infancy (a critical period of language development), helping facilitate language development in the infant and toddler period (See Pérez-Pereira et al., 2016, Morales et al., 2000, Laake and Bridgett, 2014, Slomkowski et al., 1992 and Kubicek and Emde, 2012). Another body of literature suggests that a difficult temperament is adversely associated with language development. McNally and Quigley (2014) found that infants rated as having a more difficult temperament at 9 months had lower global language scores at 3 years of age, with similar associations demonstrated for infants at 21 months of age (Dixon and Smith, 2000; Salley and Dixon, 2007). One potential explanation contends that an infant's difficult temperament may interfere with his ability to control the attention needed to process language-relevant information, affecting his development during a critical period of language acquisition. [1]
Despite research suggesting an association between emotion regulation and language development, additional literature has demonstrated contradictory findings. Some studies have failed to find an association between the negative affect in infancy (e.g., distress to limitations scale and difficult temperament) and language competencies in the toddler years (Dixon and Smith, 2000; Morales et al., 2000; Westerlund and Lagerberg, 2008; Canfield and Saudino, 2016). Adding to the complexity of the association between emotion regulation and language, Moreno and Robinson (2005) found that greater expressions of joy and greater expressions of anger at 8 months were associated with better expressive language at 30 months. This study indicates that emotional expression (both positive and negative) may facilitate language development by providing opportunities for the infant to develop language through exchanges with her caregiver (Molfese et al., 2010).[1]
These contradictory findings suggest that while attentional and emotional temperamental aspects may play a role in fostering interactions that enhance language development, further research is needed to clarify the association between attention, emotion regulation, and development of language competencies.[1]
[1] Spinelli M, Fasolo M, Shah PE, Genovese G and Aureli T (2018) The Influence of Early Temperament on Language Development: The Moderating Role of Maternal Input. CC BY.
19.08: Temperament and Later Personality
Continuing Influences
Parents gaze into the faces of their newborn infants and wonder "What kind of person will this child become?" They scrutinize their baby's preferences, characteristics, and responses for clues of a developing personality. Temperament is a foundation for personality growth, but it is not the whole story. Although temperament is biologically based, it interacts with the influence of experiences from the moment of birth (if not before) to shape personality (Rothbart, 2011). Temperamental dispositions are affected by the support level of parental care, and personality is shaped by the goodness of fit between the child's temperamental qualities and the characteristics of the environment (Chess & Thomas, 1999). For example, an adventurous child would find goodness of fit and supported personality growth with parents who regularly take her on weekend hiking and fishing trips. Much like the other facets of social development, personality results from the continuous interplay between biological disposition and experience.
Personality develops from temperament in other ways (Thompson, Winer, & Goodvin, 2010). As children mature biologically, temperamental characteristics emerge and change over time. A newborn is not capable of much self-control, but temperamental self-regulation changes become more apparent as brain-based self-control capacities advance. For example, a newborn who cries frequently doesn't necessarily have a grumpy personality; over time, with sufficient parental support and an increased sense of security, the child might be less likely to cry.
Personality is made up of many other features besides temperament. Children's developing self-concept, motivations to achieve or socialize, values and goals, coping styles, sense of responsibility and conscientiousness, and many other qualities are encompassed in personality. Biological dispositions and the child's experiences with others (particularly in close relationships) both guide the growth of individual characteristics.
Personality development begins with the biological foundations of temperament but becomes elaborated, extended, and refined over time. The newborn whose parents first gazed upon him becomes an adult with depth and nuanced personality.[1]
[1] Thompson, R. (2022). Social and personality development in childhood CC BY-NC-SA. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available in our Licensing Agreement.
19.09: Conclusion
Conclusion to Temperament
In psychology, temperament broadly refers to consistent individual differences in biologically based behavior and is relatively independent of learning, a system of values, and attitudes.[1] Temperament doesn't change dramatically as we grow up. Positive traits can be enhanced, and negative traits can be channeled; however, the child's underlying reaction style is unlikely to change. If we are lucky, we learn how to work with and manage our temperamental qualities.[2]
[1] Culture and Psychology by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
[2] Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a CC BY- NC-SA 4.0, | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/19%3A_Temperament/19.07%3A_Temperament_and_Language_Development.txt |
Introduction to Influences on Development
A child's relationships with family members shape how he experiences relationships outside the home. "What young children learn, how they react to events and people around them, and what they expect from themselves, and others are deeply affected by their relationships with parents, the behavior of parents, and the environment of the homes in which they live" (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000).[2]
[1] California Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission
[2] California Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission
20.2.01: Agents of Socialization and Enculturati
The Girl in the Window
In the summer of 2005, police detective Mark Holste followed an investigator from the Department of Children and Families to a home in Plant City, Florida to investigate a neighbor’s statement concerning a shabby house on Old Sydney Road. A small girl was observed peering from one of its broken windows. The report seemed odd because no one in the neighborhood had seen a young child in or around the home, which had been inhabited by a woman, her boyfriend, and two adult sons for the past three years.
Who was the mystery girl in the window?
Upon entering the house, Detective Holste and his team were shocked. It was the worst mess they'd ever seen, infested with cockroaches, smeared with feces and urine from both people and pets, and filled with dilapidated furniture and ragged window coverings.
Detective Holste headed down a hallway and entered a small room. He found a little girl staring into the darkness with big, vacant eyes. A newspaper report later described the detective's first encounter with the child: "She lay on a torn, moldy mattress on the floor. She was curled on her side . . . her ribs and collarbone jutted out . . . her black hair was matted, crawling with lice. Insect bites, rashes, and sores pocked her skin . . . She was naked—except for a swollen diaper. … Her name, her mother said, was Danielle. She was almost seven years old" (DeGregory 2008).
Detective Holste immediately carried Danielle out of the home, and she was taken to a hospital for medical treatment and evaluation. Through extensive testing, doctors determined that, although she was severely malnourished, Danielle could see, hear, and vocalize normally. Yet she wouldn't look anyone in the eyes, didn't know how to chew or swallow solid food, didn't cry, didn't respond to stimuli that would typically cause pain, and didn't know how to communicate either with words or simple gestures such as nodding "yes" or "no." Likewise, although tests showed she had no chronic diseases or genetic abnormalities, the only way she could stand was with someone holding onto her hands, and she "walked sideways on her toes, like a crab" (DeGregory 2008).
What had happened to Danielle? Simply put, neglect. Only the basic requirements for survival were fulfilled in Danielle's care. Based on their investigation, social workers concluded that she had been left almost entirely alone in rooms like the one in which she was found. Without regular interaction—the holding, hugging, talking, explanations, and demonstrations given to most young children—she had not learned to walk or speak, eat or interact, play, or even understand the world around her. From a sociological point of view, Danielle had not been socialized.
Socialization is the process through which people are taught to be proficient members of society. It describes how people come to understand societal norms and expectations, accept society's beliefs, and be aware of societal values. Socialization is not the same as socializing (interacting with others, like family, friends, and coworkers); it is a sociological process that occurs through socializing. As Danielle's story illustrates, even the most basic human activities are learned. Physical tasks like sitting, standing, and walking had not automatically developed for Danielle, and without socialization, Danielle hadn't learned about some material cultural norms of her society: for example, she couldn't hold a spoon, bounce a ball, or use a chair for sitting. She also hadn't learned about her nonmaterial culture, such as its beliefs, values, and norms. Danielle didn't understand the concept of family and didn't know cultural expectations for using a bathroom for elimination. Most importantly, she hadn't learned to use the symbols that make up language, through which we learn about who we are, how we fit with other people, and the natural and social worlds in which we live.
Sociologists have long been fascinated by circumstances like Danielle's—in which a child receives sufficient human support to survive but virtually no social interaction—because they highlight how much we depend on social interaction to provide the information and skills needed to be part of society or develop a "self."[1]
Socialization occurs in societies big and small, complex and straightforward, preindustrial and industrial. It happens in the United States, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.[2] Families teach children, both directly and by example, how to behave and how the world works. Eurocentric cultures encourage children to use socially expected norms such as "thank you." They teach kids how to dress appropriately for the culture in which their family is living. They introduce children to religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them. They even teach children how to think and feel. This uniquely human form of learning, where the cultural tools for success are passed from one generation to another, is called enculturation. Enculturation agents are individuals and institutions that shape individual adaptions to a specific culture to ensure growth and effectiveness.[3]
[1] Little and McGivern (nd) Introduction to Sociology - 1st Canadian Edition is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
[2] Kuppens, S and Ceulemans, E. Parenting Styles: A Closer Look at a Well-Known Concept. Is licensed CC: BY
[3] Culture and Psychology by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed CC BY-NC-SA
20.02: Socialization and Enculturation Agents
Institutional sources of socialization and enculturation are called agents of socialization. The first of these, the family, is undoubtedly the most important agent of socialization for infants and young children.[1]
The Role of Culture
Families and their children are interconnected with cultural communities. Each family has beliefs, values, and expectations rooted in cultural traditions that also reflect unique perspectives of the family. No two families follow cultural rules precisely the same way, and most families are connected to and influenced by multiple cultures. Williams and De Gaetano (1985) describe culture as a way of life of a group of people, including shared views of the world and social realities, values and beliefs, roles and relationships, and patterns or standards of behavior. Through culture, children gain a sense of identity, belonging, and beliefs about what is important in life.[2]
Much cultural knowledge is transmitted implicitly. "Before the start of formal education, children begin to acquire competencies and skills that the cultural group considers important for maturation and independence as an adult. Sometimes this is conveyed directly through intentional teaching by the family. These skills are often absorbed indirectly through select experiences provided in family life. For example, an older child may learn to take care of a younger one just by watching her mother or an older sibling".[2]
[1] Introduction to Diversity Studies by Northeast Wisconsin Technical College is licensed under a CC BY-NC-CA
[2] California Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/20%3A_Influences_on_Development/20.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Culturally Sensitive Care
A person's approach to nurturing infants and toddlers reflects one's values. "Every aspect of how parents and teachers care for, educate, and think about young children is embedded in cultural perspectives and beliefs. How you respond when children cry, how you decide it is time for them to eat, what you define as healthy and as sick, what you believe are appropriate clothes to wear, how you express love, what you expect to do for children, and what you expect them to do on their own are examples of the millions of ways that culture affects who we are as people, parents, and teachers" (Keyser 2017). Familiar values may be considered natural, whereas unfamiliar values may feel different or wrong. Interactions involving differing cultural norms can create feelings of confusion, discomfort, curiosity, and judgment, as each person often feels their norms are "right”. When children enter care, children and families may be navigating an unfamiliar cultural context. During this process, caregivers need to maintain an open, interested demeanor with each individual and family to learn about their unique culture.
Suppose an infant or toddler caregiver begins to feel uncomfortable with a family's practice with their child or the family's request for a certain type of care. This presents an opportunity for the infant or toddler caregiver to think about their values, cultural influences, and how the family's values might be equally important and relevant in their cultural context. When learning about other cultures, it is important to suspend judgment: to separate understanding of cultures from judgments of their values. "If judgments of values are necessary, as they often are, they will thereby be much better informed if they are suspended long enough to gain some understanding of the patterns involved in one's familiar ways as well as in the sometimes-surprising ways of other communities" (Rogoff 2003). If teachers use these situations to grow in understanding and appreciation of multiple perspectives, they will more deeply understand their own and others' cultural influences.[1]
Learning about others' cultures takes time, interest, respect, communication, and observation. Since many cultural beliefs are learned implicitly, infant and toddler caregivers may not be experienced in articulating them. When a parent picks up her child from the blanket and hands him to you to say goodbye, she may not be able to verbalize "I feel more comfortable knowing that I am physically giving you my baby to care for when I leave. I can't just leave when he is alone on the floor." This creates an opportunity for an infant and toddler caregiver to pick up on the parent's cue and hold the baby for goodbye or ask the parent next time "Would you like me to hold Leo so he can say goodbye to you?" When childcare centers ask parents to write down their cultural practices on intake forms, parents often do not know what to write or what this means. One effective way to learn about and uncover cultural practices is to ask parents about familiar routines and respectfully probe more deeply if the routines are different from the early learning and care culture (Tonyan 2015).[1]
The early childhood profession in the United States has historically emphasized that young children be set on a path toward independence and encouraged to care for themselves as early as possible. Encouraging older babies to feed themselves reflects the profession's emphasis on independence, while many families value interdependence more than independence. This value can be observed in the ways children are taught to help one another and to respect the needs of others (such as staying at the table until everyone is finished). Early learning and care programs have begun to modify program practices and policies to weave the concepts of both interdependence and independence into the fabric of care.[1]
In circumstances when an infant or toddler caregiver cannot incorporate a family's request or preference for care into the center's practices, it is still possible to demonstrate respect for the family’s culture. For example, a caregiver might say to the child: "I know you love to sleep in your swing at home. Your papa tells me how contented you are sleeping there. At school, I will help you nap, too. We can rock a little, and then I'll put you in your comfy bed and pat your back." The caregiver may tell the parent "Thanks Tomas for letting me know how you help Benji sleep at home. It may take him a few days to learn a new way to go to sleep here, but I'll be sure to help him with a little extra rocking so it won't feel so different, and we can check in every day to see how it is going."[1]
[1] California Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission
20.04: Influences of Language Culture and Caregiving
Language
Language is an important transmitter of culture and an essential component of a child's identity (California Department of Education 2016, I/T Guidelines).. From the beginning of life, children learn the sounds of their family's language or languages and engage in interactions rooted in their family's culture. Supporting language development is critical because a child's home language develops hand in hand with all other domains. Responsive infant and toddler programs create a climate of respect for each child's culture and language. An essential part of being culturally and linguistically responsive is valuing and supporting each child's use of home language as they acquire English. Inviting parents to use their home language in the care setting, read to children, or do activities in their home language conveys to families that their culture and language are a vital part of the curriculum.[1]
[1] California Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/20%3A_Influences_on_Development/20.03%3A_Providing_and_Supporting_Culturally_Sensitive_Care.txt |
Connection Between Caregivers and Parents
The relationship between the family and the caregiver is critical. For a family, the experience of entering an infant or toddler setting may be highly emotional. Family members often experience anxiety separating from their child and may feel conflicted about leaving their child.
Caregivers actively promote attachment between a child and her family. Learning about each child's unique family, particularly the family members and others who care for the child, supports the child's significant relationships. When a child has a disability or other delay, early interventionists may also have a role in the care process. The teacher is the bridge connecting the child and family during the day: the more the teacher partners with the family in supporting attachment with their child, the more successful the child will be in the program. This collaborative relationship between families and caregivers benefits children in many ways. The quality of the relationship, the ease of two-way communication, and the mutual respect of expertise give both families and caregivers the information necessary to provide the best care and education for the child. It communicates to the child that their world is working in synchrony. The more respect and comfort shared between families and teachers, the more comfortable and secure the child is.
The nature of relationships between programs and families has changed significantly. Historically, teachers and caregivers saw their role with parents as providing parent education and parent involvement opportunities, both more deficit-driven than strengths-based. Currently, there are more strengths-based and collaborative approaches to the program–family relationship. These approaches include family-centered care, transformative family engagement, and a pedagogical approach from educators in Reggio Emilia, Italy. They believe that "the participation of the families is just as essential as is the participation of children and educators" (Edwards, Gandini, and Forman 1998, 21).[1]
The concept of family engagement (versus parent involvement) recognizes all members of a child's family (not just parents) and emphasizes the importance of the reciprocal relationship between families and schools. Program staff must be aware that family participation in both the program and the home can take on many forms and depend on each family's unique characteristics (Halgunseth et al. 2009). Family engagement occurs when there is an ongoing, reciprocal, and strengths-based partnership between families and early care programs (Halgunseth et al. 2009).[1]
Principles of family engagement include:
• encouraging and validating family participation in decision-making related to their children's education;
• consistent, two-way communication through multiple forms that are responsive to a family's linguistic preference;
• collaboration and exchange of knowledge;
• collaboration between families and programs in creating learning activities in the home and community;
• creation of a home environment that values learning;
• collaboration between families and teachers in establishing home and school goals for children;
• support and training for education professionals in creating a comprehensive system for promoting family engagement (Halgunseth et al. 2009).[1]
The teachers in Reggio Emilia, Italy, also support the idea that family engagement, collaboration, and the sharing of mutual expertise strengthen the program for children, families, and teachers. "The ideas and skills that the families bring to the school and, even more importantly, the exchange of ideas between parents and teachers favors the development of a new way of educating and helps teachers to view the participation of families not as a threat but as an intrinsic element of collegiality and as the integration of different wisdoms" (Edwards, Gandini, and Forman 1998).[1]
Families know the child's and family's history and significant events; the child's personality, routines and schedules; important relationships; style of exploring and learning; ways of communicating; disabilities; and health history. Taking time to understand important family knowledge is key to supporting infants’ and toddlers' healthy psychological and physical growth. Equally important is the communication to the family letting them know about their child's day, sharing updates and information about the day, communicating moments when their child is thinking about them, and recognizing the loving interactions you see between the child and parent.[1]
Struggles and Challenges in Building Partnerships
There are times when caregivers struggle to find a way to respect and build trust with a family. The teacher may feel like family members are not trying, do not understand their child, are not responsive to their child's cues, or care for their child in inappropriate ways. An infant or toddler caregiver needs to determine if the child is safe, but it is also important to understand the family along a developmental and cultural continuum. When we think about child development, we expect an infant to go through specific steps in learning. We do not expect him to walk before he can turn over. If we think about families along a similar developmental continuum, we may be better able to partner with them from a strengths-based perspective. For example, suppose a family is not reading their child's cues but is clearly excited to have a baby. In that case, you could acknowledge the love: "It is so clear how much you love your baby. I can see it in your eyes" and you could make a small observation: "I notice when you move from one side of the stroller to the other that Sammy is watching you. He is so observant." In this way, you are using a strengths-based approach to leverage a new perspective for the parent. Sometimes differences of opinion arise between the program and a family about how to care for children. Addressing these differences often provides opportunities for teachers to learn and grow together with families. Teachers must initiate conversations with family members to learn their thoughts about caring for their child. Even when a family belongs to the same cultural community as the teacher, the teacher's perspective may differ from the family, as each person interprets cultural rules and expectations differently.[1]
When issues arise involving cultural differences, educators can use the three-step procedure of Acknowledge, Ask, and Adapt. To acknowledge is to communicate awareness of the issue, convey sincere interest and responsiveness, and involve the family in seeking a joint solution. To ask is to learn about the parent's precise point of view by restating what the parent is saying and paying attention to verbal and nonverbal responses. To adapt is to work with family members toward a solution by searching for areas of joint agreement and negotiating on the crucial issues (adapted from Virmani and Mangione 2013, 72–5).[1]
[1] California Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission
20.06: Conclusion
Conclusion to Influences on Development
The quality of interactions between parents and children, teachers and children, and parents and teachers matter to infants and toddlers (Virmani and Mangione 2013). Learning and development happen within the context of children's relationships with their families and teachers and the relationships between their families and teachers. Parents and teachers both play a central role in children's learning. The relationships children form in their early years are critical to successful learning and development throughout their lives. Educators of young children can engage with the family, culture, language, and community when building programs and developing relationships. Learning how to build authentic collaboration, two-way communication, reflective practice, and strong communities of support with families enables teachers to honor and leverage the resources and multiple perspectives of the parent community.[1]
Through a welcoming relationship, the child's teachers begin to understand the family's perspectives, strengths, needs, routines, hopes, and expectations. As educators, when we understand there are many successful ways to care for and educate children, we can collaborate with parents to better understand the diversity of cultural perspectives through dialogue, listening, collaboration, and sensitive observation.[1]
[1] California Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/20%3A_Influences_on_Development/20.05%3A_Creating_Positive_Caregiver_Parenting_Relationships.txt |
Introduction to Licensing and Regulations
Child care quality is a concept with no easy answer and many different variables. The safety and health conditions of child care facilities, availability of learning materials, teaching qualifications, and caregiver and child interactions can determine the quality of care (Slot, 2018). High-quality child care programs provide long-lasting positive outcomes. (see, e.g., Abner et al., 2013; Almond & Currie, 2011; Barnett, 2008; Burchinal et al., 2010; NICHD and Duncan 2003; Nores & Barnett, 2010). (Karoly, 2009). [1]
Since it can be difficult for parents to easily tell just by observing a child center if the care is quality care, judgments about quality may not reflect the actual quality observed by experts in the field (Barraclough & Smith, 1996; Cryer & Burchinal, 1997; Cryer et al., 2002). Alternative approaches such as regulations, accreditation, licensing, and quality reporting systems are used to remedy this disconnect and improve quality in child care settings. Licensing and regulations are more accessible and less costly than other alternative routes to improve quality. These standards generally concentrate on a narrow set of readily observable quality aspects, such as group size, child–staff ratio, and cleanliness of the childcare setting, providing minimum quality standards (Karoly, 2009). The government has a role in setting and implementing the standards for child care quality through these approaches (Pekkurnaz, Aran, & Aktakke, 2021).[1]
Child care quality generally aggregates into two broad categories: structural quality and process quality. The structural components of quality are generally more easily observed and evaluated and include infrastructure, staff-child ratio, education level and staff experience, and the child care facility (Burchinal, 2010; Helburn & Howes, 1996; Slot, 2018). Process quality refers mainly to the presence of developmentally appropriate equipment, materials, and learning activities, characteristics of the child–staff interactions, and the teaching style of educators when performing those activities in childcare settings (Burchinal, 2010; Helburn & Howes, 1996; Slot, 2018). [1]
[1] Pekkurnaz, D., Aran, M.A. & Aktakke, N. Does quality matter in determining child care prices? (2021). is licensed CC-BY
21.02: Understanding Licensed Care and License Exempt Care
Defining Types of Care
In California, licensed providers undergo an application and review process with Community Care Licensing (CCL) and are required to comply with specific health and safety regulations. License-exempt care is not regulated by Community Care Licensing, although there may be other government agencies that monitor their activities.
Four main groups of childcare providers are exempt by California from obtaining a childcare license.
• The first group includes individuals who care for a relative's children or who care for the children of one other family and their children. Certain parent cooperatives, in which families rotate care unpaid, are also exempt.
• The second group includes public and private non-profit programs that offer recreational services. These programs include some community centers and most parks and recreation programs.
• The third group includes businesses that offer limited childcare to their clients and customers. These programs usually require that the parent or guardian remain on the premises and that they remove their children within a specified amount of time.
• A fourth group includes programs overseen by state agencies other than Community Care Licensing. For example, organized camps managed by the Department of Public Health and heritage schools that the Department of Education oversees.
[1]
Licensed Child Care Reporting Requirements
Licensed child care providers submit reports to Community Care Licensing to ensure current records. Most reports are the same between a center and home-based providers, although some differences might exist between the two types of programs.
Most reports fall into two major categories:
Reporting of unusual incidents
• outbreaks of communicable diseases, such as mumps or measles
• suspected child abuse
• also, incidents that put children in danger, such as their wandering away from the facility unattended
• and injuries to children that require medical intervention
Reporting related to the overall operation of a facility
• personnel changes
• address changes
• and modifications to your facility
Reporting specific to the type of program include:
• Family childcare providers must report information about any adult moving into or out of the home where the facility operates.
Childcare centers must report the appointment of a new facility director and changes in board membership.[1]
Additional Resources:
[1] California Department of Social Services . Care Center General Licensing Requirements | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/21%3A_Licensing_and_Regulations/21.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Section 101152
A criminal background check is required for people who work or regularly spend time in a licensed childcare center or for anyone who resides in a private home where a family childcare facility operates.
There are different background check requirements for family childcare homes and childcare centers.
Every adult who works or lives in the household must undergo a background check for family childcare homes. Including residents who:
• are not providing care directly to children,
• are not on the premises during caregiving hours,
• children 18 years of age or older, or who turn 18 while still living in the home,
• and any adult living in a different part of the home, such as an in-law unit, a rented room, or a rented guesthouse on the same property as the family childcare home.
Everyone who works or volunteers at a center must undergo a background check, with a few exceptions for center-based facilities.
These exceptions include:
• Specific volunteers who provide time-limited services do not need to obtain a criminal record clearance.
• For example, medical professionals who have already been cleared as a condition of licensure
• college students who volunteer less than 16 hours per week, are not left alone with children and are directly supervised at all times by an employee with a criminal record clearance.
• Legal guardians or relatives of the children in care also don't need a criminal record clearance.
Adults must obtain a criminal record clearance to work in a licensed childcare facility. Beyond minor traffic violations, adults with a prior criminal history can request a criminal record exemption if they have not been convicted of a felony or any crime perpetrated against children. Relatives of the children in care and specific volunteers are not required to obtain a clearance. Also, in both family childcare homes and childcare centers, if you cannot provide documentation that everyone who has access to your facility has undergone a required background check, you will be subject to a type A citation and a civil penalty. [1]
Additional Resources:
Background Check Requirements for Caregivers
What is a Civil Penalty?
Infant Care Center Director Qualifications And Duties Summary Section 101415
An infant center director must meet the requirements of Section 101215.1, and the following:
• Experience requirements shall be completed in an Infant Care Center or a comparable group child care program with children less than five years of age.
• At least three semester units completed must be related to infant care.
• The director shall appoint a substitute director when the infant director is temporarily away from the Center.
• In centers where an assistant director is required, the assistant director shall act as a substitute.
• A fully qualified infant care teacher can act as a substitute for the director or the assistant director.
• If the director's absence is more than 30 consecutive days, a substitute director shall meet the qualifications of a director.[2]
Assistant Infant Care Center Director Qualifications And Duties Summary Section 101415.1
• An assistant director shall be present if the Center has 25 or more infants in attendance. The assistant director has to be a fully qualified infant teacher and has completed, with passing grades, at least three-semester units in administration at an approved college. This course work may be completed within one year of employment of the assistant director.
• The assistant director shall work under the direction of the center director.
Infant Care Teacher Qualifications Duties Summary Section 101416.2
• In addition to Section 101216.1, infant care teachers need to have taken and passed at least 3 semesters units in early childhood education or child development and 3-semester units in the care of infants from an approved college.
• After employment, a teacher who has not completed the 12 required semester units shall complete with passing grades, at least 2 units each semester until the 12-semester units are completed.
• To be a fully qualified infant care teacher, they shall:
• Complete 12-semester units, with passing grades, in early childhood education or child development. At least 3 units shall be related to the care of infants.
• Have a least six months of experience in a licensed infant care program or comparable program for children under five years old. [1] [2]
Infant Care Aide Qualification And Duties Summary Section 101416.3
• An aide must work under the supervision of the director or a fully qualified teacher, except when observing sleeping infants.
• Aides shall participate in an on-the-job training program.
• An aide shall provide direct care and supervision to infants.[2]
[1] California Department of Social Services . Care Center General Licensing Requirements
[2] Appendix B- Title 22 Licensing Regulation Highlights is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jennifer Paris | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/21%3A_Licensing_and_Regulations/21.03%3A_Requirements_And_Qualifications_Of_Staff_Section_101152.txt |
Section 101216.3
Minimum teacher-to-child ratios are necessary to protect the health and safety of children in child care centers. These teacher-to-child ratios provide developmentally appropriate support to children of different ages, from infancy to school age. The ratios outlined by Community Care Licensing are minimal. Programs should always look to increase staffing beyond the minimum requirements to promote positive adult/child relationships and high-quality learning experiences. Although many programs desire to increase rations, many factors make it difficult for programs to maintain even these minimal ratios. [1]
Teacher-to-child ratios are based on several variables, including the number and ages of children in the facility and the nature of the care provided, such as naptime or outdoor play.
• Infant centers serving children from birth to age 2 need to have a minimum ratio of 1 fully-qualified infant teacher for 4 infants.
• In a room with more than 4 infants, up to a maximum of 12 infants, there must be 1 fully-qualified teacher responsible for the direct care and supervision of a maximum of 4 infants. In addition, if that fully-qualified teacher supervises aides with each aide accountable for the direct care and supervision of a maximum of 4 infants.
• If Community Care Licensing has approved the Center to offer a toddler component, a minimum ratio of 1 fully-qualified teacher for 6 children and a maximum group size of 12 children with 2 teachers or 1 teacher and 1 aide must be maintained.[1]
These ratios are the minimum required standards for health and safety. Especially when working with infants and toddlers, it is always recommended to increase the teacher-to-child ratio to better provide both small and large group activities for the children. Increasing these ratios also allows for more one-on-one time with individual children.
As described previously, teacher aides may be included in the ratio when certain conditions are met, including direct supervision by a teacher. The center director can be included in the ratio if actively engaged in teaching children. However, adults who provide clerical or custodial services do not qualify to be in the teacher-to-child ratio.[1]
Ensuring that qualified adults are present is critical to the safety of the children and it's important to develop a backup plan for teacher absences so that the minimum teacher-to-child ratios are always maintained.
Staff-Infant Ratio Summary Section 101416.5
• There shall be a ratio of one teacher to every four infants.
• An aide may be substituted for a teacher if a fully qualified teacher directly supervises no more than 12 infants.
• When in activities away from the Center there shall be a minimum of one adult to every two infants.
• The director may be counted in the staff-infant ratio when actually working with infants.
• There shall be one staff visually observing no more than 12 sleeping infants, as long as additional staff are available at the Center to meet the above ratios when necessary. [4]
Toddler Component In An Infant Care Center Summary Section 101417
• Licensees serving infants may create a special program component for children between 18 and 30 months.
• A ratio of one teacher for every 6 toddlers is required.
• An aide participating in on-the-job training can substitute for a teacher when directly supervised by a fully qualified teacher.
• The maximum group size is two teachers to 12 toddlers.
• The toddler program shall be conducted in areas physically separate from those used by older or younger children. [1] [4]
Additional Resources:
[1] California Department of Social Services . Care Center General Licensing Requirements
[2] Image by Amanda Taintor is licensed under CC BY
[3] Appendix B- Title 22 Licensing Regulation Highlights is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jennifer Paris | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/21%3A_Licensing_and_Regulations/21.04%3A_Teacher_to_Child_Ratios_in_Child_Care_Centers_Section_101216.3.txt |
Section 101216.3
Licensing regulations concerning the supervision of children in childcare centers focus on; children in care are always in view of a teacher or an aide to ensure their safety, an adult can be by a child's side at a moment's notice, and each child receives the attention they need while in care
In the context of licensing laws and regulations, supervision in child care centers refers to the visual supervision of children by teachers and aides at all times. Supervision helps prevent and minimize accidents and injuries in the child care setting and increases the quality of care. Supervision of children by caregivers must be 100% visual at all times, whether they are in the classroom, outdoors, or in any area of the child care center. Including being escorted by a teacher or aide to the restroom, whether individually or in groups. If one child needs to use the bathroom while the others are playing outdoors or are involved in indoor activities, supervision of the individual child and the larger group must always be maintained. Adequate supervision also needs to be maintained when children transition from one activity to another, such as from indoor to outdoor play. For example, as the children finish outdoor play and get ready to go indoors, a teacher many not allow some children inside while others are still outside unless sufficient supervision is available in each location.[1]
Infant Care Activities Section 101430
• The Center shall implement a written plan to ensure the provision of indoor and outdoor activities designed to meet the needs of the infants, including but not limited to quiet and active play; rest and relaxation; eating; toileting; individual attention; being held by a caregiver.
• All infants shall be allowed to nap/sleep without distraction or disturbances.
• No infant shall be forced to sleep, stay awake, or stay in the napping area.[2]
Staffing For Infant Water Activities Section 101416.8
• A ratio of one adult to two infants shall be required during activities near a swimming pool or any body of water. [2][1]
[1] California Department of Social Services . Care Center General Licensing Requirements
[2] Appendix B- Title 22 Licensing Regulation Highlights is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jennifer Paris
21.06: Children's Personal Rights Section 101223
Section 101223
What are children's rights in childcare?
They include:
• Children have the right not to be spanked, slapped, or physically hurt for any reason whatsoever.
• Children's sleep should not be interrupted, and they should not be kept from the use of the bathroom.
• Food cannot be withheld from children in order to discipline them.
• Children have the right to be free of mental abuse, such as coercion, intimidation, humiliation, ridicule, or threats. These are not allowed.
• Children can't be locked in a room or building. However, facilities may keep exterior doors and windows locked if they remain in compliance with local fire codes for a large family home or Center.
• Children cannot be placed or restrained in any device if it's not being used for its original purpose. For example, highchairs are for use only during meal time. Car seats are used only for transportation.
• Children can never be left alone in a car, including when they've fallen asleep in the vehicle.
• And you can never deny children prescribed medication or, if the situation arises, first aid or medical care. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/21%3A_Licensing_and_Regulations/21.05%3A_Supervising_Children_in_Child_Care_Centers_Section_101216.3.txt |
Section 1596.866
Childcare centers are required to have at least one person on-site at all times with documented proof of approved health and safety training.
Recommended training resources include:
• the American Red Cross,
• the American Heart Association,
• accredited colleges or universities,
• and any training facility or course certified by the Emergency Medical Service Authority (EMSA).
For both family child care and center-based licensees, the following courses are required:
• pediatric CPR,
• pediatric first aid,
• and preventive health practices training.
Suppose the person who obtained the license is absent from the facility during daily operations. In that case, there must be one person on site who has completed pediatric CPR and pediatric first aid. Licensees for family childcare homes must make sure that at least one staff member with a current, approved course completion card in pediatric first aid and pediatric CPR is on site at all times when children are present, and with the children when they are off site for facility activities.[1]
Additional Resources:
Infant Care General Sanitation Summary section 101438.1
• ll items used by pets and animals shall be kept out of the reach of infants.
• Each caregiver shall wash their hands with soap and water before feeding and after each diaper change.
• Areas that infants have access to shall be washed, cleared, and sanitized as follows: floors shall be vacuumed or swept and mopped daily and as often as necessary.
• Carpeted floors shall be vacuumed daily and cleaned at least every 6 months.
• Walls shall be washed with a disinfecting solution at least weekly.
• After each diaper change, diaper changing area shall be disinfected, including walls and floors and counter tops, sinks, drawers, and cabinets near the diaper changing area shall be washed.
• Objects mouthed by infants shall be washed and disinfected.
• All disinfectants and other hazardous materials shall be stored inaccessible to infants.
• Only dispenser soap in an appropriate dispenser shall be used.
• Only disposable paper towels in an appropriate holder or dispenser shall be used for hand drying.[2]
[1] California Department of Social Services . Care Center General Licensing Requirements
[] Appendix B- Title 22 Licensing Regulation Highlights is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jennifer Paris
21.08: Locks and Inaccessibility Requirements in Child Care Section 101238
Section 101238
Within licensing regulations, different requirements exist for inaccessible items to children and what's required to be locked up. Things that need to be made inaccessible include anything that could cause harm to a child, such as cleaning products or places like stairwells when children under the age of 5 are present. Items that need to be kept locked up include guns, ammunition, and poisons. Organizing a childcare facility to keep harmful things that need to be accessible to providers but inaccessible to children, such as cleaning supplies, requires environmental planning. The use of locks on dangerous items is a great way to keep children safe from harmful things. In addition to locks, there are other ways to make items and areas inaccessible to children. If you place items in out-of-reach cabinets, shelves, or drawers, they can be considered inaccessible. Using products labeled as childproofing devices and safety latches can make items inaccessible. Failure to keep items and areas inaccessible as regulations require is a health and safety violation. Any item or space that could cause harm to a child must be made inaccessible.[1]
If children under 5 are present, gates must be in place to ensure the following areas are inaccessible.
• Off-limits areas of your home or Center
• Areas used to store hazardous and dangerous materials
• Stairwells
• Fireplaces and open-faced heaters.
• Swimming or wading pools when not being used for adult-supervised water play
• hot tubs, ponds, and any other bodies of water.
Any sturdy lock that can't be tampered with is acceptable. A lock is a key or combination-operated mechanism used to fasten shut a door, lid, or the like. Products labeled as childproof devices and safety latches are not considered locks unless a key or combination operates them. Firearms and other weapons are not allowed on the premises of a child care center. In family child care homes, guns and ammunition must be locked in a gun safe or other storage units, guns must have a trigger lock on, or the firing pin may be removed from the firearm and stored separately. Weapons and ammunition must be stored apart from one another. There is zero tolerance for failing to keep guns stored and locked as required. Gun and ammunition violations result in citations and civil penalties.[1]
Additional Resources:
[1] California Department of Social Services . Care Center General Licensing Requirements
[2] Image by Amanda Taintor is licensed CC BY-NC | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/21%3A_Licensing_and_Regulations/21.07%3A_Health_And_Safety_Regulations_Section_1596.866.txt |
Section 101238
In the United States, drowning is the leading cause of unintentional death among children 1 to 4 years of age and is the second leading cause of death for children 5 to 14 years old (Center for Disease Control, Drowning facts 2022). Licensing regulations that address bodies of water help prevent these kinds of tragic accidents. Following these regulations minimizes the risk of water-related accidents in child care.
Research has shown that an infant face down can drown in just 1 inch of water. So almost all bodies of water are considered a potential hazard and must be treated with caution.
Examples include, but aren't limited to:
• swimming pools
• wading pools
• hot tubs
• creeks, streams, and ponds
If using a body of water such as a swimming pool or wading pool for organized play, supervise children closely. When the play session has ended, the equipment must be made inaccessible. Empty wading pools when not in use.
Often, water tables are used in child care centers and family child care homes for children's play. An adult must closely supervise when water tables are in use. When not in use, the container must be emptied, and children must not have access to water to fill the container independently.
There are additional regulations about water safety, specifically for child care centers.
• At least one supervising adult must have current water safety training, and stricter adult-child ratios are required for water activities.
• For infants from birth to 24 months, you will need 1 staff member for every 2 infants…
• …or 1 staff member for every 4 infants if there's an accessible body of water that children are less likely to drown in.
• For toddlers and older, one staff member for every six children is required no matter what type of body of water is present. Lifeguards are not counted as supervising adults.[1]
Specific regulations for pools
No pools at a facility can be accessible directly from a door or window, there must be additional fencing between the door or window and the pool. Pool fencing must be at least 5 feet high, have no openings wider than an inch and a half, and in no way obstruct a complete and clear view of the pool from the outside. In addition, the fence must have a gate that is self-closing and self-latching. When released, it must swing shut and latch on its own. It must also swing away from the water when opened, be kept closed when the pool is not in use and is not locked since it may be necessary for an adult to enter the pool area without having to find a key or remember a combination.[2]
Wading pools
• can only be used by children with direct adult supervision
• can only be filled immediately prior to use
• must be emptied immediately after every use.
[1] Image by Amanda Taintor is licensed CC BY-NC
[2] California Department of Social Services. Care Center General Licensing Requirements
21.10: Infant Care Transportation Summary Section 101425
Section 101425
• The driver has to be 18 years old or older to transport infants.
• The vehicle must contain a first-aid kit.
• Children must be secured in a child passenger restraint system, i.e., a car seat.
• Staff/infant ratios must be maintained whether the vehicle is moving or parked.
• Infants in vehicles shall have constant adult supervision and shall not be left unattended.[1]
[1] California Department of Social Services . Care Center General Licensing Requirements
21.11: Disaster Planning and Fire Safety Section 101174
Section 101174
Licensing regulations require child care centers to submit a written disaster plan identifying a plan to keep children safe during an emergency. The Community Care Licensing website offers emergency disaster planning forms that must be completed as part of a license application.
These plans require the following.
• How will you evacuate the children in case of an emergency?
• Where will you take the children if you cannot return to your facility immediately?
Centers must conduct a disaster drill at least every 6 months. Adults and children who are old enough should know their duties during drills and emergencies. Documentation of drill completion, including the date, must be kept. [1]
Additional Resources:
[1] California Department of Social Services. Care Center General Licensing Requirements | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/21%3A_Licensing_and_Regulations/21.09%3A_Bodies_of_Water_Requirements_in_Child_Care_Section_101238.txt |
Section 101227
How foods are stored and served is crucially essential to the health and safety of all children in childcare. Knowing Community Care Licensing's food-related requirements and remaining compliant with them are among the most critical responsibilities of a child care provider.
Licensing requirements regarding food service fall into two types. The first type covers food safety, emphasizing how and how long foods may be stored in child care centers. The second type covers the kinds of foods that may or may not be provided to children in care and the amount of allowed foods that centers need to have on hand. [1]
Food Safety Section
• Foodservice areas must have a sink, refrigeration, storage space for food, and hot and cold running water.
• Hot water must be hot enough to clean all dishes and utensils after use thoroughly.
• Food storage and preparation areas must be kept clean of dirt and debris and be free of pest contamination, mold, and other health hazards.
• All edible items must be stored separately from potentially hazardous items, such as cleaning materials and poisons, which means they cannot be stored on the same shelf or in the same cabinet, closet, or pantry.
• Refrigerators used to store food for children must be kept clean and in good working order.
• Food items must not be served to children if they show any signs of spoilage or contamination.
• In infant childcare centers, all food items provided by families, such as milk or formula, must be labeled with the child's name for whom they're intended, the contents of the container, and the date provided to the caregiver.
Although not required by regulations, it is a best practice not to allow the sharing of food brought from home by any children. This practice can help prevent allergic reactions and the spread of infectious diseases.
Infant Care Food Service Section 101427
• Each infant shall have an individual feeding plan completed before the infant's first day at the Center. This plan must be developed by the director, the infant's representative and/or physician.
• The plan shall include instructions for the infant's special diet, feeding schedule, breast milk or formula, schedule for introduction to solid/new foods, food consistency, likes and dislikes, allergies, and plan for introducing cups and utensils.
• This plan shall be updated as often as necessary.
• Bottle-fed infants shall be fed at least every four hours.
• Infant care centers shall have appropriate food available for the infants.
• The Center shall provide only commercially prepared formulas that are stored and prepared following the label.
• The infant's representative may provide formula or breast/mother's milk. Such formula or milk shall be bottled before being accepted by the Center.
• Bottles shall be labeled.[1]
• Center may heat formula or breast/mother's milk.
• The Center must keep a supply of nipples. Bottles/nipples can not be shared between infants unless sterilized.
• Infants unable to hold a bottle shall be held by staff for bottle feeding.
• Bottles cannot be propped; infants shall not carry a bottle while ambulatory; a bottle given to an infant able to hold his/her own shall be unbreakable.
• High chairs or appropriate seating equipment shall be used for infants during feeding. Infants unable to sit unassisted shall be held by staff for feeding.
• Bottles, dishes, and food containers brought from infant's home shall be labeled with infant's name and current date.
• Formula partially consumed in a bottle shall be discarded at end of each day.
• Food shall be discarded if not consumed within 72 hours of date on the container label.
• The infant care center shall not serve honey.
• Commercially prepared baby food in jars shall be transferred to a dish before being fed to the infant. Any food leftover in the dish at the end of a meal shall be discarded.
• The mother may make arrangements with the Center for privacy to nurse the infant.
• Bottles and nipples in Center shall be sterilized.
• Infants shall not be bathed in, and diapers or clothing shall not be rinsed in, the food preparation area.[2]
Infant Care Personal Services Section 101428
• There shall be a written toilet-training plan for each infant being toilet trained.
• Whenever a potty chair is used, it shall be placed on the floor and promptly emptied, cleaned, and disinfected after each use.
• No child shall be left unattended while on a potty chair or seat.
• Each child shall receive instruction and assistance in handwashing after use of the toilet. The infant shall be kept clean and dry at all times.
• Soiled or wet clothing provided by the infant's representative shall be placed in an airtight container and given to the representative at the end of the day.
• When changing an infant's diaper, each infant shall be on a changing table and no infant shall be left unattended while on the changing table.
• Towels and washcloths used for cleaning infants shall not be shared and shall be washed after each us.
• The changing table shall be disinfected after each use.[3]
Kinds of food allowed (and not allowed) Section 101227
All meal and snack items must meet guidelines maintained by Community Care Licensing and other governing agencies covering nutrition. These include the types and amounts of the four food groups included in meals and snacks, and the need to serve only healthy beverages to children, which are limited to:
• clean and safe drinking water,
• 1% or nonfat milk,
• and no more than 1 serving of 100% fruit juice with no added sweetener.
Childcare providers must post a complete menu of all meals and snacks to be served at least 1 week in advance and make updates when changes occur. Providers might substitute a menu item not listed on the menu if an adequate supply of the original item wasn't delivered or available. The substitute meets the stated nutritional standards.[1]
Additional Resources:
[1] California Department of Social Services. Care Center General Licensing Requirements
[2] Image by Amanda Taintor is licensed CC BY-NC
[3] Appendix B- Title 22 Licensing Regulation Highlights is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jennifer Paris | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/21%3A_Licensing_and_Regulations/21.12%3A_Food_Service_Requirements_for_Child_Care_Centers_Section_101227.txt |
Infant Needs And Services Plan Section 101419.2
• A plan must be completed and on file for every infant before attending the Center
• The plan shall include: an individual feeding plan, an individual toilet training plan, and any services needed different from those provided by the program. [1]
Modifications To Infant Needs And Services Plan Section 101419.3
• The plan shall be updated quarterly or as often as necessary.[1]
Infant Care Discipline Section 101423.1
• In addition to 101223.3, no infant shall be confined to a crib, high chair, playpen, or any other furniture or equipment as a form of discipline. [1]
Infant Care Isolation For Illness Section 101426.2
• In addition to 101226.2, the isolation area must have a crib, cot, mat or playpen for each ill infant. This isolation area must be under constant visual supervision by staff.[1]
Infant Care Isolation For Illness Section 101426.2
• In addition to 101226.2, the isolation area must have a crib, cot, mat or playpen for each ill infant. This isolation area must be under constant visual supervision by staff. [1]
Outdoor Activity Space For Infants Section 101438.2
• In addition to Section 101238.2, the following shall apply:
• Outdoor space shall be physically separated from space used by children not in the infant center.
• Outdoor space shall be equipped with age-appropriate toys and equipment.[1]
Indoor Activity Space For Infants Section 101438.3
• The sleeping area for infants shall be physically separated from the indoor activity space.
• The indoor activity space shall be equipped with age- appropriate washable toys and equipment.[1]
Infant Care Center Fixtures, Equipment, And Supplies Section 101439
• In addition to Section 101239, the following shall apply:
• There shall be appropriate furniture and equipment such as cribs, cots or mats, changing tables and feeding chairs.
• High chairs, low-wheeled feeding tables, or any equipment used to seat an infant shall have broad-base legs.
• No infant shall be permitted to stand up in a high chair.
• All equipment shall be washed and disinfected after each use.
• Infant changing tables shall have a padded surface no less than 1 inch thick; raised sides at least 3 inches high; kept in good repair, within an arm's reach of a sink, and not located in the kitchen or food preparation area.
• There shall be one handwashing sink for every 15 infants and one potty chair for every 5 infants being toilet trained.
• Infants shall not be permitted to play with the potty chair.
• Toy storage containers shall be safe and maintained in good condition.
• Containers shall not be lockable.
• Toys shall be safe and not have sharp edges or small parts.
• Fixtures, furniture, equipment, or supplies shall not be made of or contain toxic substances.
Infant Care Center Napping Equipment Section 101439.1
• In addition to Section 101239.1, the following shall apply:
• A standard size six-year crib or porta-crib shall be provided for each infant who is unable to climb out of a crib.
• Cribs shall not limit the ability of staff to see the infant.
• Cribs shall not limit the infant's ability to stand upright.
• Crib mattresses shall be covered with vinyl or similar moisture-resistant material; shall be wiped and disinfected daily and when wet or soiled.
• Cribs shall be maintained in a safe condition.
• Only one infant shall occupy each crib at a time.
• Each infant's bedding shall be used by him/her only, and replaced when wet or soiled.
• Bedding shall be changed daily or more often if required.
• Cribs, mats or cots shall be arranged so as to provide a walkway and work space between the cribs, mats or cots sufficient to permit staff to reach each infant without stepping over any other infant.[1]
[1] Appendix B- Title 22 Licensing Regulation Highlights is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jennifer Paris | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/21%3A_Licensing_and_Regulations/21.13%3A_Additional_Infant_Specific_Regulations.txt |
Introduction to Primary Care
High quality care and education for infants and toddlers begins with relationship-based care (Mangione, 2006). Primary caregiving is a relationship-based practice and is the practice of assigning each child (and family) to a caregiver who will serve as the primary source of information and care for the child. Primary caregiving enables caregivers to develop deep relationships with children and their families and offers opportunities to provide individualized care and interactions during daily routines and experiences. This focused care by a familiar adult can provide infants and toddlers with a sense of predictability and security that comes with knowing each child’s unique needs and preferences. [1]
Primary caregiving does not mean that caregivers care only for their small group of children to the exclusion of the other children in the group. Rather, it means that each caregiver, to the extent possible and practical in a group care situation, cares for and responds to children’s routine care needs (e.g., eating, toileting, diapering, sleeping) who are assigned to them. However, caregivers also work as a team and rely on each other as backup when they are not able to work directly with their particular children. For example, if a caregiver is busy changing one child’s diaper, the other caregivers in the room still continue to provide care for the other children until their primary caregiver returns. Another reason why primary caregiving should be conceptualized as a team effort rather than exclusive care, is when a primary caregiver is not able to work (e.g., sickness, vacation, etc.,). It is imperative for all the caregivers to have respectful relationships and establish trust with all of the children, even those children outside of their primary care assignment. Of equal importance, parents and other family members know who has primary responsibility for their child; this can strengthen the parent-caregiver relationship and communication between home and the childcare program. [3]
While primary caregiving is a common practice in the U.S., it is not a commonly implemented practice worldwide, even in highly-developed countries. In Singapore, for example, primary caregiving is not frequently practiced with infants and toddlers (Ebbeck et al., 2015). However, in a different study with parents of children under three years of age in Singapore, most parents expressed wanting to have their child cared for by the same caregiver and parents in programs that did implement primary caregiving reported high levels of satisfaction with the practice (Ebbeck, Yim, Ho & Sharma, 2022).
Despite the strong recognition of the importance of primary caregiving from organizations such as Zero to Three, the Program for Infant and Toddler Care (PITC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), there is very little empirical evidence directly investigating primary caregiving as a practice (Lee, Shin & Recchia, 2016). The research that is used to justify the importance of primary caregiving comes mainly from empirical explorations into the development of attachment. Since primary caregiving is a practice that encourages the development of a secure attachment between caregivers and children, it is often assumed that primary caregiving would also support the positive developmental outcomes associated with secure attachment (Bernhardt, 2000; Lally & Mangione, 2017).
[1]Individualizing care for infants and toddlers - part 1” from Head Start ECLKC is in the public domain.
[2] Image from “Individualizing care for infants and toddlers - part 1” from Head Start ECLKC is in the public domain.
[3]Individualizing care for infants and toddlers - part 1” from Head Start ECLKC is in the public domain. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/22%3A_Caregiving_Practices-_Primary_Care/22.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Attachment
Attachment theory was developed by John Bowlby in the 20th century to understand an infant’s reaction to the short-term loss of their caregiver (Bowlby, 1969). Bowlby proposed that children are pre-programmed from birth to develop attachments and maintain proximity to their primary attachment figure(s), who was typically their mother but could be any person assuming the role of caregiver for that child. He used the term ‘attachment’ in a conscious effort to move away from deficit terms such as ‘dependency’ and ‘over dependency’, which were historically used to explain what Bowlby coined as ‘attachment behaviors’ (Bowlby, 1969). Defined as ‘seeking and maintaining proximity to another individual’ (Bowlby, 1969), attachment behaviors allow infants and toddlers to stay close to their attachment figure by either demonstrating signaling behaviors such as crying and smiling, or approach behaviors such as following and clinging (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). [1]
The research on attachment relationships has important implications for supporting the implementation of primary caregiving. The first year of life is considered a critical period for attachment development and infants and toddlers require a secure base in childcare settings, in addition to the home setting, to develop secure attachments (Lee, 2016). It is critical that caregivers understand the importance of secure relationships and their impact on children’s future wellbeing. Instead of a single primary attachment figure, children need access to consistently available attachment figures who can include a combination of their mother, father or paid caregiver(s) (Brown et al., 2022; van IJzendoorn et al., 1992). As a result of a network of attachment figures, children’s secure base is maintained when separating from a specific attachment figure. [1]
Decades of longitudinal research have supported the notion that individual differences in children’s attachment security to primary caregivers are of critical importance for children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development. Several meta-analyses suggest that variations in attachment security are associated with individual differences in a range of child outcomes: higher attachment security (as compared to insecurity) is associated with better social competence (Groh et al., 2014, 2017), emotion understanding (Cooke et al., 2016), quality of peer relationships (Pallini et al., 2014), language competence (Van IJzendoorn, Dijkstra & Bus, 1995), as well as fewer internalizing (Groh et al., 2012, 2017; Madigan, Atkinson, Laurin & Benoit, 2013) and externalizing behavior problems (Fearon et al., 2010; Groh et al., 2017). Furthermore, attachment security during the first three years of life is related to later brain development (Hidalgo et al., 2019; Leblanc et al., 2017; Leblanc, Dégeilh, Beauchamp & Bernier, 2022; Moutsiana et al., 2015).
[1] Wilson-Ali et al., (2019). Multiple perspectives on attachment theory: Investigating educators’ knowledge and understanding. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 215-229. CC by NC 4.0
22.03: Conclusion
Conclusion to Primary Caregiving
If high quality care and education for infants and toddlers begins with relationship-based care (Mangione, 2006), then primary caregiving is a critical practice for all childcare programs to adopt and support. Primary caregiving encourages the development of a secure attachment, which is related to various positive developmental outcomes. Furthermore, primary caregiving can strengthen the relationship between caregivers and parents. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/22%3A_Caregiving_Practices-_Primary_Care/22.02%3A_Attachment_and_Primary_Caregiving.txt |
Introduction to Small Group Size and Low Ratios
Infancy and toddlerhood are critical years in shaping children’s developmental trajectories (Gilkerson et al., 2018). Research has shown that high quality early childhood programs can enhance child development (Davies et al., 2021; Narea, Arriagada & Allel, 2020; Orri et al., 2019); therefore, it is important to identify aspects of programs that are key factors in supporting children’s development. Group size and the ratio of caregivers to children are two aspects of structural quality identified as key quality indicators by various organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Program for Infant and Toddler Care (PITC) (Donoghue et al., 2017; Lally, 2009; National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2005). [1]
[1] Perlmanet al., (2017). Child-staff ratios in early childhood education and care settings and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 12(1), e0170256. CC by 4.0
[2] Image from Head Start ECLKC is in the public domain.
23.02: Small Groups
Defining Small Groups
Small groups means not exceeding the recommended number of infants and toddlers per room. PITC recommends between 6 to 12 infants and toddlers in one room, depending on the age of the children (Weinstock et al., 2012). In general, the younger the children, the lower the total number of children per room. For same-aged groups of infants under eight months of age, PITC recommends a maximum of six infants. For same-aged groups of children between 8 to 18 months of age, PITC recommends a maximum of nine children. For same-aged groups of toddlers between 18 to 36 months of age, PITC recommends a maximum of twelve children. For mixed-aged groups with children between birth to thirty-six months, when at least one child is 24 months, PITC recommends a maximum of eight children. The maximum group size recommendations from AAP are slightly different from PITC and they distinguish between family child care programs and center-based programs with group size recommendations (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2019). [1]
Recommendations for group size and ratio for same-aged groups
Age
Group Size
Adult:child ratio
Birth to 8 months
6
1:3
8 to 18 months
9
1:3
18 to 36 months
12
1:4
[2]
Recommendations for group size and ratio for mixed-aged groups.
Age
Group Size
Adult:child ratio
Birth to 36 months
8
1:4
[3]
Many infant and toddler programs do not meet the recommendations for small groups. Figure# shows the percentage of infant and toddler programs that met group size guidelines (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2006). Programs were most likely to meet group size recommendations with three year old children (63%) and least likely to meet recommendations with children ages 1½ through 2 years of age at 25% and 28% respectively. When children were six months of age, 35% of programs met the guidelines.
[1] Weinstock et al., (2012). Evaluation of the Program for Infant/Toddler Care (PITC): An on-site training of caregivers. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education is in the public domain.
[2] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
[3] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
[4] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0
23.03: Low Ratios
Ratios
The number of caregivers assigned to a group of children refers to the adult-to-child ratio. A low ratio means not exceeding the recommended number of adults assigned to a group of infants and toddlers. For infants from birth through twelve months of age, AAP recommends a ratio of 1:3一one caregiver assigned to every three infants in a class (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2019). The AAP recommends a ratio of 1:4 for toddlers between the ages of 13 to 35 months一one caregiver assigned to every four toddlers in a class. These ratio guidelines from the AAP are supported by PITC’s recommendations which suggests either a 1:3 or a 1:4 ratio, depending on the age of the children一with a lower ratio for younger children (Program for Infant and Toddler Care, 2022).
Many infant and toddler programs do not meet the recommendations for adult-to-child ratios. Figure# shows the percentage of infant and toddler programs that met ratio guidelines (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2006). Programs were most likely to meet ratio recommendations with three year old children (56%) and least likely to meet recommendations with children ages 1½ through 2 years of age at 20% and 26% respectively. When children were six months of age, 36% of programs met the guidelines.
[1] Image by Todd LaMarr is licensed under CC by 4.0 | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/23%3A_Caregiving_Practices-_Small_Group_Size_and_Low_Ratios/23.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Why Small Groups and Low Ratios?
It is important to distinguish between research studies that focus on infants and toddlers (birth to 36 months) and studies that focus on children older than three years of age. Research findings on the associations between adult-to-child ratios and developmental outcomes have been contradictory with older children. In the preschool years, some studies show that better ratios are associated with improved child outcomes while other studies have found weak or no benefits (Francis & Barnett, 2019; Perlman et al., 2017; Pianta et al. 2005). In contrast, most studies with infants and toddlers find beneficial outcomes for small groups and low ratios (for exceptions see Blau, 2000 and Slot, Leseman, Verhagen & Mulder, 2015). Thus, this body of research emphasizes that the care and education of infants and toddlers should be considered distinct from the preschool years and that small groups and low ratios may be more important during the first three years, especially for infants (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2019; De Schipper, Riksen‐Walraven & Geurts, 2006). [1]
Overall, small groups and low ratios are linked with better outcomes for infants and toddlers (Howes, Phillips & Whitebook, 1992). Small groups and lower ratios are associated with warmer and more responsive interactions (Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford & Howes, 2002; Early Child Care Research Network, 2006; Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes & Cryer, 1997; Vandell, 1996). Sensitive relationships between caregivers and infants is more common in classes with smaller groups (Barros et al., 2016). Research has found that as the ratio of infants to caregivers increases, the quality of care between caregivers and children decreases (Leach et al., 2008; Rentzou & Sakellariou, 2011). For example, with higher ratios of infants, caregivers are less able to provide quality interactions that are sensitive and responsive (Pessanha et al., 2017; Thomason & La Paro, 2009). Caregivers show more positive affect and are less restrictive of toddlers’ actions when ratios are low (Howes, 1983; Thomason & La Paro, 2009). In programs with a high ratio, toddlers are more likely to show behavior challenges (Kohl et al., 2020). Lastly, low ratios are related to greater infant language abilities. Specifically, small groups with a ratio of one caregiver to three infants had greater language abilities than groups with more than three infants per one caregiver (Burchinal, Roberts, Nabors & Bryant, 1996; Burchinal et al., 2000). When ratios are low, caregivers engage in more conversations and complex play with toddlers (Howes & Rubenstein, 1985). [2]
[1] Perlmanet al., (2017). Child-staff ratios in early childhood education and care settings and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 12(1), e0170256. CC by 4.0
[2] Løkken et al., (2018). The relationship between structural factors and interaction quality in Norwegian ECEC for toddlers. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 12(1), 1-15. CC by 4.0
23.05: Conclusion
Conclusion to Small Groups and Low Ratios
As we strive to provide the highest quality care and education for infants and toddlers, it is imperative that we implement practices that promote optimal quality. Small group size and low ratios are two practices that child care programs can implement to improve quality as most research has found both practices to be related to positive developmental outcomes. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/23%3A_Caregiving_Practices-_Small_Group_Size_and_Low_Ratios/23.04%3A_Benefits_of_Small_Groups_and_Low_Ratios.txt |
Introduction to Continuity of Care
Children develop more rapidly during the first three years than any other time during development. To support this rapid development, infants and toddlers deserve respectful and nurturing relationships with their caregivers because optimal learning happens within positive relationships. This section will introduce the practice of continuity of care, describe how it is implemented into group care programs and summarize its benefits.
24.02: Continuity of Care as a Caregiving Practice
Implementing Continuity of Care
Continuity of care refers to the practice of primary caregivers and children staying together for as long as possible, preferably for the children’s first three years (McMullen, 2018). Classrooms, materials and supplies may all change as the children become older, but the one constant is the relationships. Thus, continuity of care is a caregiving practice with relationships at the center, with the goal of creating and deepening relationships between caregivers and children and caregivers and families. Continuity of care contrasts the common practice of moving infants and toddlers to new classrooms based on their age and/or attainment of skills (Cryer, Hurwitz & Wolery, 2000).
There are three ways that programs can create continuity of care systems. Programs may choose a system based on space, materials and resources, staff expertise, and parent and community needs: [2]
1. Group mixed-age infants and toddlers together by having the same primary caregivers work with classes of mixed-age infants and toddlers. The environment should include equipment and materials based on children’s ages (the age range depends on the current children), interests, needs, and skills. As children move up into preschool, newly enrolled infants or toddlers are added. The same teachers remain in the classroom. Figure \(1\) shows an illustration depicting this continuity of care system. In classroom ‘A’ a primary caregiver has a mixed-age group of both infants and toddlers. When the children are old enough to attend preschool, they then move to a new preschool class, classroom ‘B’, and new infants and toddlers are enrolled into classroom ‘A’. [2]
2. Keep children of similar age together with the same teacher. As children grow older, the children and caregivers all move to a more age-appropriate space. In this arrangement, teachers work with different age groups over several years. Figure \(1\) shows an illustration of this continuity of care system. In classroom ‘A’ the teacher is with a group of infants. As the infants grow, the teacher and children move to a new more age-appropriate room. Classroom ‘B’ shows the same teacher and children as in classroom ‘A’, but now the children are older and they are all in a new classroom together. [2]
3. Another continuity of care system involves children, of similar age, remaining with the same primary caregiver in the same room. As the children grow older, they stay in the same room with their caregivers, but the caregivers adjust the environment and materials as children’s abilities and interests change. Figure \(1\) provides an illustration. In classroom ‘A’, the caregiver and infants are in an age-appropriate room. As the children grow, rather than change rooms, the classroom is adjusted to be age-appropriate for their developing abilities and interests. In this way, the children and caregiver can remain together and stay in the same classroom overtime. [2]
Continuity of care is rooted in attachment theory research that supports the importance of consistent and secure relationships between caregivers and children, especially infants and toddlers. A classic study by Helen Raikes (1993) is strong evidence for the benefits of continuity of care. Raikes found that the longer infants remained with the same primary caregiver, the more likely the children were to develop a secure attachment. Specifically, of the infants who stayed with the same caregiver for over one year, 91% of them had a secure attachment, compared to infants who stayed with the same caregiver for 9 to 12 months (67% had a secure attachment) and 5 to 8 months (50% had a secure attachment). Toddlers in continuity of care classrooms are rated by their caregivers as having fewer challenging behaviors (Ruprecht, Elicker & Choi, 2016). Having a consistent and stable caregiver supports the development of a strong attachment between children and their primary caregivers (Barnas & Cummings, 1994). Infants and toddlers with more caregiver stability scored higher on social skills later in Kindergarten (Bratsch‐Hines et al., 2020). Indeed, both parents and caregivers report that one of the main benefits of continuity of care is the increase in knowledge caregivers receive of individual children by working with them for a longer period of time (McMullen, Yun, Mihai & Kim, 2016).
Continuity of Care Benefits
Continuity of care not only benefits the relationship between caregivers and children, but also the relationship between caregivers and the children’s families. More time together means caregivers and families can potentially develop a deeper understanding of each other with a trusting relationship enriched through experiences over time. Indeed, parents report how continuity of care creates a caregiver-parent relationship of trust and open communication (McMullen, Yun, Mihai & Kim, 2016). Both caregivers and parents reported that their experience with continuity of care created a mutual respect for each other and they both perceived their relationship more as a partnership (McMullen, Yun, Mihai & Kim, 2016).
Not only are there research supported benefits for implementing continuity of care, there are also research supported concerns for not implementing it. When infants and toddlers are transitioned into a new classroom, they exhibit increased distress and anxiety (Cryer et al., 2005; Field, Vega-Lahr & Jagadish, 1984; O’Farrelly & Hennessy, 2014; Schipper, IJzendoorn & Tavecchio, 2004). Other research emphasizes that transitioning from an infant to a toddler class may be experienced differently for each child and is greatly influenced by caregivers (Recchia, 2012; Recchia & Dvorakova, 2012).
Despite many organizations promoting the importance of continuity of care, few infant and toddler group care programs actually implement it as a practice (Aguillard, Pierce, Benedict & Burts, 2005; Choi, Horm & Jeon, 2018; Cryer, Hurwitz & Wolery, 2000). Research has revealed that programs accredited by NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children) were just as unlikely to be practicing continuity of care as group care programs without an NAEYC accreditation (Aguillard, Pierce, Benedict & Burts, 2005). In a large national study with Early Head Start infant and toddler programs, only 29% of children experienced two years of continuity of care (Choi, Horm & Jeon, 2018). Thirty-four percent of children experienced changing primary caregivers at least once while 37% of children experienced changing primary caregivers between two to six times. Caregivers express both benefits and challenges associated with implementing continuity of care (Hegde & Cassidy, 2004; Longstreth et al., 2016). Most of the challenges caregivers express about continuity of care can be reduced and/or solved when accurate information is shared and with strategic planning (Garrity, Longstreth & Alwashmi, 2016; Longstreth et al., 2016; McMullen, 2017; Recchia & Dvorakova, 2018).
[1] Image by PublicDomainPictures on Pixabay.
[2]Head Start Tip Sheet: Continuity of Care” is in the public domain.
[9] Image from Head Start ECLKC is in the public domain.
24.03: Conclusion
Conclusion to Continuity of Care
Continuity of care is a caregiving practice that has the potential to greatly benefit children, their families and caregivers. By keeping children and caregivers together for as long as possible (ideally through the first three years), respectful, trusting and secure relationships can be deeply formed. Although few group care programs implement continuity of care, by sharing accurate, research-based information and through strategic planning, more programs can strive toward this important caregiving practice. | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/24%3A_Caregiving_Practices-_Continuity_of_Care/24.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Introduction to Routines
Consistent routines, activities that happen at about the same time and in about the same way each day, provide comfort and a sense of safety to young children. Whether it is time to play, time for a snack, a nap, or a loved one to return, knowing what will happen next gives babies and toddlers security and emotional stability.
—Zero To Three (2010, p. 2)
25.02: Care Routines
Defining Routines in Care
Caregiving routines—arrival and departure, feeding, meals and snacks, diapering and toileting, dressing, and napping—provide a framework for the infant/toddler day. Routine care is far from routine. A significant amount of individualization occurs during routines; they offer caregivers and family child care providers many opportunities to observe and understand each child’s ways and preferences and support development and learning across the domains( HHS, ACF, OCC, NITCCI, Infant/Toddler Curriculum and Individualization).[1]
During routine care, infants and toddlers have adults’ undivided attention as they focus on meeting children’s needs and getting to know them (Koralek, Derry, Amy Laura Dombro, and Diane Trister Dodge,2005). Routines offer opportunities to build relationships with each infant and toddler that promote attachment and trust. These are developmental milestones that are critical for children’s sense of security and willingness to explore people and objects in their environments. Routines involve children’s bodily needs, very intimate care, and potentially different perspectives from that of the family, so they should be highly individualized; in group care settings, each infant’s and toddler’s routine care is based on his or her own readiness and timetable for feeding, diapering and toilet learning, and sleep (Zero to Three, 2008). [1]
How the routine is carried out and when the routine occurs should be closely coordinated with children’s families so that care is consistent between home and the program. Because these routines are so individualized, they should be carried out by the child’s primary caregiver whenever possible. Families in home-based programs may individualize routine care for their infants and toddlers according to a combination of children’s needs, family schedules, and cultural beliefs and practices. Home visitors can work collaboratively with families to address topics such as using routine care times to support their child’s development and learning and changing routine care practices as children get older An important part of individualizing routines is using rituals. People often use the terms rituals and routines interchangeably, but they are not the same. According to Gillespie and Petersen, routines are “repeated, predictable events that provide a foundation for the daily tasks in a child’s life . . . Individualizing a routine means that the sequence is the same but the actions and timing may vary to accommodate the needs of individual children”(Gillespie, Linda, and Peterson, 2012 p. 76). Rituals, in general, are “special actions that help us navigate emotionally important events or transitions in our lives as well as enhance aspects of our daily routines to deepen our connections and relationships” (Gillespie, Linda, and Peterson, 2012 p. 76). For infants and toddlers, a ritual is “a special practice that helps a child accept aspects of a routine, even an individualized routine, that are stressful” (Gillespie, Linda, and Peterson, 2012 p. 76). Rituals that adults develop with children and use at home or in group care can ease emotionally loaded situations such as separations (including going to sleep), feeding and meal times, and learning to use the toilet.[1]
Coordinating routine care between home and program may sometimes be challenging. Caregivers attitudes and beliefs about how routines should be carried out may differ from what families believe and do.
[1] Early Head Start National Resource Center. (2014). Individualizing care for infants and toddlers: Part 1 [Technical assistance paper no. 16] is in the public domain | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/25%3A_Caregiving_Practices-_Routines/25.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
The Importance of Schedules
Many states require child care programs to have written daily schedules. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) encourages practices in which “the curriculum guides the development of a daily schedule that is predictable yet flexible and responsive to individual needs of the children” (NAEYC, 2015, p. 9). How do you develop a daily schedule for a group of infants and toddlers who are each on their own timetable? This is an important question because infants and toddlers have not yet developed the ability to manage their own feelings and behavior. For infant and toddler care caregivers, creating a daily schedule that is based on responsive care routines makes good sense. Early learning researchers widely agree that adults can best support early learning when a child’s interests are central to the learning experience (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).[1]
The daily schedule orders the events that take place each day. It outlines how the daily events are expected to flow, the order in which they happen, and for how long (although not necessarily the exact times).
Schedules are important because they :
• provide consistency and predictability, which help infants and toddlers develop a sense of trust and security;
• give caregivers, family child care providers, and home visitors a framework for planning and making good use of time spent with children; and
• provide a link between home and school, and reassure families, especially those whose children are in group care, about what their children are doing during the day. [1]
As you incorporate the unique care routines and rhythms of each infant and toddler in your care, you can begin to create individualized daily schedules, which is an important basis of high-quality caregiving (Raikes & Edwards, 2009). Keep in mind, to respond to changing individual needs of infants, it’s important to allow room for flexibility during the day. Anything too rigid will create undue stress for babies and tension for the caregivers who try to adhere to a set plan. For example, very young infants, who are on their own sleep schedules, may sleep through outside time and be ready to play and engage while the older infants nap. This does not mean there is no order or system; you are still making sure that all the daily care routines are happening. However, if one infant needs to eat or sleep sooner than others, you can adapt. Maybe a 2-year-old with a new baby brother at home needs a little more cuddle time than he did last week. Or an infant needs breathing treatments at certain times in the day and you have adjusted the schedule to read books to him and other toddlers during his therapy.[1]
While consistency and predictability are important characteristics of schedules, flexibility is just as important. This means that schedules can be modified in the moment to meet individual children’s needs or group needs, take advantage of “teachable moments,” and maintain a consistent and an unhurried pace. Schedules can also be modified in the long term as children’s needs and abilities change over time. [1]
Other characteristics of schedules, in particular for group care settings, include:
• major events occurring in the same order every day;
• sufficient time for routine care and transitions from one event to the next;
• balance between active and quiet times;
• opportunities to be alone, with a familiar adult, and with small groups of children; and
• opportunities to spend time outdoors.
Infants follow individualized schedules for sleeping, eating, diapering, and playing. A one-size-fits-all schedule would not be appropriate for them. This means that caregivers and family child care providers will likely have as many schedules as they have infants. For example, at any given time, one infant may be napping, another getting her bottle, and a third playing with a soft block on the floor.23 Families are primary sources of information about when their children eat, nap, are most active, and so on; in culturally consistent care, the timing of these caregiving routines and awake times for play in a group care setting should match as closely as possible to when they occur at home. Cultural continuity, particularly for young children, allows for uninterrupted development of children’s self-identity. Managing these individual schedules requires some planning. Knowledge about individual children can help staff predict when each child may get tired, get hungry, or need a diaper change; in turn, staff can take steps to prepare, such as get diapering supplies or cots out in advance or coordinate care responsibilities with another adult. [2]
Schedules for toddlers in group care may be more consistent and group oriented. For example, toddlers may eat meals together, go outside together, take naps at the same time, and come together for short times in small groups for stories, music, and movement experiences. Caregivers and family child care providers may create simple visual schedules with photos or drawings that show the daily events and when they occur to help children understand what happens and when. However, toddlers, still have individual timetables for routine care as well as times when they need to be away from the group or one-on-one with a familiar, trusted adult. Honoring toddlers’ individual schedules and home culture is as important as honoring infants’ schedules and home culture. Family input continues to play a central role.[2]
One important aspect of the daily schedule is transitions. Infants and toddlers experience many transitions (changes) during the day, for example, between routines and experiences, arrivals and departures, and going outside to play and coming back in. Home visits include transitions, too! Each child experiences and handles transitions differently; change is harder for some children than for others, so transitions can be some of the most challenging times of the day. Infants and toddlers rely on adults to provide a sense of safety and continuity as they experience change; individualizing transitions is one way to provide the stability infants and toddlers need.
[1] Image by Amanda Taintor is licensed CC BY-NC
[1] Early Head Start National Resource Center.(n.d) [Individualizing care for infants and tollders]. Is in the public domain | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/25%3A_Caregiving_Practices-_Routines/25.03%3A_The_Daily_Schedule.txt |
Tips for Creating Developmentally Appropriate Daily Schedules
The following are characteristics of a schedule for infants and toddlers that supports responsive, individualized care. These ideas can help you create a daily schedule that is responsive and sensitive to each infant and toddler in your setting.[1]
Provide Consistency
Predictable daily routines support young children in knowing what to expect and what is expected of them, leading to fewer disruptive behaviors. Daily routines should flow in a consistent way that allow infants to focus on their play and learning. Opportunities to explore and practice skill-building allow children to build confidence in their abilities (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998).[1]
Include Experiences That Meet Individual Needs
This is particularly important for infants and toddlers who are not yet able to regulate their own needs and bodies to accommodate a group schedule. Regular caregiving routines such as diapering, sleeping, and feeding should happen when each child needs them, rather than going by the clock or a strict schedule (EHS NRC, 2014; Harms et al., 1998; NAEYC, 2015).
Provide Opportunities and Interactions to Foster Physical, Social, and Emotional Growth
You can support development in all areas during everyday interactions and activities. Consider an infant’s diaper change. During this routine care you can support her social and emotional development by giving one-on-one attention that includes eye contact, smiling, talking about what is happening in the moment, and pointing out things that are familiar to the child (for example, “Oh! I see you’re wearing your Bear diaper this morning. You like it when your mama gets the Bear diapers for you, don’t you?”). In this simple exchange, the caregiver is not only supporting the child’s social and emotional development but language and cognitive development as well (EHS NRC, 2014; Harms et al., 1998; NAEYC, 2015).[1]
Allow Long Amounts of Time for Free Play
Children learn through play (Fromberg & Gullo, 1992; Ginsburg, 2007; Meltzoff, Kuhl, Movellan, & Sejnowski, 2009; Piaget, 1962). Self-directed play gives children opportunities to practice what they have observed and learned about their world, test new ideas, and build skills in all areas of development. When children come together to play, it should be driven by their desire to be together, even if it means being near each other and doing separate things. Caregiver-initiated, whole-group experiences such as song time, dancing, or reading books can work well for older toddlers if they can choose whether or not to participate. Group gatherings should be limited in time, flexible, and account for the individual interests of all children. For example, in a family child care home with several toddlers, many of them like to be near the caregiver while she sings. One child goes to the book corner when this happens and she peeks over the shelves at the group. The child’s mother has said that, at home, her little girl sings all of the songs, but in child care, she does not actually join the group until several months later, when she is ready (Harms et al., 1998; NAEYC, 2015).[1]
Provide Time and Support for Transitions
A well-designed schedule for infants and toddlers includes thoughtful transitions that support children as they move from one area of focus to another. Transition times are important and give many learning opportunities, just like every other part of the child’s day (Harms et al., 1998; NAEYC, 2015).
Common transition times during a child’s day in care include:
• Pick-up and drop-off times;
• Meal times;
• Diaper changes and toileting;
• Nap times;
• Movement from indoors to outdoors; and
• Joining or leaving group experiences (for older toddlers only).
Sample Schedules
On the following pages are two examples of written daily schedules for infants and toddlers, which are designed to be flexible and responsive to individual children. One includes times, and the other is organized by sections of the day. They both highlight the importance of less structure and more open time during the day for exploration and play. This open flow of the day allows caregivers to meet individual needs as they arise; interactions and experiences happen in the natural course of the day.[1]
Sample A: Infant and Toddler Schedule (Without Times)
Care routines such as diapering, toileting, naps, and mealtimes will be based on individual needs. Older toddlers are invited to have meals together.
Parents: Please let us know how your child is doing, and if you have any concerns, questions, or comments. We are listening!
• Early day
• Diapering, naps, and mealtime as needed
• Greetings and check-ins: We ask about how each child slept, ate, his or her mood, and any other details.
• Exploration of materials/objects; sensory table or tray discovery
• Reading and exploring books
• Movement and free exploration and interaction
• Outdoor stroller walk or play in yard
• Midday
• Diapering, naps, and mealtime as needed
• Quiet music, reading, and low lights
• Exploring materials, objects, and books
• Movement and free exploration and interactions
• Outdoor play, including push toys, climbing equipment, and soft spaces on blankets or sand
• Late day
• Diapering, naps, and mealtime as needed
• Reading and exploring books
• Exploring materials, loose parts, and objects
• Movement and free exploration and interaction
• Outdoor play
• Goodbyes: We share observations of the child’s day as well as details about meals, naps, diapering, and toileting.
Sample B: Infant Daily Schedule (With Times)
Mealtimes, diapering, and sleeping will be based on individual needs. We will adjust the schedule throughout the day to respond to your child’s interests and needs, as well as to the weather conditions.
• 7:00–8:30: Arrival and greeting.
• Welcome families and learn about how the children are doing.
• 8:30–9:30: Outside time. Possibilities include the following:
• Exploring and following interests, such as touching leaves and talking about trees, clouds, and birds;
• Snuggling, talking, and reading books together in the fresh air;
• Listening and singing to rhythms; and
• Rolling, climbing, and crawling.
• 9:30–11:30: Floor-time play. Toys and objects available to explore.
• Touching and feeling books and textures;
• Talking, cuddling, and rocking;
• Listening and singing to rhythms; and
• Rolling, climbing, and crawling.
• 11:30–12:30: Sensory exploration.
• Materials with different textures, sounds, and colors.
• 12:30–2:30: Floor-time play. Toys and objects available to explore.
• Exploring and following interests, such as soft dolls, shakers, and stacking toys;
• Touching and feeling books and textures;
• Talking, cuddling, and rocking;
• Listening and singing to rhythms; and
• Rolling, climbing, and crawling.
• 2:30–3:30: Outside time. Possibilities include the following:
• Exploring and following interests, such as touching leaves and talking about trees, clouds, and birds;
• Snuggling, talking, and reading books together in the fresh air;
• Listening and singing to rhythms; and
• Rolling, climbing, and crawling.
• 3:30–5:30: Floor-time play and departure.
• Review the day with parents, share observations, and provide information as needed.
[1] Early Head Start National Resource Center.(n.d) [Individualizing care for infants and tollders]. Is in the public domain | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/25%3A_Caregiving_Practices-_Routines/25.04%3A_Tips_for_Creating_Developmentally_Appropriate_Daily_Schedules.txt |
Introduction to Inclusive Caregiving
When caregivers think about inclusive caregiving, many people assume children with known or diagnosed special needs. Inclusive caregiving is for all children that have different abilities or privileges. Developmental delays can happen from genetic abnormalities, birth trauma, accidents, or several known or unknown reasons. The most important aspect of inclusive caregiving is remembering the human behind needs. Inclusion means that a child with sensory challenges, even if it is not yet diagnosed, should be given the effort and time to make their environment the best and most conducive. For example, as a caregiver, you notice that one of your children does not want to go to the sensory table, does not like to finger paint and shies away from any messy play. Although interested, something is stopping them from engaging. What can a caregiver do for a child like this to allow them to have access to all aspects of the classroom? Meet them where they are at! Try putting the playdough in a plastic bag for the child to explore. Put paint in a plastic bag! Use gardening gloves in messy play. This is one example of inclusivity. [1]
[1] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya is licensed under a CC BY.
26.02: Overview
Overview of Inclusive Care
Children with disabilities or other special needs refer to children with a specific diagnosis and children who do not have a diagnosis but whose behavior, development, or health affect their family's ability to maintain child care services. The disability or special need may be as mild as a slight speech delay or as complex as a mixed diagnosis of motor challenges, vision impairment, and cognitive delays.[1] Special health care needs include a variety of conditions such as birth defects, neurological disorders, and chronic illnesses that can be life-threatening or impact daily living (e.g., cancer, sickle cell disease [or anemia], cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, AIDS, diabetes, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis).[1] [2]
Families of children with disabilities or other special needs have the same need for childcare as other families. However, families of children with disabilities or special needs often find the search for quality and affordable child care a more significant challenge as they face the reluctance of many child care providers to enroll their children. This situation makes it all the more important that child care providers strive to include all children in their programs not to increase the immense challenges that such families already face.[3]
Only about 10 percent of eligible infants and toddlers with developmental delays nationwide receive early intervention services, which are widely agreed to reduce delays and lessen the adverse effects of risk factors and disabilities on learning and development. California serves fewer children than the national average. Challenges arise from spotty screening, tenuous linkages to referral and evaluation, and the intricacies of crossing multiple agencies—sometimes without the knowledge of English—for families. [4]
Following the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), children ages 3-21 are entitled to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). LRE requires that, to the extent possible, children with disabilities should have access to the general education curriculum, along with learning activities and settings available to their peers without disabilities. Corresponding federal legislation applied to infants and toddlers (children birth to 3) and their families specifies that early intervention services and supports must be provided in "natural environments," generally interpreted to mean a broad range of contexts and activities that generally occur for typically developing infants and toddlers in homes and communities.[5] [6]
Children with disabilities or other special needs and their families must be included in quality early childhood education programs that are the natural environments of their typically developing peers. Children learn from their interactions with other children and their surroundings while creating a sense of security and self-esteem from caring relationships with program providers and staff. Everyone benefits from quality early childhood education programs that provide inclusive care. Children who have a disability or special need get to know and interact with typically developing peers, while their families benefit from programs and services they need to achieve their parenting goals. Children who are typically developing benefit when they have the opportunity to get to know peers who are atypically developing in the classroom. Everyone has the opportunity to learn about other human beings regarding their strengths and challenges.
Children and families want to be accepted and included in their community regardless of ability. They want to belong. But the kind of belonging they desire goes beyond simply "being together." They want full, unconditional membership in family and community. As Norman Kunc, a disability rights advocate, said so eloquently, "When inclusive education is fully embraced, we abandon the idea that children have to become 'normal' to contribute to the world. Instead, we search for and nourish the inherent gifts in all people. We begin to look beyond typical ways of becoming valued members of the community and, in doing so, begin to realize the achievable goal of providing all children with an authentic sense of belonging."[6]
Children with disabilities or other special needs may present unique challenges, but the care they need is very similar to any child. Children with special needs spend most of their time doing what other children do. They have the same curiosity, desire to play, and need to communicate as their peers do. Childcare providers providing developmentally appropriate childcare, which is individualized to meet the needs of every child, already have many of the skills needed to serve children with disabilities or other special needs.[7]
Infant and toddler caregivers may be involved with families at the time when children's disabilities and developmental concerns are first identified and as interventions begin. This process can be emotional for families, but child care providers can offer valuable insight and be supportive partners. They can play a key role by working with children, families, and other professionals in the early intervention process. A caregiver who actively participates in children's development, learning, and growth supports families in important ways.[8]
[1] Family Partnerships and Culture by the California Department of Education is used with permission
[2] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya CC BY.
[3] Inclusion Works! By the California Department of Education is used with permission
[4] Author Nancy Hunt California State University. (n.d.). Pace - identifying young children for early intervention in California. Policy Analysis for California Education. CC BY
[5] DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. Retrieved
[6] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya CC BY
[7] Child Development Resources by the California Department of Education is used with permission
[8] U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, n.d., Creating Inclusive Environments and Learning Experiences for Infants and Toddlers is in the pubic domain | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/26%3A_Inclusive_Caregiving/26.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Implementing Inclusive Practices
Most children identified by special education professionals as having a disability have delays in learning and communication (over 70 percent of children from birth to age 14). Children who learn differently or have language delays commonly manifest special needs through their behavior in group settings. Early childhood educators can provide a language-rich environment and make accommodations based on the knowledge of the individual child.[1]
There are fewer children with more significant disabilities such as intellectual disabilities (formerly referred to as mental retardation), physical and mobility impairments, or multiple disabilities. Children with significant disabilities are likely to receive specialized services that may support success in a childcare setting. Children eligible for and who receive early intervention or special education services have individual plans with goals and strategies for caregivers and providers to use. For children under age three, the plans are called individualized family services plans (IFSPs); for children over age three, the plans are called individualized education programs (IEPs). When these plans are developed, early childhood educators can be essential members of an IFSP or IEP team.[1]
[1] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya CC BY
26.04: Learning about Individual Children
Each Child is Unique
Information about a specific disability may give an early childhood educator ideas for how to support a child. However, when serving an individual child, the provider should focus on the child's needs, not the disability or its label. A child with cerebral palsy, for example, may walk with leg braces, use a wheelchair, have minor physical symptoms, or demonstrate a delay in using language. The possible variations within this one label are tremendous, indicating that no single label or diagnosis can provide enough information about a particular child. Early childhood educators need to learn beyond a textbook definition and ask questions with sensitivity and understanding—particularly in talks with parents.
Early childhood educators can go forward setting a tone of welcome and understanding. When a family member shares a child's diagnosis, a good follow-up question is often "And how does that affect ____________'s development?" This approach can help assure a family member that the child care provider is sincerely concerned about the child's success and is interested in providing appropriate, individually tailored care. The response from the parent will help the child care provider determine what accommodations might be needed, what other questions may be appropriate to ask, and whether specialists are involved or needed.[1]
[1] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya CC BY
26.05: Promoting Inclusive Practices
Inclusion in the Classroom
Inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every child and their family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities, and society. The desired results of inclusive experiences for children with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential. The defining features of inclusion that can be used to identify high-quality early childhood programs and services are:[1]
• Access – providing access to a wide range of learning opportunities, activities, settings, and environments
• Participation – even if environments and programs are designed to facilitate access, some children will need additional individualized accommodations and support to participate fully in play and learning activities with peers and adults.
• Supports – an infrastructure of systems-level supports must be afforded to those providing inclusive services to children and families.[13]
Even if children with disabilities are not currently enrolled in an early childhood education program, educators can still promote inclusive practices. One way is to have pictures, books, and materials that present children with disabilities in a general setting. How people are alike and different naturally arises in an early childhood education setting; a caregiver can take advantage of these opportunities to discuss them. Language use is also critical in developing an atmosphere of inclusion. The best practice is to use "person-first" language when one is talking about people with disabilities. This practice simply means putting the person before the disability: "a child with autism spectrum disorder" rather than "an autistic child."[2]
Exploring inclusion with families, colleagues, and children will suggest other ways to expand inclusive practices. For example, planning staff discussions on specific changes in philosophy, attitudes, and practices goes far toward including children with special needs in a childcare setting. Outside the immediate early childhood education program setting, adults with disabilities in a community might contribute to a care provider's expanding knowledge of issues related specifically to inclusion and to disabilities in general.[2]
[1] Introducing developmental disability through a disability studies perspecitve by Emily Brooks and Mariette Bates. This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
[2] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya CC BY | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/26%3A_Inclusive_Caregiving/26.03%3A_What_Programs_Can_Do_To_Be_Inclusive_of_All_Children.txt |
Making Inclusion Work
As each child is unique, so is each early childhood education program. There is no magic formula for making inclusion work beyond the creativity, energy, and interest that most early childhood educators already bring to their work. Their uniqueness notwithstanding, every program can include children with disabilities successfully. And each makes it work child by child, day by day. A "can-do" attitude among the teachers helps to provide the necessary energy for coming up with solutions to the inevitable challenges. It also helps to have an enthusiastic attitude toward making inclusion work rather than simply fulfilling a legal obligation.[1]
Some children need small changes to the curriculum or minor support to get the most out of certain activities. These sorts of things may consist of fairly simple accommodations, such as providing a special place or quiet activity for a child who cannot participate in large-group activities or making available a special snack for a child who needs to eat more frequently than the typical meal or snack schedule.[1]
Other children may require more specific adaptations that might not be readily apparent. A variety of community resources can help determine what those might be. The family, for example, is always the first and most important guide for what a child might need; after that, an area specialist or a local workshop might be. Beyond the immediate community, a world of literature in books, periodicals, and Websites devoted to disabilities and inclusion can inform an early childhood educator about appropriate adaptations for a child with a particular condition or need.[1]
Programs that begin with a high-quality, developmentally appropriate foundation; a positive attitude on the part of the care provider; appropriate adult–child ratios; supportive administrators; and adequate training for the provider will be in a good position to creatively solve problems for a child with disabilities or other special needs, exactly as it does for children who are typically developing. If a child already has an established diagnosis, trained intervention personnel may be available to assist in this process. One of the biggest roles of a care provider is to facilitate a sense of belonging and inclusion. Several helpful strategies are as follows:
• Start with the assumption that all children are competent.
• Adapt the environment so that it is developmentally appropriate, challenging, and fits the needs and interests of each child.
• While there may be a need to support a child's mastery of a specific skill, keep the whole child in mind, particularly the child's social-emotional experience.[1]
Consider the following questions when adapting an activity for a child with special needs:
• Does the child have an opportunity to be in control of the learning experience?
• Is there a balance between adult-initiated learning and child-initiated learning?
• Can the child make choices while learning the skill?
• Is the child able to initiate their own efforts to practice the skill, with support given by the child care provider?
• Is the child gaining self-confidence and showing the joy of accomplishment while learning?
• Is there room in the activity for the child to make discoveries?
[1] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya CC BY
[2] Inclusion Works! By the California Department of Education is used with permission
26.07: How to Make Adaptions to Materials to Meet the Needs of an Infant or Toddler
Materials and Inclusion
Choosing toys and materials carefully is essential, because the right toys and materials can give children with disabilities a chance to be engaged and to experience success. For infants and toddlers, child care providers typically offer a variety of toys, such as blocks, stacking or nesting cups, and simple shape sorters or puzzles designed for very young children to use. Also, including materials that encourage sensory exploration by using smells, sounds, sights, and textures enhances children's learning and development.[1]
Depending on the individual needs, some toys or materials might require simple adaptations to support the child's ability to use them. For example, attaching hook-and-loop fasteners (Velcro), large knobs, or handles may make it easier for a child with visual or physical-motor special needs to play with blocks or puzzles. Similarly, adding fabric or tabs to the edges of cardboard book pages can make it easier to turn pages. Of course, it's essential to be mindful of potential choking hazards when considering modifying materials.[1]
These are just a few simple and inexpensive strategies to ensure that all children can use materials successfully. Fortunately, family members and specialists familiar with an individual child's development are also a great source of information and ideas for making simple adaptations to support the child's success. Many toys and materials for infants and toddlers already have some of the simple adaptations mentioned above.[1]
Assistive technology can support a child's ability to participate actively in his or her home, childcare program, school, or other community settings. Using electronic toys, switches, or other devices in your child care environment may help an infant or toddler to take part fully in activities. Switches allow children who have limited hand function or muscle control to operate toys or materials that they could not play with otherwise. Sometimes a very young child will need equipment for positioning, such as a specialized chair or stander. Assistive technology and adaptations should be listed in the Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) if a child has one.[1]
Thinking about how a child with special needs will explore and use your child care environment gives you a chance to consider the strengths of your environment and enhance it as needed.[1]
[1] U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, n.d., Creating Inclusive Environments and Learning Experiences for Infants and Toddlers is in the pubic domain | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/26%3A_Inclusive_Caregiving/26.06%3A_Successful_Inclusion_of_Children_with_Special_Needs.txt |
Working Together
Early childhood educators may need to expand how they reach out to families and link with specialists to meet the needs of children with differing abilities and learning characteristics. These two groups of people have vital information to share and can serve as resources to support children in a program. Their suggestions invariably enrich efforts at inclusion. Specialists themselves may even be able to visit a care facility and offer some on-site guidance.
Providing inclusive early childhood education does not mean a caregiver—or even a group of caregivers—has to do the work alone. Everyone has a role to play. The primary role of an early childhood educator is to nurture and support the child's development in a loving and caring manner. Partnerships formed with other adults caring for the child—the parents, health-care providers, or specialists—can complement the efforts of all concerned, especially when everyone concentrates on a particular strength. When the expertise of many are combined, ideas develop and strategies emerge better than those any one person could have developed alone. The result is the essence of true collaboration.[2]
For collaboration to be successful, the following elements are essential:
• Respect for the family's knowledge and experience with the child. They are the first and best resource and should be included in planning and implementing care of their child.
• Clear and regular communication, both informal or planned meetings.
• Time is reserved for collaboration, recognizing that everyone is likely to be pressed for time.
• Everyone has an investment and active involvement.
• Collaborative efforts to provide the appropriate assessments and support services for the child.
More information about identifying children with special needs and providing inclusive care can be found in the publication inclusion Works by the California Department of Education.[2]
[1] Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines by the California Department of Education is used with permission
[2] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya CC BY
26.09: Inclusive Play
Inclusion and Playing
The literature points out that young children move from less complex types of play, such as solitary play, to more complex, partner-dependent types of play, such as parallel play, associative play, or cooperative play (Rubin et al., 1976; Jamison et al., 2012). Typically, developing children can progress from simple to more complex types of play without special teacher support. However, children with disabilities may experience restrictions in attending and in being engaged in activities requiring more complex levels of social play (Sigafoos et al., 1999). They may need adequate support from their environments to spend more time engaged in more complex social interactions with their peers. Literature shows that the social development of children with disabilities and their later social success can be significantly influenced by early interventions targeting social play between children with disabilities and their typically developing peers (Ivory and McCollum, 1999; Craig-Unkefer and Kaiser, 2002; Guralnick et al., 2006). As key elements of children's social environments, both peers and teachers can actively facilitate participation in all types of social play. In fact, beside children's characteristics, a diversity of environmental factors which can affect children's social play are highlighted in the literature, namely classroom characteristics (e.g., toys characteristics, the existence of learning/activity centers), and the types of teacher interactions (Ivory and McCollum, 1999; Guralnick et al., 2006).[1] | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/26%3A_Inclusive_Caregiving/26.08%3A_Collaborating_for_Inclusion.txt |
Autism Spectrum Disorder -ASD
During the last two decades, research has made tremendous progress with regard to early identification and diagnosis of ASD. As a result, in many cases, ASD can now be reliably diagnosed between 18 and 24 months of age (Ozonoff S, Young GS, Landa RJ, Brian J, Bryson S, Charman T, et al, 2015). Advances in best practices related to early identification are reflected in a 2006 policy statement published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (2006), asserting that Primary Care Providers (e.g., family physicians, pediatricians) administer formal screening tests during every well-child visit scheduled at 18 and 24 months, independent of known risk factors or reported concerns. Moreover, Primary Care Providers are urged to promptly refer children for Early Intervention services as soon as ASD is seriously considered as a possibility for diagnosis.
Among the children with a documented clinical ASD diagnosis, children's median age at first diagnosis was 51 months. The median age of children's first comprehensive developmental evaluation was 40 months, with 44% being first evaluated at or prior to 36 months, and 37% being first evaluated later than 48 months.
The intersection between (1) the complex ECE system in the US, and (2) characteristic delays in ASD diagnoses has important implications for children's access to inclusive ECE environments. On one hand, many children who are eventually diagnosed with ASD are enrolled in ECE programs prior to receiving a formal diagnosis. Thus, ECE teachers serve as an important source of social and professional support during a time when parents begin to recognize concerns about their child's social-communication development, navigate the diagnostic process, and begin to access ASD-specific resources. ECE teachers begin to implement individualized instruction and classroom adaptations prior to children's ASD diagnoses in many instances. On the other hand, because most children with ASD do not receive their formal ASD diagnosis until they are 4 years of age or older, the Pre-K and kindergarten years are often the first realistic opportunity for implementing formal special education services in inclusive classroom settings.[1]
[1] Siller M, Morgan L, Wedderburn Q, Fuhrmeister S and Rudrabhatla A (2021) Inclusive Early Childhood Education for Children With and Without Autism: Progress, Barriers, and Future Directions. Is licensed CC B
26.11: Conclusion
Conclusion to Inclusive Caregiving
Teachers will have children in their classrooms with diagnosed and undiagnosed special needs, including those related to their health. Early childhood programs have legal obligations to provide inclusive programs and inclusion benefits for everyone involved (children with special needs, their peers that do not have special needs, families, and teachers).
Having a solid foundation in developmentally appropriate practice, which includes the importance of learning about and meeting the needs of each individual child, goes a long way to providing inclusive early education. Support, accommodations, and collaboration are essential to providing inclusive early childhood education programming.[1]
[1] Chapter 15: Families of Children with Special Needs or Special Health Care Needs by Krischa Esquivel; Emily Elam; Jennifer Paris; and Maricela Tafoya is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
26.12: Additional Resources
Additional Resources for Inclusive Caregiving
Complete self-assessment of inclusive practices in your program using a checklist such as one listed here: | textbooks/socialsci/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/26%3A_Inclusive_Caregiving/26.10%3A_Specific_Considerations.txt |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.