early childhood theorists problem solving

• ANZAC Day Story Books For Children
• Penguin Information Posters
• Free Webinar - Communicating with Families Strategies for Fostering Positive Relationships

Child Theorists and Their Theories in Practice

• Written by  Lorina
• March 7, 2023

As Educators working with children, it's important to understand each theoretical approach and use parts of different theorists in context. Each theorist’s ideas are independent of the other, but when put together, they give us a good overall understanding of how children develop as they age. The following is an overview of popular child theorists, a brief description of their theories and how to implement their theories into practice within the early childhood environment.

Erick Erickson

He developed a psychosocial theory to understand how we each develop our individual identities: why some of us are independent and others needy; feel able or useless; optimistic or pessimistic. He believed people develop through 8 stages. At each stage, there is one important problem or issue to solve in order to develop a healthy sense of self.

Erikson's Theories in Practice

• As Educators, we form attachments with children. • We respond warmly and consistently to babies’ needs. • We talk gently to babies if we can’t pick them up or deal with their needs right away. • Tune in to children’s interests and skill levels and offer just enough support to help them do things for themselves. • Provide a variety of play experiences so children can explore and choose what to do. • Never pressure a child into toileting before they are ready. • Provide play spaces with lots of movable parts so children can organize and develop their own play • Invite children to contribute to the program, what they want to do. • Respect their play and give them time.

Jean Piaget

He discovered that all children’s intellectual development progressed through four stages, beginning in infancy and are completed by adolescence. Thinking becomes more and more complex as the child ages. Each stage of thinking causes the child to see the world in a different way. He indicated that a child must ‘master’ one stage before they can move on to the next stage. If they cannot master a stage, they will never reach their full potential. Piaget believed that intellectual development controls every other aspect of development. He believed that there is a pattern to the way children learn to think and this pattern goes in stages. Children learn in different ways at different ages. Children are little researchers. They learn by using their senses to explore how things work. Piaget says that telling children lots of facts about a thing, without letting them find out about the thing for themselves, is not very helpful. They need to be able to see, touch, taste, smell, move, and hear the things they are learning about. This is called ‘concrete learning’.

Piaget’s Theories in Practice

• Educator's nurturance (comfort, teaching, and play) should be suitable for the individual child's stage of thinking. • We need to develop an understanding of what children can and cannot do based on their age and intellectual ability. • We should offer tasks that enable a child to achieve and to challenge their skills. If they are given tasks that are too difficult for them, they will not be able to succeed, which may affect them negatively, psychologically and emotionally. • See children as active learners, listen to their ideas • Help children find their own answers • Know that babies will use materials in a different way to toddlers; toddlers differently to preschoolers • Look for children’s interests and plan to build on them • Let children repeat an activity, sometimes many times, when we can see that it is still interesting to them

Lev Vygotsky

Vygotsky emphasised the importance of relationships and interactions between children and more knowledgeable peers and adults. He believed that children’s cognitive understandings were enriched and deepened when they were ‘scaffolded’ by parent, teachers or peers. Social interactions involve communicating, so Vygotsky also emphasised the role of language in the development of the child's thinking processes. Vygotsky also sees the child's ability to think logically as developing in stages. He has outlined four different stages of conceptual development.

Vygotsky’s Theories in Practice

• Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development means that children learn with the guidance and assistance of those in their environment. • Educators will know that children will need assistance and will know when to step in and guide the child to support them in the learning process. • Children need interactions on a one-to-one basis and these conversations will assist their learning.

He believed that children need to interact with other people, work both alone and cooperatively with their peers and adults. Education should also reflect the child’s interests and backgrounds and that their social and cultural worlds are important. Dewey saw learning as lifelong and that educators need to not only teach skills and knowledge but also help children to live and exist in our society.

Dewey’s Theories in Practice

• Educators need to observe children to determine the experiences children are interested in and are ready for. • Educators need to be able to guide children’s learning, engage their minds, and work collaboratively with children and not just instruct. • Curriculum needs to be purposeful and assist children to make sense of the world. • Educators should decide on the curriculum based on children’s abilities and knowledge – to decide what is safe and appropriate for them to learn. • Educators should encourage problem-solving and critical thinking for children. • Observe and document in depth in order to plan to where children are. • Understand the meaning of experiences for children.

Howard Gardner

Gardner proposed a theory of multiple intelligences that suggests there is more than one intelligence – He considers children and adults to be individuals who all have skills and areas that we enjoy and excel at and that these fit into our major intelligence. When you are good at a task, you enjoy completing that task or similar tasks and so are more likely to continue to develop and build on your skills in that area and become even better. Gardner saw the arts and creativity as playing major roles in children’s learning. Children are able to explore many cognitive concepts through their play and creative explorations.

Gardner’s Theories in Practice

• Learning occurs in social settings and contexts. • Instead of educators being the sole facilitator of learning, children should be encouraged as ‘peer mentors’ assisting each other to learn and develop skills. • As educators, we need to provide learning opportunities for children that reflect their ‘intelligence’ and learning style. • Educators should be able to assist children to transfer skills they have to learn and develop into other areas • Provide children with a wide range of learning opportunities. • Educators should present material in ways that take into account the different bits of intelligence, rather than focusing on the traditional verbal and mathematical ways of teaching.

B F Skinner

Skinner's theory is based on "operant conditioning" – behaviour is followed by a consequence and the nature of the consequence modifies the tendency to repeat the behaviour – a method of learning through rewards and punishment. He introduced the concepts of positive reinforcement (i.e. if the desired behaviour occurs something good happens) and negative reinforcement (i.e. when a bad behaviour is stopped by the desired behaviour). Extinction is when nothing happens when the behaviour happens and eventually the behaviour will stop. Intermittent reinforcement (mix positive reinforcement with extinction) was the best way to ensure behaviour continued.

Skinner’s Theories in Practice

• Children learn through trial and error. • Educators should provide positive feedback and negative feedback to try to influence a child’s behaviour. • There is support for the notion of simple rewards, such as positive support for children's emotional needs, but "punishment" is not supported.

Uri Bronfenbrenner

Bronfenbrenner sees the world in which the child grows as having a major influence on development. He describes this as a two-way influence. The personality and behaviour of the child will influence the way people in the environment will interact with that child. He also believes that the interactions between environmental factors could affect the child’s development. For instance, it is not just the influence of the parents on the child or the childcare centre on the child but the way the parents and Educators get on. This process of interacting influences is known as reciprocal interaction. Bronfenbrenner recently modified his theory and acknowledged that the child’s biological hereditary makeup combines with environmental forces to mould development.

Bronfenbrenner’s Theories in Practice

• Educators need to foster positive relationships with children and families. • Our interaction and support for families will affect their children’s development. • Ensure that we present programs within our service that reflect the needs and expectations of the society, culture and community in which our children live.

Arnold Gesell

He believed that children develop in an orderly sequence set by heredity. Development won’t occur until the child is ready for it to occur. Gesell was recognized for his pioneering advances in the methodology of carefully observing and measuring behaviour, and describing child development.

Gesell’s Theories in Practice

• If a child is not ready for a specific task or to move up a level, keep them back until they are ready. • Teaching children before they are ready is not ok • Each child is unique and the environment should teach them the uniqueness

Maria Montessori

Montessori stressed that children learn best by using their senses and pursuing their interests, rather than forcing them to learn what is expected. Children have innate skills and talents. There are sensitive periods that indicate when the child is ready to learn. To maximize children’s learning, Montessori believed that teachers should provide the necessary resources for children to learn independently, and intrude on the children’s learning experience as little as possible. If children are guided with love they will learn on their own.

Montessori’s Theories in Practice

• Educators will ensure that there are blocks of uninterrupted time for playing. • Children explore and use Montessori materials and equipment. • Children are given hands-on learning opportunities. • The program and environment will be ordered and the children will have the opportunity to be involved in the routine life of the service including meal preparation and cleaning. • Encourage independence - let the child choose • Be non-directive; the child will show you what they need • Do not yell at the child for unintentional mistakes • Educators should construct the child's learning environment • Absorb learning through different experiences

Mildred Parten

Parten’s theory focuses on social play and its development, the ability to join groups of other children and the desire to do so begins at an early age and progresses through a developmental sequence. Parten focused on the different types of social play. In her research, she discovered that children of different ages actually played together differently. They were capable of different levels or categories of social play. Parten’s stages:

Unoccupied play Solitary play Onlooker play Parallel play Associative play Co-operative play

Parten’s Theories in Practice

• The categories of social play are still useful tools to help focus us on how social play changes and develops at different stages of children’s lives. • Educators should understand that Parten’s stages are not always followed in a linear fashion by all children. • A child may not progress directly from one stage to another. • Educators need to understand that children may engage in different stages of social play depending on factors such as familiarity with either the situation or their playmates or the child’s temperament.

Kenneth H Rubin

Rubin’s and his associate’s studies have done much to clarify the developmental levels of children’s play in light of our knowledge about children. They also have identified ‘how’ children play and how it correlates with Parten’s Stages of Social Play.

Rubin’s Theories in Practice

• Do small-group and large-group activities • Understand that children play together differently • Social play changes depending on the child’s stage.

Theories enable educators to draw upon a range of perspectives to understand a child's learning and development. It provides an opportunity for educators to discuss different theories and beliefs and to investigate why children act in the way that they do and challenge traditional ways of seeing children

Further Reading Erik Erikson - Psychosocial Development - Article on Erik Erikson and his psychosocial theory on how to understand how we each develop our individual identities through eight stages of psychosocial development from infancy to adulthood. Howard Gardner - Multiple Intelligence  - Article on Howards Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.  Child Theorists Posters - The following posters of 11 popular child theorists provide a brief description of their theory and how their theories are implemented into practice within the early childhood environment. These posters are great to use as a display within the service or as a reminder for Educators on the different types of child developmental theories which they can refer to and use within their documentation.  Kenneth Rubin - Theories Of Play - Article on Kenneth Rubin's developmental levels of children’s play in light of our knowledge about children.

John Dewey's Theory - The following provides information about John Dewey, the Definition Of The Curriculum, the Main Features Of Dewy's Theory of Education, Progressive Education and Dewey's Theories In Practice. 

References: Butler Creative, Linking Theorists to the EYLF Outcomes , 19 March 2017 Child Development Theorists and Theories, Lesson 17, Family Consumer Sciences CHCFC301A, SieLearning, TAFE NSW Urie Bronfenbrenner, Wikipedia  John Dewey, Wikipedia Theory Of Multiple Intelligences, Wikipedia

• childcare duties
• childcare environments

Related Articles

Childcare Wages In Australia +

Writing A Personal Philosophy For Childcare +

Interview Questions For A Job In Childcare +

Resigning From A Job In Early Childhood +

School Readiness Program +

Progressive Mealtimes In Early Childhood Settings +

Celebrating Birthdays In Childcare +

Encouraging Parents To Pack Healthy Foods For Childcare +

Sustainability Ideas For Early Childhood Services +

Growing An Edible Garden For Children +

Suggestions

Strategies To Help Angry Children Cool Down

Among the many reasons that make anger, such a destructive emotion is the possibility of...

Project-Based Learning In Early Childhood

Project-based learning is an educational approach in which students acquire knowledge and skills by working...

Diploma Qualified Educator Job Description

As a Diploma Qualified educator, you are to plan, implement and evaluate an educational program that...

• Childcare Articles
• Childcare Programming
• Student Articles
• Teaching Children
• Child Development
• Child Behaviour
• Parenting Articles
• Pregnancy Articles
• Child Health & Safety
• Games and Activities
• Art and Craft
• Rhymes and Songs
• Cooking Activities
• Cutting Worksheets
• Pre Writing Worksheets
• Alphabet Worksheets
• Number Worksheets
• Colours Worksheets
• Shapes Worksheets
• Vocabulary Worksheets
• Phonics Worksheets
• Reading Worksheets
• Writing Worksheets
• Math Worksheets
• English Worksheets
• Classroom Displays
• Colouring Pages
• All EYLF Templates
• Learning Stories
• Reflections
• Child Observations
• Child Portfolios
• Curriculum Plans
• Forms and Checklists
• FAQs and Troubleshoot
• Childcare News
• Childcare Events
• Forum Index
• Active Topics
• Childcare Forums
• Student Forums
• Parent Forums
• General Discussions
• General News
• Articles News
• Activities News
• Printables News
• EYLF Templates News

Subscription

• Subscription Plans
• Edit Profile
• Newsletter Settings
• Forum Settings

Appsessment

• Terms & Conditions
• Copyright & Disclaimer
• Privacy Policy

© 2009-2024 Aussie Childcare Network Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved .

The 5 Key Theories of Educational Psychology in Early Childhood Education and Care

• December 3, 2023

Understanding Educational Psychology in Early Childhood Education and Care

If you’ve ever been curious about why children behave the way they do, or how they acquire new skills and knowledge, you’ve dipped your toe into the waters of educational psychology. This is a scientific field that studies how humans learn in educational settings, the effectiveness of educational interventions, and the development of our teaching methods.

Now, when we focus on early childhood education and care, understanding educational psychology becomes even more critical. Young children are not just small adults; their brains work differently. If we hope to educate and guide them effectively, we need to understand these differences. Education is defined as:

“a journey of acquiring knowledge and skills through structured teaching, independent exploration, and direct experience.” A child’s brain, due to its plasticity and potential for growth, is a fertile ground for this journey. Let’s delve into understanding the major psychology theories applicable in this regard.

Psychology is defined as:

the scientific study of the mind and behaviour. In the sphere of early childhood education and care, the subfield of educational psychology makes this study particularly pertinent. Here, the discipline ventures into understanding how children learn and what can promote or hinder their learning and development. To unwrap this, educators draw on various educational psychology theories. Each one sheds light on a different facet of a child’s excursion through early learning.

Educational psychology then means much more than understanding how children learn. It’s about uncovering the ways that we, as educators, can meet the diverse needs and preferences of each learner to create an inclusive, engaging learning experience that recognises and respects each child’s unique perspectives and abilities.

The Importance of Educational Psychology Theories in Early Childhood Education

So, why then are educational psychology theories so crucial in early childhood education and care? These theories help early years educators understand how children think, learn, and interact with their surroundings. They provide a framework for stepping into the shoes of a young one to appreciate the world from their perspective. Armed with this understanding, we can guide children better and help them navigate their own educational journey.

The value of these theories extends beyond the classroom. They can help parents, caretakers, and those in contact with children create supportive environments that stimulate optimal development.

Before we aim to explore the main theories in educational psychology, as they relate to ECE, let’s summarise them, to give you a brief understanding of what each one entails:

1. Behaviourism: Learning through Pavlovian principles

A theory wrought by Ivan Pavlov, behaviourism adopted in early childhood education focuses primarily on observable behaviours. Children are observed as they respond to certain stimuli, showing they’ve learned and thus, have been conditioned. This theory states that learning occurs through reinforcing or rewarding behaviours, or through punishment to deter them.

2. Cognitive Development: Piaget’s exploration into a child’s mind – Educational Psychology

Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget mapped the journey of cognitive development, shedding light on how children perceive the world around them. Piaget argued that children go through specific stages of cognitive growth, each defined by unique intellectual capabilities. Early education can support cognitive development by fostering an environment conducive to exploration and question-asking. Interested in developmental psychology? Want to learn more on developmental theories through case studies and practical examples? You will love this 1 hour professional development course with a certificate, 90% subsidied for TeachKloud readers, here .

3. Constructivism: Children as Active Participants

Constructivism puts the child in the driver’s seat. It posits that learning isn’t a passive event but an active process where children construct their own understanding of the world through experience and reflection. In an educational setting, this might involve problem-solving tasks, independent exploration, and hands-on activities.

4. Social Learning: Observational Learning and Modelling

Children are social creatures. They learn from and model their behaviour after others, particularly significant adults in their life. Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory underscores this, suggesting that observing others can be a powerful way to learn new behaviours. This theory encourages the creation of a positive learning environment where appropriate behaviours are demonstrated and mimicked.

5. Multiple Intelligences: The Spectrum of Intellect

Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences presents an expansive understanding of intelligence, far beyond basic intellectual measures. It acknowledges that children learn and express their knowledge in various ways, including linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligence. This highlights the importance of diversifying teaching strategies to cater to each intelligence.

In the realm of early childhood education and care, these educational psychology theories function as guideposts. They help us navigate the landscape of a growing child’s mind, constantly adjusting to their developmental needs and learning styles. Ultimately, their careful and mindful application can set children up for a lifetime of successful learning.

Now, let’s explore each of the above theories in more depth.

Behaviourism: Shaping Learning Through Reinforcement and Punishment – Educational Psychology

Behaviourism is a perspective on learning that focuses on observable behaviour. In essence, it involves the correlation between a particular stimulus and a resultant behaviour. According to the Behaviourist school of thought, the learning process is predominantly influenced by external factors. As someone responsible for fostering young minds, understanding this theory can help you better shape your teaching methods and environment.

Reinforcement and punishment are two key concepts in behaviourist theory that are used to shape behaviour. It’s based on the premise that actions followed by desirable outcomes (reinforcements) are more likely to be repeated, whereas actions followed by undesirable outcomes (punishments) are less likely to reoccur.

Behaviourism serves as a driving force in the classroom, notably in shaping desirable behaviour and discouraging acts of disobedience or disruption. By allowing teachers to selectively reinforce rewarding behaviours and punish undesirable ones, schools can create a positive atmosphere conducive to active learning.

For example, in the simplest of forms, a teacher might reward a student for raising their hand before speaking ( positive reinforcement ) or correct a student interrupting class by briefly isolating them from the group ( negative punishment ). By linking these consequences with the student’s actions, the theory suggests that the child will associate their actions with these outcomes thereby learning what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour in the school environment. Do you think these are beneficial, do you agree with this theory?

Let’s summarise the main experiments and theories in behavioursm!

Operant conditioning , an important aspect of Behaviourism, relates to the learned response to performing certain actions. The idea, developed by B.F. Skinner, suggests that a student can be conditioned to perform or avoid specific behaviours based on the response they get. For instance, if a student receives praise for drawing a good picture ( positive reinforcement ), they will be inclined to repeat such activities.

Pavlov’s Dogs is a popular behaviorism experiment. Devised by Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, this theory investigates the role of stimuli in evoking a specific response. Pavlov reasoned that dogs salivated when food was present. He then paired the food with the ringing of a bell. Over time, the dogs began to salivate with just the ringing of the bell, which meant this neutral stimulus (bell) had become a conditioned stimulus.

This learning process is known as classical conditioning: an automatic response to a previously neutral stimulus after repeated associations with another stimulus. The asset of this experiment in educational psychology is its demonstration of how we can learn to respond in certain ways through repeated associations in our environment.

Behavioural Conditioning in Education

Beyond Pavlov’s dogs, how does this relate to early childhood education and care? Behaviourism asserts that all behaviours are learned through interaction with the environment. It suggests that anything children can do, they have learned to do. In a classroom, this might mean rewarding good behaviour or right answers to promote repetition, or discouraging negative behaviour with appropriate sanctions.

The Little Albert Study – 1919 

The “Little Albert” experiment is a significant study in the field of educational psychology and a crucial example of classical conditioning. Conducted by John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, in 1919, the experiment aimed to demonstrate that emotional responses could be conditioned or learned.

Initially, ‘Albert’, a nine-month-old boy, showed no fear of a white rat. However, Watson and Rayner began pairing the sight of the rat with the loud sound of a hammer hitting a steel bar behind Albert’s back. The loud noise, naturally, frightened Albert.

The conditioning continued until Albert showed fear at the sight of the rat, even in the absence of the noise. Thus, fear had been conditioned; Albert had ‘learned’ to fear the white rat.

Thorndike’s Cats and the law of effect – 1898-1905

Edward Thorndike formulated the Law of Effect in 1898 after his puzzle box experiments with cats.

In his experiments, Thorndike placed cats inside puzzle boxes and observed their behaviour. When a cat performed a specific action that opened the box — for example, pulling a lever or pushing a button — it was allowed to escape and rewarded with a morsel of food. Through this process of trial-and-error, the cats eventually learned which actions resulted in them escaping and receiving a reward. Thorndike’s meticulous observations led to the formulation of the Law of Effect.

The Law of Effect 

Simply put, the Law of Effect states that responses that lead to satisfying consequences are more likely to be repeated, while actions leading to unsatisfying outcomes are less likely to occur again. In other words, behaviours followed by rewarding outcomes are strengthened, but behaviours followed by discomfort or unpleasant results diminish over time.

This empirical law is at the heart of behaviourism. It underscores the fundamental role of reinforcement (reward) and punishment in shaping behaviour — a concept that has had a significant impact on a variety of disciplines, including early childhood education and care.

The Skinner Box

B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) was an American psychologist known for contribution to behaviorism.

Contributing further to the field of behaviourism, Skinner proposed the theory of operant conditioning – a learning process through which behaviour that’s followed by reinforcement (reward) is strengthened and hence, is more likely to happen again. Conversely, a behaviour followed by punishment is weakened and less likely to recur. His work has had a profound impact on our understanding of behaviour and its influence on learning and development.

Skinner also introduced the concept of ‘schedules of reinforcement’ . This refers to strategies of enforcement in which the frequency and timing of reinforcement vary. It includes fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and variable-interval schedules – strategies that have found substantial application in different fields, including early childhood education and care.

The Notion of Positive and Negative Reinforcement

At the heart of operant conditioning lie two main tenets –  positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement . Positive reinforcement refers to presenting a motivating item or event after a behaviour, encouraging its repetition. For instance, rewarding a child for finishing their homework with time on their favorite game.

On the flip side, negative reinforcement involves the removal of an undesirable item or event after a behaviour, likewise promoting its recurrence. Imagine driving in any car without a seatbelt – the irritating and persistent beeping sound stops as soon as you buckle up, thus negatively reinforcing the behaviour of wearing a seatbelt.

It is crucial to note here that negative reinforcement is not punishment – it is intended to increase good behaviour, not decrease poor behaviour.

Implementation of Behaviourism in Early Childhood Education – Educational Psychology

When it comes to applying behaviourism in early childhood education, there are a variety of strategies educators can employ:

Positive and Negative Reinforcement

An understanding of reinforcement, in its positive and negative forms, aids educators in actively influencing a child’s behaviour. Positive reinforcement might involve praise or rewards for good behaviour or successful learning outcomes, while negative reinforcement is the removal of an undesirable element following appropriate behaviour.

Use of Punishment

Punishment, both positive and negative, forms part of the Behaviourism theory. Positive punishment may involve mild reprimands or loss of privileges in response to inappropriate behaviour. Negative punishment might be the removal of a favourite toy or activity. Remember, it’s essential to ensure punishments are appropriate and not detrimental to the child’s emotional health.

Structured Learning Environment

In behaviourism, a structured learning environment is key. This may include clear rules and expectations, a routine, and consistent responses to certain behaviours. From knowing what to expect, children can learn to predict consequences and alter their behaviour accordingly.

Note: While Behaviourism offers valuable techniques, it should work in conjunction with other theories for an all-encompassing approach to early childhood learning and development.

Cognitive Development: How Children Think and Learn – Educational Psychology

When it comes to understanding how children think and learn, the cognitive development theory, largely explored by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, takes centre stage. This theory, at its very core, prioritises the child’s mental growth and the stages they navigate through as their thinking evolves, paving the way for understanding, knowledge and learning.

Piaget’s cognitive development theory breaks down into four critical stages:

1. Sensorimotor Stage (0 to 2 years)

This is the first stage in a child’s cognitive development, according to Piaget. During these years, infants and toddlers learn primarily through their senses and motor activities. They begin to grasp the idea of object permanence —understanding that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, touched, or heard.

2. Preoperational Stage (2 to 7 years)

During this stage, children start to develop language and use symbols to represent objects. Children at this age tend to be egocentric, meaning they usually see things only from their perspective. They aren’t capable of logical reasoning yet, but they can use pretend play, make-believe, and imitate others.

3. Concrete Operational Stage (7 to 11 years)

At this stage, children’s thinking becomes more logical and less egocentric. They can comprehend concepts like conservation, reversibility, and cause and effect. In doing so, they start to grasp that the quantity or amount of something doesn’t change even if its appearance differs.

4. Formal Operational Stage (12 years onwards)

This is the ultimate phase of cognitive development. Here, youngsters can think abstractly and reason logically. They’re capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning, and they can understand complex issues and situations.

Understanding these stages and applying them to teaching strategies can immensely benefit the child’s intellectual growth. Just remember, each child develops at their pace and may not strictly adhere to these stages’ age boundaries.

Constructivism: Encouraging Active Learning and Problem-Solving Skills – Educational Psychology

Constructed on the belief that knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the learner’s experiences and ideas, constructivism invites children to be part of their learning journey. Widely accepted in early childhood education and care, the theory promotes independent thinking, active learning, and problem-solving skills in young learners.

From the constructivist perspective, understanding comes from interacting with the environment and reflecting on these experiences. A child’s learning, therefore, integrates new information with prior knowledge, leading to a continually evolving understanding of the world.

You, as an educator or parent, might have noticed that children often learn better when they actively explore their environment and interact with real-world challenges. That’s constructivist learning in action, your child is building their understanding through experience and reflection.

There are two central sub-theories within constructivism: cognitive constructivism and social constructivism.

Cognitive Constructivism

Cognitive constructivism emphasises the individual learner’s construction of knowledge. It is built on Piaget’s theory of cognitive development that each child going through development stages will develop, organise, and use their ‘schema’ – cognitive frameworks that help them interpret their world.

This constructivist approach supports learners as they create meaningful interpretations of their world, through active involvement and interaction with their surroundings.

Social Constructivism

On the other hand, Social constructivism, derived from the work of Vygotsky, places more emphasis on learning as a social process. It states that learning happens when children engage in social activities and dialogue, and that learning and development are interrelated processes.

By participating in conversations and collaborative activities with more experienced individuals (like parents, teachers, or older peers), children can reach higher levels of performance and understanding than they could on their own.

Implementing constructivism in early childhood education and care can be incredibly fulfilling. You’ll see your children exploring their environment, asking questions, figuring things out for themselves, and applying their newfound knowledge in different contexts. Over time, this process nurtures independent thinking, enhances problem-solving skills, and prepares them for lifelong learning.

Implementation of Constructivism in Early Childhood Education

The implementation of constructivism theory in early childhood education primarily involves facilitating an experience-based learning environment. It’s a shift from the traditional method of rote memorisation to a more interactive setup, where children actively construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world around them.

What this means in practicality is that educational settings are crafted with rich opportunities for exploration and discovery, encouraging children to question, brainstorm, and get hands-on with their surroundings. Children are encouraged to make decisions, solve problems and think critically. This actively engages them in the learning process, shifting it from passive reception of information to active participation and interaction.

Tools used in a Constructivist Learning Environment

Constructivist teaching leverages a variety of tools to stimulate a child’s curiosity and promote self-learning. Important tools include:

Interactive Materials

These are the items that a child can manipulate physically. Examples include building blocks, puzzles, and arts-and-crafts supplies. By interacting with these materials, children gain a greater understanding of their environment and learn fundamental concepts such as shapes, numbers, and patterns.

Technological Tools

In today’s increasingly digitised world, various technological tools, such as tablets and interactive whiteboards, are being used to facilitate learning. These tools not only engage children but also provide a platform for them to explore and learn at their own pace. Technology can offer interactive games and applications that teach different subjects, fostering independent discovery and problem-solving skills.

Real-World Scenarios

A constructivist approach often incorporates real-world examples to make learning more relatable and effective. From field trips to shops for understanding numbers and money to nature walks for learning about the environment, real-world scenarios play a significant role in constructivist learning.

The Role of The Teacher

While the tools mentioned above are crucial in a constructivist environment, perhaps the most significant ‘tool’ is the teacher. The role of the teacher in a constructivist classroom is not just to disseminate information, but to guide students, stimulate curiosity, promote questioning, and facilitate problem-solving.

Social Learning: The Power of Observing and Modeling Behaviours – Educational Psychology

Next, lets examine social learning theory, also known as observational learning, strongly influenced by the work of psychologist Albert Bandura. This approach suggests that learning occurs through the observation and replication of others’ behaviour. You may have noticed this phenomenon when a child copies an adult’s action, such as sweeping the floor with a toy broom or “talking” on a toy phone. This is social learning in action.

According to Bandura, there are four components to learning through observation:

First and foremost, according to Bandura, watching others is a key component of learning new behaviours. This process can happen unintentionally or intentionally, such as in a classroom when a teacher demonstrates a new skill or behaviour for students to imitate.

Observation does not equate to learning on its own. We must also remember what we’ve observed. Memory is, therefore, a critical element in the learning process. Methods, such as repetition and revisiting the observed behaviours, are often used to ensure that what has been learnt is retained.

We recreate:

Subsequently, the theoretical knowledge gained from observing is of no use until we are able to put it into practice. Thus, the third step involves translating these theoretical observations into practical actions. With practice and persistence, the observed behaviour becomes part of our skills set, improving over time through constant repetition and refinement.

We are motivated:

Finally, motivation plays a crucial role in learning through observation. Without the desire or reasons to replicate a behaviour, our observations, memory and practice will be of no avail, as we fail to internalize the behaviour.

In conclusion, the framework provided by Bandura’s social learning theory guides how educators design and implement lessons, strategise reinforcement, and evaluate students’ progress. It reminds us that learning is not a singular occurrence but an ongoing process, focusing on feedback, reflection, and constant adaptation.

Multiple Intelligences: Recognizing and Nurturing Different Learning Styles – Educational Psychology

Howard Gardener proposed an intriguing idea that broke the long-standing paradigm of intelligence being a singular entity. His groundbreaking theory proposed that children (and adults) are not simply ‘smart’ or ‘not smart’. Instead, he suggested that there are multiple ways individuals can be intelligent, hence the concept of Multiple Intelligences was born. The five key intelligences Gardener identified are:

Gardner provided a means of mapping the broad range of abilities that humans possess by grouping their capabili- ties into the following eight comprehensive “intelligences” (Armstrong, 2017).

These eight comprehensive intelligences do not exist in isolation, but interplay in powerful combinations that make each person unique in their learning style. This is especially relevant in early childhood, where development is rapid and individual traits begin to significantly emerge. These intelligences include:

Linguistic Intelligence: This refers to a child’s ability to think in words, utilise language to express and appreciate complex meanings, and effectively use language to achieve their goals. It’s easily noticeable in children who enjoy stories, like to read, write, tell jokes or debate.

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence: This is associated with reasoning, calculating, problem-solving and abstract, complex thinking. You’ll find this type of intelligence in children who easily understand numbers, patterns, and logical puzzles.

Spatial Intelligence: It is about perceiving the visual world accurately, performing transformations and modifications upon one’s initial perceptions, and being able to re-create aspects of one’s visual experience. Children with this type of intelligence tend to enjoy puzzles, drawing, and constructing things.

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence: It involves using one’s body to solve problems or create products. These children are often strong in physical activities such as sports, dance or drama.

Musical Intelligence: This intelligence is about sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, and timbre. Children with high musical intelligence may be constantly singing, tapping their foot, or drumming their fingers.

Interpersonal Intelligence: It involves understanding people’s intentions, emotions, motivations, and their desire for social interaction. It’s prevalent in children who are leaders among their peers, empathetic, communicators and mediators.

Intrapersonal Intelligence: This relates to self-reflection and an inner understanding of oneself. Children with a high level of this intelligence are usually introspective, often focused on their thoughts and feelings.

Naturalistic Intelligence: This type of Intelligence is about understanding and nurturing the natural environment. It shines in children who are interested in animals, plant life and are aware of the nature around them.

Identifying these facets of intelligence in every child provides the opportunity to nurture their dominant areas while also developing the others. It ensures a well-rounded, confident learner who can work effectively in different environments, and with various materials and groups of people. The resulting prolific learning outcomes justify the integration of this theory in early childhood education.

Applying Educational Psychology Theories in Early Childhood Education and Care

After understanding the five major educational psychology theories, it’s important to apply these within the framework of early childhood education and care. This application combines theory with practical technique to create high-quality, developmental experiences for young children.

Let’s start with behaviourism . This theory, focusing on observable behaviours, can be applied within classrooms by incorporating structured rewards and punishments. Teachers can engage in behaviour shaping techniques, such as giving stars for completed tasks, to encourage positive behaviours while discouraging negative ones.

Next up is cognitive development . Remember Piaget’s stages? Those can be applied by providing age-appropriate activities to support learning. A teacher could provide hands-on activities or puzzles to challenge cognitive abilities and foster growth within the stages of cognitive development.

Constructivism allows for the application of more active learning and problem-solving techniques. Teachers can encourage children to question, explore, and solve problems, helping to build their critical thinking capabilities.

In line with social learning , educators can model behaviours and perform role-play scenarios with children, allowing them to learn novel behaviours through observation. For example, showing children how to negotiate toy-sharing conflicts or demonstrating manners during snack time.

Finally, using multiple intelligences theory, teachers can create diverse activities suited to varying learning styles. For instance, incorporating music, art, games, or even outdoor educational activities can cater to different intelligences, ensuring all children are engaged with learning in a way that’s most effective for them.

Through these ways, educational psychology theories transition seamlessly into everyday education practices. Applying these theories in a practical and applicable manner helps children develop important skills, grow emotionally, cognitively and socially, while fostering a love for lifelong learning.

P.S. Are you interested in developmental psychology? Want to learn more on developmental theories through case studies and practical examples? You will love this 1 hour professional development course with a certificate, 90% subsidied for TeachKloud readers, here .

Understanding Socio-Emotional Development: A Comprehensive Guide

• 1st March, 2024

Pedagogy in Early Childhood Education: A Comprehensive Guide

• 21st January, 2024

Emotional Development in Early Childhood Education: A Practical Guide

• 7th January, 2024

Early Childhood Development

• Topics in Early Childhood

Child Development Theorists: Selected Books

Child development theorists: streaming video.

• Databases/Journals

Education Librarian

The following books and streaming video are only a sampling of the many resources available at Saint Francis University Library. For more, please search WorldCat Discovery by clicking the BOOKS button on the Library Home Page. Do an Advanced Search on the terms" Child Development," "Child Psychology,"and  "Early Childhood"; or the names of individual theorists and topics.

• Child Development Theorists: Freud to Erikson to Spock and Beyond by Learning Zone Express Publication Date: 2009 Beginning with Sigmund Freud, modern child development theories have changed the way that parents raise their children and the way that teachers teach those children. This video is an entertaining and enlightening view of the major child development theories, how the theories differ and how more than one approach can be beneficial. Historical footage and photos are combined with candid documentary footage from day care centers.
• History of Parenting Practices: Child Development Theories by Learning Zone Express Publication Date: 2014 What Mums and Dads have learned over the past 100 years! Why do parents do what they do? What has influenced parenting practices for the last 100 years? This video reviews events, government policies, and child development theorists who have shaped the way we parent our children. --Kanopy.
• Piaget's Developmental Theory: An Overview by Davidson Films with David Elkind Producer) Frequently cited as the most influential psychologist of the 20th century, Jean Piaget opened new areas of research with his interest in the evolution of thought processes. This production introduces the methods, specialized vocabulary and professional development of this eminent thinker. Watching children respond to the classical Piagetian tasks enables students to understand the concepts involved.
• Vygotsky's Developmental Theory: An Introduction by Davidson Films Presents Lev Vygotsky's early childhood learning theories and demonstrates them in classrooms. Development, according to Vygotsky, cannot be separated from its social context: it is misleading to evaluate children only on what they accomplish independently.
• Play: A Vygotskian Approach by Davidson Films Program based in part on a paper written by Lev Vygotsky ("Play and its role in the mental development of the child") in 1933. Assimilating ideas from other thinkers, particularly Piaget, Vygotsky proceeded to offer some new insights on the role of play in the cognitive development of young children. Discusses the affective/emotional, cognitive and social benefits of play. Examines how Vygotsky traced the development of play in children from infancy through later childhood. Offers strategies for fostering quality play.
• << Previous: Topics in Early Childhood
• Next: Databases/Journals >>
• Last Updated: Nov 1, 2023 1:42 PM
• URL: https://libguides.francis.edu/early-childhood-development

Saint Francis University is committed to making its websites accessible to all users. Please send comments or suggestions on accessibility improvements to disability services .

Saint Francis University Library 117 Evergreen Dr. Loretto, PA 15940-0600 Circulation: 814-472-3160 [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Social Problem-Solving in Early Childhood: Developmental Change and the Influence of Shyness

Olga l. walker.

1 University of Maryland, Department of Human Development

Kathryn A. Degnan

Nathan a. fox, heather a. henderson.

2 University of Miami, Department of Psychology

The purpose of this study was to examine developmental change and the influence of shyness on social problem-solving (SPS). At 24, 36, and 48 months, children (N=570) were observed while interacting with an unfamiliar peer during an SPS task and at 24 months, maternal report of shyness was collected. Results showed that across the full sample, children displayed low but stable levels of withdrawn SPS and increasing levels of SPS competence over development. In addition, results showed that 24-month shyness was associated with high-increasing and high-decreasing withdrawn SPS trajectories compared to the low-increasing withdrawn SPS trajectory. Shyness was also associated with the low-increasing compared to the high-increasing SPS competence trajectory. Findings demonstrate the development of SPS competence over early childhood, as well as the influence of early shyness on this developmental course, with some shy children showing improvement in SPS skills and others continuing to show SPS difficulties over time.

Social problem-solving (SPS) skills are important for children’s everyday social functioning, as well as their academic achievement in school ( Dubow & Tisak, 1989 ; Dubow, Tisak, Causey, Hryshko, & Reid, 1991 ; Walker and Henderson, 2012). There are, however, a wide range of individual differences in the ways children approach socially challenging situations. These individual differences in SPS skills may be attributed in part to a child’s shyness. Shyness refers to wariness and anxiety in response to novel social situations ( Coplan & Armer, 2007 ). Shy children approach socially challenging situations more passively than their peers and experience less success in attaining their social goals during elementary school ( Stewart & Rubin, 1995 ). Furthermore, shy children are at risk for social and emotional adjustment problems including poor peer relations, depression, and anxiety ( Chronis-Tuscano et al., 2009 ; Hirshfeld et al., 1992 ; Rubin, Stewart, & Coplan, 1995 ). Given that individual differences in shyness are evident in early childhood and that poor social interactions may lead to a number of poor outcomes including a cycle of peer rejection, reinforcement of poor social skills, and/or fewer opportunities to learn the scripts that guide social play, research on the origins of difficulties in peer interactions at young ages may significantly add to our understanding of these predictive links. The current study extends previous research with older children by examining developmental changes in SPS abilities and the influence of shyness on individual differences in patterns of change in SPS abilities between 24 and 48 months of age. Findings of the current study increase our understanding of the development of SPS behaviors and affect across early childhood, identify some temperamental origins of peer difficulty, and may help inform intervention efforts aimed at improving shy children’s SPS abilities.

In the current study, we focused specifically on the influence of shyness, a form of social withdrawal ( Rubin & Asendorf, 1993 ; Rubin Coplan, & Bowker, 2009 ) that is moderately stable over the toddler and preschool years ( Lemery, Goldsmith, Klinnert & Mrazek, 1999 ). Social withdrawal is defined as behavioral solitude that originates from factors internal to a child such as strong physiological reactions to novelty (i.e., shyness) and social disinterest, as opposed to solitude that results from being actively rejected by one’s peers ( Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009 ). Shy children appear motivated to interact with others, however, the fear and distress associated with novelty leads to avoidance of the social situation ( Crozier, 2000 ), making peer interaction during problem situations particularly difficult. In addition, maternal reports of shyness are relatively stable across development, especially between 24 and 48 months ( Lemery et al., 1999 ). This stability is also evidenced by the fact that children rarely change from one extreme of observed social withdrawal versus sociability to the other ( Fox et al., 2001 ; Pfeifer, Goldsmith, Davidson, & Rickman, 2002 ), and when assessed in toddlerhood, they are likely to respond similarly within a few years of assessment and even into adulthood ( Caspi & Silva, 1995 ; Caspi et al., 2003 ; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000 ). Therefore, it is important to identify the associations between shyness and social difficulties early on.

The development of competent SPS skills is important for children’s everyday social functioning and may influence the quality of their social experiences. SPS skills likely develop from various within-child characteristics (e.g., temperamental reactivity) and environmental factors (e.g., socialization with parents and peers; see Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992 for review). In a cross-sectional study, Rubin and Krasnor (1983) found that both preschoolers and kindergarteners were more likely to suggest using prosocial strategies than aggressive strategies as a means of resolving hypothetical social problems. Another cross-sectional study using a hypothetical-reflective measure of SPS found that children in first and second grade suggest fewer aggressive and more cooperative strategies compared to preschool age children ( McGillicuddy-Delisi, 1980 ). Taken together, these studies suggest that children may use competent SPS strategies as early as preschool and that the frequency of these strategies increase while the frequency of poor SPS behaviors decrease over early elementary school. While these studies examined age-related differences in SPS, longitudinal studies are needed to track individual differences in developmental trajectories of SPS behaviors and affect and predictors of these individual differences. In one longitudinal study of SPS abilities from preschool to first grade, Youngstrom et al. (2000) found that, on average, children reported fewer forceful and more prosocial solutions to hypothetical problems from preschool to first grade. Interestingly, they also found little to no stability of SPS from preschool to first grade, which was attributed to rapid gains in SPS abilities that allowed children who reported relatively poorer SPS skills in preschool to report similar SPS to their peers by first grade.

Based on findings showing that children report using more prosocial competent strategies with age, we hypothesized that children would display more competent SPS (i.e., verbal strategies, success, positive affect, prosocial initiations) and less withdrawn SPS (i.e., passive strategies, time unengaged, and neutral affect) over time.

Individual Differences in SPS

Crick and Dodge (1994) developed an information-processing model that describes the steps involved in SPS. Effective problem solving, according to their model, involves noticing and interpreting social cues, formulating social goals, generating possible strategies to solve the problem, evaluating the possible effectiveness of the strategy, and enacting a response. Emotion, in addition to cognition, influences social information-processing at all steps of the model ( Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000 ), emphasizing the importance of incorporating measures of affect into SPS coding. For shy children, the experience of uncertainty in unfamiliar or challenging social situations may lead to distress, which results in emotional flooding ( Ekman, 1984 ; Thompson & Calkins, 1996 ), or hypervigilance, which may result in blunted affect. Both distress and hypervigilance may interfere with shy children’s ability to enact socially competent responses during challenging situations with peers ( Fox et al., 2005 ). Indeed, withdrawn children are able to generate competent social goals comparable to comparison children, however, they report that they would be less likely to use assertive strategies and more likely to use avoidant strategies compared to comparison and aggressive children ( Wichmann, Coplan, & Daniels, 2004 ). Thus, it is important to observe children’s SPS during actual social situations with peers.

Shy children, specifically, react to challenging social situations with sadness, fear, and lessened positive affect ( Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997 ; Eisenberg, Shepard, Fabes, Murphy & Guthrie, 1998 ; Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Rieser, 2002 ; Rothbart & Bates, 2006 ), possibly disrupting the enactment of competent SPS behaviors. A recent study found that during a structured task requiring friendly competition and negotiation between target children and their friend, socially withdrawn, anxious 10- to 12-year-old children displayed relatively more neutral affect in comparison to control children ( Schneider, 2009 ). The expression of neutral affect in withdrawn children reflects a somber expression, which may lead to increased hypervigilance and limit others’ desire to interact with them. That is, anxious expressions may serve both functional and social purposes, where functionally they may lead to increased scanning and processing of the environment to identify ambiguous threat, while socially these expressions may serve to convey messages about emotion to social partners ( Perkins, Inchley-Mort, Pickering, Corr, & Burgess, 2012 ). In contrast, uninhibited or highly sociable children approach unfamiliar people or objects with minimal avoidance and with positive affect ( Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002 ; Kagan, Snidman, & Arcus, 1998 ), which may facilitate the translation of strategy ideas into actions during SPS and function to initiate and maintain social interactions with peers. Thus, while positive affect may facilitate social interaction and competent problem solving, neutral and negative affect may limit these social skills.

Because behavior and emotion may both influence the course and outcomes of peer social interactions, it was important to examine the combination of both SPS behavior and affect. Thus, in the current study, we included both SPS behaviors and displayed affect during the SPS task in composites and expected neutral or negative affect to be associated with withdrawn behaviors (i.e., time unengaged and passive SPS) while positive affect would be associated with competent SPS behaviors (i.e., verbal SPS, prosocial interactions, success). In addition, we expected these composites of behavior and affect would be associated with early report of shyness. Socially withdrawn children display more passive SPS during elementary school ( Rubin, Daniels-Beirness, & Bream, 1984 ; Stewart & Rubin, 1995 ). Therefore, whereas some children with poor SPS may report similar SPS compared to their peers by first grade ( Youngstrom et al., 2000 ), shy children may not follow the same developmental trajectory. Since shyness and social withdrawal are associated with avoidant SPS at later ages, we hypothesized that shyness would be associated with more withdrawn SPS over time. Furthermore, previous findings suggested growth in SPS competence across all children. Therefore, we hypothesized that shyness would be associated with increased SPS competence over time, such that children rated higher in shyness will show a typical increase over development. However, we expected that the trajectory associated with shyness would remain lower in SPS relative to the other trajectory at all ages.

In summary, the first goal of the current study was to examine patterns of developmental change in behavior and affect during SPS (i.e., withdrawn SPS and SPS competence). The second goal was to examine whether there was significant variability in these patterns of change and to examine the role of early shyness in predicting these patterns of change. Overall, given normative increases in language, social cognition, and self-regulation, we hypothesized that all children would develop better SPS skills over the period of study (i.e., less SPS withdrawal and more SPS competence), however, superimposed on these developmental changes, we hypothesized that shyness would be associated with individual differences in SPS trajectories over time (i.e., greater withdrawn SPS and less SPS competence).

The current study extended previous research in two ways. First, it is a downward extension of Stewart and Rubin (1995) as it is of interest to understand the origins of peer difficulty at the earliest age possible to intervene or prevent poor peer interactions. Specifically, it extended previous findings by prospectively following the same sample of children from 24 to 48 months, younger ages than have previously been examined. Second, the current study employed direct observations to assess children’s SPS behavior and displayed affect during challenging social situations. In contrast to hypothetical-reflective measures of SPS that ask children to reflect on how they would solve a social problem during hypothetical situations, direct observations allow for the assessment of the actual enactment of social goals and strategies used by children and the evaluation of the outcomes (i.e., success vs. failure) of SPS behavior ( Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992 ). The key difference between these types of measures is that hypothetical-reflective interviews measure how children think and reason about social situations while behavioral observations measure how children actually behave when in those situations ( Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992 ). Moreover, while behavior coding captures what children do in challenging situations, affect coding indexes how they express their emotion to their social partners, providing a more complete picture of the motivations and outcomes of differences in SPS. Therefore, in contrast to previous studies using hypothetical scenarios or behavioral observations, we examined both children’s behavior and affect to better understand children’s reactions to challenging social situations.

Participants

Six hundred and fourteen (295 boys, 319 girls) children and their mothers participated in a longitudinal study. Child ethnicity was as follows: 64% Caucasian, 15% African-American, 14% multiracial, 3% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 1% as other. Mothers participating in this study represented a highly educated sample. Fourteen percent of the mothers graduated from high school, 44% from college, 37% from graduate school, 4% from other educational programs, and 1% did not report. Two hundred and ninety-one children were originally selected to participate at the age of four months as part of a longitudinal study of temperament and social development (see omitted for peer review ). Three hundred and twenty-three additional children were recruited from the community during toddlerhood to form same-sex, same-age unfamiliar peer dyads. Of these, 570 children (277 boys, 293 girls) participated at least once across 24 ( M = 25.92 months, SD = 2.30), 36 ( M = 37.27 months, SD = 1.59), and 48 months of age ( M = 49.32 months, SD = 1.41) and therefore were included in the current analyses.

Participants were recruited by mailing letters to parents in the community using commercially available mailing lists. Therefore a non-clinical community sample was recruited for participation in the current study. Interested parents contacted the laboratory to schedule a visit for their child. Children from the two groups were randomly paired at each age in order to ensure that the peer pairs were equally unfamiliar to each other at each age of assessment. The pairing was random rather than based on temperament in order to mirror the natural variation in peer characteristics typical of social settings in early childhood. There were no differences between children recruited in infancy and children recruited as toddlers on sex χ 2 (1, N = 614) = .61, p = .44, ethnicity χ 2 (5, N = 614) = 1.92, p = .86, maternal education χ 2 (3, N = 607) = 5.41, p = .14, or shyness at 24 months t (472) = 1.15, p = .25, suggesting that the two groups were comparable to one another.

The analyses presented below were conducted using maximum likelihood estimation. Maximum likelihood estimation utilizes all cases with complete or partial data on the dependent variables (i.e., SPS composites). The first goal of the study was to examine developmental change in SPS over time. Forty-four children were excluded from analyses for this goal due to missing data on all SPS outcomes, thus, analyses included children with complete or partial SPS data ( N = 570). There were no differences between children included in this analysis and children excluded from the analysis on sex, χ 2 (1, N = 614) = .97, p = .33 or ethnicity χ 2 (1, N = 614) = 1.11, p = .29 however, there were differences on maternal education, χ 2 (3, N = 607) = 11.98, p = .007, such that children whose mothers reported completing educational programs other than high school, college, or graduate school were more likely to have missing data. The second goal of the study was to examine the influence of shyness on SPS trajectories. Maximum likelihood utilized all cases with at least some data on the SPS dependent variables as mentioned above, however, it also excludes all cases with missing data on the independent variable (i.e., shyness). Therefore, in addition to the 44 children excluded from the developmental analyses mentioned above, 115 children were excluded from the second set of analyses due to missing data on shyness. Therefore, analyses examining associations between shyness and the development of SPS included data from 455 children. There were no differences between children included in this analysis and those missing shyness data on sex, χ 2 (1, N = 570) = .1.14, p = .29, ethnicity χ 2 (1, N = 570) = 1.98, p = .16, or maternal education, χ 2 (3, N = 563) = 3.93, p = .27, suggesting that the sample included in the first analyses is comparable to the sample included in the second analyses.

Informed consent was signed by the children’s mothers at each visit. Children were randomly paired with a different same-sex, same-age, unfamiliar peer for each visit to capture their SPS behavior and displayed affect during novel social interactions. At all three dyad visits, children were placed in a room with two one-way mirrors. Cameras were used to record the sessions from behind the mirrors.

Children engaged in several activities together. Of interest to the current study was the participants’ behavior during the special toy session, which occurred after approximately 15 minutes of interacting during a freeplay session and a clean-up task. Similar to Stewart and Rubin (1995) , the experimenter entered with the special toy and set it down in the middle of the room. Before leaving, the experimenter told the children they only had one toy so they must share and take turns. The experimenter then informed the children that he or she would return in a few minutes and walked out of the room.

Toys used during the visits were carefully selected at each age to be age-appropriate and comparable in terms of eliciting independent play. A stationary tricycle was used as the special toy introduced to the participants during the 24-month visit. The toy looked like a tricycle in that it had three wheels and pedals but it could only be used to rock back and forth. During the 36 month visit, a stationary car was used as the special toy. The toy had a seat, steering wheel, pedals, and a gear shift. The steering wheel had buttons that played animal noises and a screen to track driving. At the 48-month visit, a movable vehicle was used as the special toy. The child was able to sit in the middle of the toy and use handle bars on the wheels to steer around the room. Participants were given a total of 5 minutes to play with the special toy.

At the 24- and 36-month visit laboratory visits, mothers of the participants sat in separate chairs in two different corners of the room. Mothers were told not to initiate interactions with the children but to respond as they normally would if the child interacted with them. At the 48-month visit, mothers sat in an adjacent room that allowed them to see their children through a one-way mirror. Mothers filled out the Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire (TBAQ; Goldsmith 1996 ; Goldsmith, Rieser-Danner, & Briggs, 1991 ) at the 24-month visit.

The Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire (TBAQ; Goldsmith 1996 ; Goldsmith, Rieser-Danner, & Briggs, 1991 ), a 108-item parent report measure of temperament, was collected at 24 months of age. The TBAQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire for use with 16- to 36-month-old children and measures 5 dimensions of temperament: Activity level, pleasure, social fearfulness, anger proneness, and interest/persistence, using 7-point Likert scales ( Goldsmith 1996 ; Goldsmith et al., 1991 ). Of particular interest in the current study was the dimension of social fearfulness, which is composed of 10 items that assess children’s reactions to unfamiliar adults and contexts ( Goldsmith, 1996 ). Sample items include, “If a stranger came to your house or your apartment, how often did your child ‘warm up’ to the stranger within 10 minutes?” and “When your child knew her/his parents were about to leave her/him at home, how often did your child cling to her/his parents?” Internal consistency estimates for the social fearfulness scale were .83 and .87 across different samples of toddlers ( Goldsmith, 1996 ). In the current sample, the internal consistency estimate for social fearfulness was .78 at 24 months.

SPS Behavioral coding

Behavioral coding was based on the scheme used by Rubin and Krasnor (1983) and Stewart and Rubin (1995) . The total time of the task, latency to first get the toy, and the amount of time engaged with the toy were recorded in seconds.

Children’s neutral , positive and sad/fearful affect were assigned a global code for the entire special toy activity. Each affect dimension was coded using a scale of 1–5 (1 = did not display; 5 = displayed the majority of the time or very intensely). Neutral affect was coded when the child displayed little to no emotional expression. Positive affect was scored based on the frequency and intensity of smiling, laughing, talking in excited tones, excited movements, and overall expressions of joy. Sad/fearful affect was scored based on the frequency and intensity of whining, crying, and fearful avoidance when approached by the other child and/or complaining to their mother in a sad or fearful voice that they wanted to play with the toy. Affect codes were not mutually exclusive as each type of affect was coded on a separate 5-point scale based on the frequency and intensity of displays of each affect type.

Event-based codes were used to classify each social initiation made by each child. Each social initiation was classified as (1) an attempt to get the toy , or (2) a prosocial initiation . An attempt to get the toy was defined as an attempt made by the child not in possession of the toy to gain control and/or make it clear to the child on the toy, that he or she wanted a turn. Prosocial initiations were defined as any initiation made to the peer about topics unrelated to getting the toy (e.g., “What school do you go to?”), initiations made by the child playing with the toy to offer the peer a turn (e.g., “Your turn to play”), and initiations made by the child playing with the toy to share with their peer (e.g., “Let’s play with this toy together”). Initiations to share the toy were only coded as prosocial initiations if the initiation was made by the child in possession of the toy. Therefore, prosocial initiations were always positive initiations that were not in regard to getting the toy from the peer.

Each attempt to get the toy was then further classified by the type of strategy used: Passive (i.e., pointing or hovering), active (i.e., touching, shoving, hitting, grabbing, or taking), or verbal (i.e., asking or telling). Strategies were not mutually exclusive, thus if a child used more than one strategy at a time (e.g., asking while pointing), all strategies were recorded. Each attempt to get the toy was also coded in terms of the outcome, such that an attempt to get the toy was coded as unsuccessful when a child made an initiation and did not get the toy.

Teams of two trained research assistants coded the children’s behaviors during the special toy episode using the same coding scheme at each time point. Specifically, one team of two coders coded children’s behaviors at 24 months. Another team of two coders, composed of one of the 24-month coders and a new coder, coded both the 36- and 48-month behaviors. In order to assess inter-rater reliability, coders overlapped on 17–26% of total coded cases at each of the three time points. Disagreements on these double-codes were resolved through discussion. Intra-class correlations (ICC’s) for the codes used in analyses at each age (24, 36, 48 months respectively) were .87, 1.00, and .99 for the total time of the task, .97, .99, and .98 for time engaged , .99, 1.00, .99 for latency to first get the toy, .66 .92, .76 for neutral affect, .70, .87, .78 for positive affect, 84, .97, .97 for get toy , .66, .92, and .86 for prosocial initiations, .72, .92, and .82 for passive strategies, .71, .91, and .76 for verbal strategies, and .86, .96, and .87 for unsuccessful attempts.

A proportion score was created for time engaged by dividing children’s time engaged with the toy in seconds over the total time of the task. Latency and the proportion of time engaged (reverse scored) were standardized and averaged to represent time unengaged with the toy. Proportion scores were also created for passive, verbal, and unsuccessful attempts by dividing the frequency of each variable over the total number of attempts to get the toy . The proportion of unsuccessful attempts was reverse coded to reflect success. Skewed variables were dichotomized at each age as 0 if the behavior was not observed or 1 if the behavior was observed at least once and continuous variables were standardized.

To reduce the number of dependent measures, composite scores were created based on theory and confirmed through principal components analysis to reflect withdrawn and competent SPS behavior and affect. Withdrawn SPS was composed of passive strategies based on findings with socially withdrawn elementary school-aged children, which showed that withdrawn children make fewer attempts to obtain toys from unfamiliar peers and when making attempts, they use more indirect strategies compared to their peers ( Rubin, Daniels-Beirness, & Bream, 1984 ; Stewart & Rubin, 1995 ). Furthermore, because withdrawn children are less successful than their peers ( Rubin, Daniels-Beirness, & Bream, 1984 ; Stewart & Rubin, 1995 ), we expected that they would take longer to get the toy (latency) and spend less time playing with the toy, which reflected time unengaged with the toy. Last, we also expected shy children to display more neutral affect since withdrawn/anxious early adolescents are more likely to display neutral affect compared to control early adolescents ( Schneider, 2009 ). Due to low frequency, sad/fearful affect was not included in the composite scores. Thus, the withdrawn SPS composite scores at each age consisted of passive strategies, time unengaged , and neutral affect, and was confirmed through principal components analyses at 24 (eigenvalue = 1.56; avg loading = .72), 36 (eigenvalue = 1.21; avg loading = .61), and 48 months of age (eigenvalue = 1.22; avg loading = .63). A composite of SPS Competence was created based on displays of verbal strategies, positive affect, prosocial initiations , and success. Social competence was formed to reflect positive social behavior, as seen in the displays of prosocial initiations and displayed positive affect. Furthermore, the use of verbal strategies reflects competence ( Eisenberg et al., 1994 ). Success was also included as it was expected that the use of competent and positive behavior and affect would also result in greater peer compliance. The competent SPS composite scores were confirmed through principal components analyses at 24 (eigenvalue = 1.23; avg loading = .49), 36 (eigenvalue = 1.88; avg loading = .68), and 48 months of age (eigenvalue = 1.66; avg loading = .62). Composite variables were all normally distributed. Active strategies were not thought to be theoretically associated with the constructs of interest in the current study, thus a ctive was not included in the composite scores.

Data Analyses

The first goal of the current study was to identify patterns of developmental growth of withdrawn and competent SPS for all children from 24 to 48 months of age. To examine developmental growth patterns, latent growth analyses (LGA; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002 ), also called hierarchical linear modeling, were conducted. LGA estimates individual trajectories across repeated measures. Overall model fit was examined by reviewing the following fit indices: model χ 2 , RMSEA with 90% confidence intervals, SRMR, and CFI. The second goal of the current study was to examine whether there were individual differences in these patterns of change in withdrawn and competent SPS and to examine whether early shyness predicted these patterns of change. Latent Class Growth Analyses (LCGA; Jones, Nagin, & Roeder, 2001 ) were conducted to identify multiple trajectories of withdrawn and competent SPS from 24 to 48 months of age. LCGA is a type of growth mixture model which combines LGA with latent class analysis (LCA; Muthén, 2001 ), providing multiple growth trajectories associated with unmeasured class membership. Shyness was included as a predictor of membership in the trajectories. The Baysian Information Criteria (BIC) and the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT) fit indices were examined ( Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007 ) along with interpretability in order to determine the number of trajectories to retain from each series of models ( Muthén, 2004 ). Specifically, each model examined one more trajectory than the previous model. Once it was determined that the addition of another trajectory was not a better fit than the previous model, the previous model (i.e., one less trajectory) was selected as the final model. All analyses were conducted in M plus 6.12 ( Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011 ).

Development of SPS

For the first goal of the study, LGA was used to examine average patterns of development in displayed SPS behavior and affect from 24 to 48 months of age. The first LGA model examined the development of withdrawn SPS over time and found evidence for good model fit: χ 2 (1) = .36, p = .55, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 with CI 90% from .00 to .09, and SRMR = .01. Results showed that children displayed consistent levels of withdrawn SPS at all ages (i.e., non-significant slope, p =.19). The second latent growth model examined the development of SPS competence over time and found evidence for poor model fit: χ 2 (3) = 13.08, p = .005, CFI = .34, RMSEA = .08 with CI 90% from .04 to .12, and SRMR = .06. Thus, the growth model was reexamined while freeing the time score for the 48-month data to be estimated using a latent basis model ( McArdle, 2004 ). This model resulted in good model fit, χ 2 (2) = 2.23, p = .33, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .01 with CI 90% from .00 to .09, and SRMR = .03. Results showed that children displayed greater SPS competence over time (i.e., positive slope, p <.001), with more growth between 36 and 48 months than between 24 and 36 months of age. Taken together, findings show that, on average, children display stable levels of withdrawn SPS and increasing SPS competence over time.

Superimposed on these average developmental changes, we expected that shyness would be associated with displayed SPS behavior and affect over time. Therefore, for the second goal, LCGA models were conducted to examine the relation between early shyness and trajectories of withdrawn and competent SPS. First, LCGA models were conducted with shyness at 24 months as the predictor of the probability of membership in 1 through 4 classes of withdrawn SPS over time. The BIC was 3203.91 for one withdrawn SPS trajectory, 1639.45 for two withdrawn SPS trajectories, 1637.29 for three withdrawn SPS trajectories, and 1648.76 for four withdrawn SPS trajectories. The BLRT showed that the two trajectory model was better than the one trajectory model ( p < .001), and the three trajectory model was better than the two trajectory model ( p < .001), but the four trajectory model was not better than the three trajectory model ( p = .09). Based on the lowest BIC, significant BLRT and interpretability, the three trajectory model was retained. See Figure 1 for the estimated means of displayed withdrawn SPS at each age for the 3-trajectories.

Longitudinal Trajectories of Withdrawn SPS.

The high-increasing trajectory was composed of children (17% of the sample, n = 77) who displayed high withdrawn SPS at 24 months and continued to increase in withdrawn SPS across time (i.e., had a significant positive slope, p = .001). The high-decreasing trajectory was composed of children (25% of the sample, n =113) who displayed high withdrawn SPS at 24 months and decreased in withdrawn SPS across time (i.e., negative slope, p < .001). The low-increasing trajectory was composed of the majority of children (58% of the sample, n = 265) who showed a slight increase over time (i.e., positive slope, p = .049). Children in this trajectory displayed lower levels of withdrawn SPS at 24 months than children in the high-increasing and high-decreasing trajectories, and maintained these low levels of withdrawn SPS over time (see Figure 1 ). Shyness significantly predicted the probability of membership in the withdrawn SPS trajectories such that children in the high-increasing (B=.81, z =3.44, p =.001) and high-decreasing trajectories (B=.88, z =4.24, p <.001) were more likely to be rated high on shyness at 24 months than children in the low-increasing withdrawn SPS trajectory. That is, for every one unit increase in shyness, the odds of being in the high-increasing withdrawn trajectory were 5.06 and the odds of being in the high-decreasing withdrawn trajectory were 5.81 times the odds of being in the low-increasing withdrawn trajectory.

Second, LCGA models were conducted with shyness at 24 months as the predictor of probability of membership in 1 through 3 classes of SPS competence over time. The BIC was 2237.87 for one SPS competence trajectory, 795.28 for two SPS competence trajectories, and 804.70 for three SPS competence trajectories. In addition, the BLRT showed that two trajectories were significantly better than one trajectory ( p <.001), but three trajectories were not significantly better than two trajectories ( p = .07). Thus, the two trajectory model was retained based on a combination of the lowest BIC, significant BLRT and interpretability. See Figure 2 for the estimated means of displayed SPS competence trajectories at each age.

Longitudinal Trajectories of Competent SPS

The high-increasing trajectory was composed of children (47% of the sample, n =214) who displayed high SPS competence at 24 months and continued to increase in SPS competence across time (i.e., significant positive slope, p < .001). The low-increasing trajectory was composed of children (53% of the sample, n =241) who displayed low SPS competence at 24 months and increasing SPS competence across time (i.e., significant positive slope, p < .001). Shyness significantly predicted the probability of membership in the trajectories, such that children in the low-increasing trajectory were more likely to be rated high on shyness at 24 months than children in the high-increasing trajectory (B=1.02, z =4.33, p <.001). That is, for every one unit increase in shyness, the odds of being in the low-increasing SPS competence trajectory were 7.67 times the odds of being in the high-increasing competence trajectory.

This is one of the first studies to use a longitudinal design to document developmental changes and individual differences in children’s SPS behaviors and emotion in the early childhood years. The goals of this study were to document developmental growth and examine the longitudinal associations between shyness and the types of SPS behaviors and emotions displayed when a child encounters a challenging social situation with an unfamiliar peer, using a non-clinical community sample of children. Results of the current study extend the literature by examining these questions longitudinally during early childhood and by using observational measures of SPS behavior and affect expression to capture children’s actual behaviors during challenging social situations. Results revealed that, on average, children displayed low stable levels of withdrawn SPS, while competent SPS increased over the toddler and preschool years. In addition to these general developmental findings, there was evidence suggesting that early shyness affects children’s SPS style and their trajectories of change in SPS in response to challenging social situations. Specifically, shyness was associated with a greater likelihood to display more withdrawn SPS and less SPS competence at age 2. However, there were individual differences in developmental patterns stemming from these initial levels. That is, some shy children displayed improvement in SPS skills over time (i.e., decreased withdrawn SPS and increased SPS competence), and some shy children continued to display poor SPS skills (i.e., increased withdrawn SPS over time). These findings highlight the predictive influence of early reports of shyness on initial SPS behaviors and affect and suggest multiple potential outcomes for early shyness, including both continuity and discontinuity in withdrawn SPS over the early childhood years.

Developmental Change in SPS

Contrary to hypotheses, children, on average, expressed consistent levels of withdrawn SPS across ages (i.e., neutral affect, passive SPS, and time unengaged with the toy). Consistent with this, individual trajectories showed that the majority of children displayed consistently low levels of withdrawn SPS over time. These results show that withdrawn SPS is not a predominant style of interaction for most children, even during the early childhood years. Consistent with the hypotheses, children displayed higher levels of SPS competence over time, showing that children were increasingly likely to use verbal strategies, display positive affect, initiate prosocial interactions, and were more successful in their attempts to get the toy. The increased use of verbal strategies reflects increasing competence as verbal initiations are considered the foundation for social play and competent peer interactions ( Eisenberg et al., 1994 ). Displays of positive affect may help keep children and their peers engaged in social interaction longer, which may support persistence and flexibility in approaching the problem situation. Increased use of verbal SPS strategies and approaching the challenging social situations with positive affect likely accounts for more success over time, showing that the use of competent strategies may result in more compliance from peers. Furthermore, the increased use of prosocial initiations and verbal strategies in general likely reflects a combination of children’s gains in social motivation, understanding of others, expressive vocabulary, and pragmatic language during early childhood ( Bloom, 1998 ; Ganger & Brent, 2004 ; Pan & Snow, 1999 ; Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992 ). Interestingly, findings from the SPS competence growth model showed that there was particularly rapid growth in the display of competent SPS between 36 and 48 months than during 24 and 36 months of age. These greater increases may also reflect the development of language skills, social motivation, and understanding of others at these later preschool ages. Taken together, results suggest that both the quantity and quality of children’s competent SPS skills increase from 24 to 48 months of age.

Individual Differences in Shyness and SPS

Results of the LCGA showed individual differences in SPS trajectories over time. Consistent with developmental findings, the majority of children displayed consistently low levels of withdrawn SPS over time; however, there were two additional trajectories defined by high levels of withdrawn SPS at 2 years of age. Further, maternal ratings of shyness predicted membership in these two trajectories compared to the consistently low trajectory. These findings are consistent with hypotheses and previous research on older children that shy children displayed neutral affect, were less likely to use socially assertive strategies and more likely to use subtle, indirect strategies compared to children of average sociability ( Schneider, 2009 ; Stewart & Rubin, 1995 ). Shyness is associated with an approach-avoidance conflict ( Asendorpf, 1990 ; Coplan et al., 2004 ). That is, shy children would like to join in play with others (approach), but fear and anxiety interfere with their ability to easily initiate and engage peers in play, resulting in social withdrawal.

The expression of neutral affect by shy children appeared to reflect their wariness and uncertainty about the social situation. Schneider (2009) also found that socially withdrawn/anxious early adolescents displayed relatively more neutral affect, whereas control children displayed relatively more positive affect while interacting with friends. Interestingly, few instances of sad/fearful affect were displayed during the tasks at all ages. Prior work by Perkins et al., (2011) found evidence for the distinguishability of fearful and anxious expressions of emotion. They suggest that fear may be displayed during situations of clear threat while anxious expressions, reflecting scanning and processing of the environment, may be displayed during ambiguous situations. Shy children’s expression of neutral affect likely reflects their uncertainty and hypervigilance, consistent with the expression of anxious affect.

Interestingly, one of the two trajectories that showed initially high withdrawn SPS showed decreased withdrawn SPS over time, while the other trajectory showing initially high withdrawn SPS increased in withdrawn SPS over time. These findings indicate that some children rated high on shyness showed improvement in SPS skills, while for other children early shyness has an enduring influence on social development, in part, through effects on SPS skills. An important future direction is to identify the factors that moderate the relations between early shyness and these different trajectories of withdrawn SPS. For example, temperament and specific socialization experiences with parents and peers influence patterns of continuity and discontinuity in behavior over time ( Degnan, Almas, & Fox, 2010 ; Degnan & Fox, 2007 ) and thus moderate the associations between early shyness and later social functioning (e.g., Almas et al., 2011 ; Degnan, Henderson, Fox, & Rubin, 2008 ; Rubin, Burgess, & Hastings, 2002 ). The quality of social experiences with peers is particularly important for shy children in learning how to competently initiate interactions with peers to join social play. Furthermore, within-child characteristics, such as the development of self-regulation, may also interact with shyness to influence trajectories of SPS behavior and affect over time. It is possible that a well-regulated shy child may display SPS skills similar to less shy peers, while shy children displaying poor self-regulation are the ones in most need of intervention. For example, the flexible allocation of attention and the ability to shift attention serves as a protective factor for behaviorally inhibited and shy children, decreasing the risk for social adjustment difficulties and anxiety ( Henderson, 2010 ; White, McDermott, Degnan, Henderson, & Fox, 2011 ). Future studies should examine both within-child and environmental factors that moderate the associations between shyness and SPS trajectories. Identifying the moderators that lead to discontinuity is important for the design of intervention and prevention efforts aimed at improving SPS skills for shy children showing increased withdrawn SPS over time, who may be at most risk for the development of anxiety and poor social interactions with peers.

SPS competence LCGA analyses suggest that shy children’s SPS behaviors and affect are developing over the toddler and preschool years in parallel form to their less shy peers. That is, they begin and end with fewer competent SPS interactions than their peers, at least between 24 and 48 months of age. Early shyness continues to relate to less SPS competence as initial differences are maintained over the toddler and preschool years. These results are consistent with findings from other studies showing that inhibited and shy children speak less during unfamiliar situations in school and are less likely to talk or volunteer answers in large group teacher-guided activities ( Asendorpf & Meier, 1993 ; Rimm-Kaufman & Kagan, 2005 ; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002 ). In addition, it has been shown that pragmatic language influences the association between shyness and adjustment outcomes ( Coplan & Weeks, 2009 ), suggesting the importance of shy children’s verbal abilities for social development. Shy children’s lack of assertiveness may be due to shy children not knowing how to approach peers and the effect of distress and hypervigilance on their ability to enact a planned behavioral response. As shy children develop, the tendency to initially refrain may be reinforced and strengthened and this, in turn, may lead to a fear of negative evaluation from peers at later ages ( Bruch & Cheek, 1995 ), as well as unfamiliarity with the social scripts guiding cooperative play.

Youngstrom et al (2000) suggest that children with SPS difficulties report similar SPS to their peers by first grade. However, there are multiple origins to difficulties in SPS. Children with poor SPS skills that are not socially withdrawn may learn the skills necessary for effective SPS during the first few years of formal schooling and thus improve their SPS skills. As evidenced by the high decreasing withdrawn SPS trajectory, some shy children also show improvement in their SPS skills. However, other shy children showed increased withdrawn SPS over time. Furthermore, social withdrawal is associated with poor SPS through elementary school ( Stewart & Rubin, 1995 ). Therefore, while many children with poor SPS skills show comparable SPS skills to peers during early elementary school, some shy children in particular may continue to experience limited social interaction during the school years which may interfere with their ability to display competent SPS skills comparable to those of their less shy peers. Additionally, competent SPS behavior mediates the relations between shyness and academic achievement (Walker & Henderson, 2012). Taken together, previous and current findings suggest that some shy children have fewer opportunities to engage with peers and materials in both formal and informal learning environments which results in poor SPS skills and academic achievement.

Identification of characteristics predictive of later SPS skills may aid in the design of interventions for shy children with SPS difficulties to improve later social and academic success. Such programs might focus on identifying early SPS difficulties and reducing the distress felt by some children placed in unfamiliar situations to promote better adaptation and social competence during early childhood. Interventions targeted at increasing shy children’s SPS skills might also include less shy peers. Given that shy children usually want to play with others, having less shy peers initiate interactions might help lessen their distress and provide examples of competent ways to initiate peer play. This may also promote positive social interactions, which are associated with discontinuity in wary behaviors ( Almas et al., 2011 ). Prevention efforts could begin as early as the toddler years given the current study findings showing that shyness is associated with SPS difficulties as early as 24 months of age.

Limitations & Future Directions

One of the strengths of the current study is that we observed SPS behaviors and affect at 24 months of age and continued to follow the same children until 48 months of age. With this comes the challenges of observing behaviors at this very young age (i.e., 24 months of age), when children have a limited repertoire of behaviors and their verbal skills are just beginning to emerge. As such our inter-rater reliability for some of the coded behaviors and loadings for the SPS competence composite were lower at age 2 than at later ages.

Although we speculate above that changes in SPS trajectories were consistent with other aspects of development (e.g., theory of mind, language development, and social motivation), longitudinal studies should examine how the different aspects of development are related to SPS and the direction of these effects. Future studies should also examine the potential moderators (e.g., self-regulation, maternal behavior, peer interactions) that lead to continuity and discontinuity in SPS trajectories associated with shyness. In addition, future studies should examine the inter-relations between shyness and SPS over time to determine the direction of effects and how temperament and SPS covary over time.

Over the 24 to 48 month period, there were changes in children’s SPS competence; however, shy children experienced particular difficulty during social interactions across the toddler and preschool years. One protective factor for shy children may be engaging in positive peer interactions early on. Recent work suggests that early exposure of temperamentally fearful children to same age peers is associated with discontinuity in displays of wariness from infancy through toddlerhood ( Almas et al., 2011 ). Prevention programs might focus on identifying early social deficits to reduce the distress felt by shy children to promote positive peer interactions and SPS skills during challenging social situations.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for temperament and SPS variables.

Note: SPS = Social problem solving; SD = Standard Deviation

• Competent social problem solving increased for all children during early childhood.
• There were multiple trajectories of withdrawn and competent social problem solving.
• Some shy children display improvement while others show poor social problem solving.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

• Almas AN, Phillips DA, Henderson HA, Hane AA, Degnan KA, Moas OL, Fox NA. The relations between infant negative reactivity, non-maternal childcare, and children’s interactions with familiar and unfamiliar peers. Social Development. 2011; 20 :718–740. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asendorf JB. Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance. Human Development. 1990; 33 :250–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Asendorf JB, Meier GH. Personality effects on children’s speech in everyday life: Sociability-mediated exposure and shyness-mediated reactivity to social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 64 :1072–1083. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom L. Language acquisition in its developmental context. In: Kuhn D, Siegler RS, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognitive, perception, and language. 5. New York: Wiley; 1998. pp. 309–370. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruch MA, Cheek JM. Developmental factors in childhood and adolescent shyness. In: Heimberg RG, Liwbowitz MR, Hope DA, Schneier FR, editors. Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. New York: Guilford; 1995. pp. 163–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Harrington H, Milne B, Amell JW, Theodore RF, Moffitt TE. Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. Journal of Personality. 2003; 71 :495–513. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Silva PA. Temperamental qualities at age three predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Child Development. 1995; 66 :486–498. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coplan RJ, Armer M. A ‘multitude’ of solitude: A closer look at social withdrawal and nonsocial play in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives. 2007; 1 :26–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coplan RJ, Prakash K, O’Neil K, Armer M. Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology. 2004; 40 :244–258. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coplan RJ, Schneider BH, Matheson A, Graham A. Play skills for shy children: development of a Social Skills Facilitated Play early intervention program for extremely inhibited preschoolers. Infant and Child Development. 2010; 19 :223–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coplan RJ, Weeks M. Shy and soft-spoken: Shyness, pragmatic language, and socio-emotional adjustment in early childhood. Infant and Child Development. 2009; 18 :238–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crick NR, Dodge KA. A review and reformulation of social information- processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin. 1994; 115 :74–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chronis-Tuscano A, Degnan KA, Pine DS, Perez-Edgar K, Henderson HA, Diaz Y, Raggi VL, Fox NA. Stable early maternal report of behavioral inhibition predicts lifetime social anxiety disorder in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2009; 48 :928–935. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crozier WR. Shyness and social relationships: Continuity and change. In: Crozier WR, editor. Shyness: Development, Consolidation, and Change. New York: Routledge; 2000. pp. 1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Degnan KA, Almas AN, Fox NA. Temperament and the environment in the etiology of anxiety. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2010; 51 :497–517. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Degnan KA, Fox NA. Behavioral inhibition and anxiety disorders: Multiple levels of a resilience process. Development and Psychopathology. 2007; 19 :729–746. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Degnan KA, Henderson HA, Fox NA, Rubin KH. Predicting social wariness in middle childhood: The moderating roles of child care history, maternal personality, and maternal behavior. Social Development. 2008; 17 :471–487. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Derryberry D, Rothbart MK. Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament. Development and Psychopathology. 1997; 9 :633–652. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dubow EF, Tisak J. The relation between stressful life events and adjustment in elementary school children: The role of social support and social problem-solving skills. Child Development. 1989; 60 :1412–1423. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dubow EF, Tisak J, Causey D, Hryshko A, Reid G. A two-year longitudinal study of stressful life events, social support, and social problem-solving skills: Contributions to children’s behavioral and academic adjustment. Child Development. 1991; 62 :583–599. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Guthrie IK, Reiser M. The role of emotionality and regulation in children’s social competence and adjustment. In: Pulkkinen L, Caspi A, editors. Paths to Successful Development: Personality in the Life Course. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 46–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Minore D, Mathy R, Hanish L, Brown T. Children’s enacted interpersonal strategies: Their relations to social behavior and negative emotionality. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1994; 40 :212–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberg N, Shepard SA, Fabes RA, Murphy BC, Guthrie IK. Shyness and children’s emotionality, regulation, and coping: Contemporaneous, longitudinal, and across context relations. Child Development. 1998; 69 :767–790. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ekman P. Expression and the nature of emotion. In: Scherer KR, Ekman P, editors. Approaches to Emotion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1984. pp. 319–343. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox NA, Henderson HA, Marshall PJ, Nichols KE, Ghera MM. Behavioral inhibition: Linking biology and behavior within a developmental framework. Annual Review of Psychology. 2005; 56 :235–262. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox NA, Henderson HA, Rubin KH, Calkins SD, Schmidt LA. Continuity and discontinuity of behavioral inhibition and exuberance: Psychophysiological and behavioral influences across the first four years of life. Child Development. 2001; 72 :1–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ganger J, Brent MR. Reexamining the vocabulary spurt. Developmental Psychology. 2004; 40 :621–632. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldsmith HH. Studying temperament via construction of the Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire. Child Development. 1996; 67 :218–235. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldsmith HH, Rieser-Danner LA, Briggs S. Evaluating convergent and discriminant validity of temperament questionnaires for preschoolers, toddlers, and infants. Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27 :566–579. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson HA. Electrophysiological correlates of cognitive control and the regulation of shyness in children. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2010; 35 :177–193. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirshfeld DR, Rosenbaum JF, Bierdman J, Bolduc EA, Faraone SV, Snidman N, Reznick JS, Kagan J. Stable behavioral inhibition and its association with anxiety disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1992; 31 :103–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones BL, Nagin DS, Roeder K. A SAS procedure based on mixture models for estimating developmental trajectories. Sociological Methods and Research. 2001; 29 :374–393. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kagan J, Snidman N, Arcus D. Childhood derivatives of reactivity in infancy. Child Development. 1998; 69 :1483–1493. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lemerise EA, Arsenio WF. An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development. 2000; 71 :107–118. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lemery KS, Goldsmith HH, Klinnert MD, Mrazek DA. Developmental models of infant and childhood temperament. Developmental Psychology. 1999; 35 :189–204. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McArdle JJ. Latent growth curve analysis using structural equation modeling techniques. In: Teti DM, editor. The Handbook of Research Methods in Developmental Science. New York: Blackwell Publishers; 2004. pp. 340–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGillicuddy-DeLisi AV. Predicted strategies and success in children’s resolution of interpersonal problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 1980; 1 :175–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén B. Latent variable mixture modeling. In: Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE, editors. New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling. Mawash, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001. pp. 1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén B. Latent variable analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In: Kaplan D, editor. Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 2004. pp. 345–368. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 6. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nylund KL, Asparouhov T, Muthén BO. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A monte carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling. 2007; 14 :535–569. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pan BA, Snow CE. The development of conversational and discourse skills. In: Barrett M, editor. The Development of Language. New York: Psychology Press; 1999. pp. 229–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins AM, Inchley-Mort SL, Pickering AD, Corr PJ, Burgess AP. A facial expression for anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012; 102 :910–924. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfeifer M, Goldsmith HH, Davidson RJ, Rickman M. Continuity and change in inhibited and uninhibited children. Child Development. 2002; 73 :1474–1485. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. 2. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rimm-Kaufman SE, Early DM, Cox MJ, Saluja G, Pianta RC, Bradley RH, Payne C. Early behavioral attributes and teachers’ sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in the kindergarten classroom. Applied Developmental Psychology. 2002; 23 :451–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rimm-Kaufman SE, Kagan J. Infant predictors of kindergarten behavior: The contribution of inhibited and uninhibited temperament types. Behavioral Disorders. 2005; 30 :331–347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Evans DE. Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 78 :122–135. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothbart MK, Bates JE. Temperament. In: Damon W, Lerner R, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. 6. New York: Wiley; 2006. pp. 99–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin K, Asendorf J. Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood: Conceptual and definitional issues. In: Rubin K, Asendorf J, editors. Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993. pp. 3–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin KH, Burgess KB, Hastings PD. Stability and social-behavioral consequences of toddlers’ inhibited temperament and parenting behaviors. Child Development. 2002; 73 :483–495. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin KH, Coplan RJ, Bowker JC. Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology. 2009; 60 :141–171. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin KH, Daniels-Beirness T, Bream L. Social isolation and social problem solving: A longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1984; 52 :17–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin KH, Krasnor LR. Age and gender differences in solutions to hypothetical social problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 1983; 4 :263–275. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin KH, Stewart SL, Coplan RJ. Social withdrawal in childhood: Conceptual and empirical perspectives. In: Ollendick T, Prinz R, editors. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology. Vol. 17. New York: Plenum Press; 1995. pp. 97–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin KH, Rose-Krasnor LR. Interpersonal problem solving and social competence in children. In: Van Hasselt VB, Hersen M, editors. Handbook of social development: A lifespan perspective. New York: Plenum Press; 1992. pp. 283–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider BH. An observational study of the interactions of socially withdrawn/anxious early adolescents and their friends. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2009; 50 :799–806. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart SL, Rubin KH. The social problem-solving skills of anxious-withdrawn children. Development and Psychpathology. 1995; 7 :323–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson RA, Calkins SD. The double-edged sword: Emotion regulation in high risk children. Development and Psychopathology. 1996; 8 :163–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker OL, Henderson HA. Temperament and Social Problem Solving Competence in Preschool: Influences on Academic Skills in Early Elementary School. Social Development in press. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• White LK, Mcdermott JM, Degnan KA, Henderson HA, Fox NA. Behavioral inhibition and anxiety: The moderating roles of inhibitory control and attention shifting. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2011; 39 :735–747. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wichmann C, Coplan RJ, Daniels T. The social cognitions of withdrawn children. Social Development. 2004; 13 :377–392. [ Google Scholar ]
• Youngstrom E, Meltzer Wolpaw J, Kogos JL, Schoff K, Ackerman B, Izard C. Interpersonal problem solving in preschool and first grade: Developmental change and ecological Validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 2000; 29 :589–602. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

14.3: Cognitive Theorists- Piaget, Elkind, Kohlberg, and Gilligan

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 24682

• Paris, Ricardo, Raymond, & Johnson
• College of the Canyons via College of the Canyons

Jean Piaget: Formal Operational Stage of Cognitive Development

Cognition refers to thinking and memory processes, and cognitive development refers to long-term changes in these processes. One of the most widely known perspectives about cognitive development is the cognitive stage theory of a Swiss psychologist named Jean Piaget . Piaget created and studied an account of how children and youth gradually become able to think logically and scientifically. Because his theory is especially popular among educators, we focus on it in this chapter.

Piaget was a psychological constructivist : in his view, learning was proceeded by the interplay of assimilation (adjusting new experiences to fit prior concepts) and accommodation (adjusting concepts to fit new experiences). The to-and-fro of these two processes leads not only to short-term learning, but also to long-term developmental change . The long-term developments are really the main focus of Piaget’s cognitive theory.

As you might remember, Piaget proposed that cognition developed through distinct stages from birth through the end of adolescence. By stages he meant a sequence of thinking patterns with four key features:

• They always happen in the same order.
• No stage is ever skipped.
• Each stage is a significant transformation of the stage before it.
• Each later stage incorporated the earlier stages into itself.

Basically this is the “staircase” model of development. Piaget proposed four major stages of cognitive development, and called them (1) sensorimotor intelligence, (2) preoperational thinking, (3) concrete operational thinking, and (4) formal operational thinking. Each stage is correlated with an age period of childhood, but only approximately. Formal operational thinking appears in adolescence. 4

During the formal operational stage, adolescents are able to understand abstract principles. They are no longer limited by what can be directly seen or heard, and are able to contemplate such constructs as beauty, love, freedom, and morality. Additionally, while younger children solve problems through trial and error, adolescents demonstrate hypothetical-deductive reasoning , which is developing hypotheses based on what might logically occur. They are able to think about all the possibilities in a situation beforehand, and then test them systematically, (Crain, 2005) because they are able to engage in true scientific thinking.

Does everyone reach formal operations?

According to Piaget, most people attain some degree of formal operational thinking, but use formal operations primarily in the areas of their strongest interest (Crain, 2005). In fact, most adults do not regularly demonstrate formal operational thought. A possible explanation is that an individual’s thinking has not been sufficiently challenged to demonstrate formal operational thought in all areas.

Adolescent Egocentrism

Once adolescents can understand abstract thoughts, they enter a world of hypothetical possibilities and demonstrate egocentrism , a heightened self-focus. The egocentricity comes from attributing unlimited power to their own thoughts (Crain, 2005). Piaget believed it was not until adolescents took on adult roles that they would be able to learn the limits to their own thoughts.

David Elkind: On Piaget’s Theory

David Elkind (1967) expanded on the concept of Piaget’s adolescent egocentricity. Elkind theorized that the physiological changes that occur during adolescence result in adolescents being primarily concerned with themselves. Additionally, since adolescents fail to differentiate between what others are thinking and their own thoughts, they believe that others are just as fascinated with their behavior and appearance. This belief results in the adolescent anticipating the reactions of others, and consequently constructing an imaginary audience. The imaginary audience is the adolescent’s belief that those around them are as concerned and focused on their appearance as they themselves are (Schwartz, Maynard, & Uzelac, 2008, p. 441). Elkind thought that the imaginary audience contributed to the self-consciousness that occurs during early adolescence. The desire for privacy and the reluctance to share personal information may be a further reaction to feeling under constant observation by others.

Another important consequence of adolescent egocentrism is the personal fable or belief that one is unique, special, and invulnerable to harm. Elkind (1967) explains that because adolescents feel so important to others (imaginary audience) they regard themselves and their feelings as being special and unique. Adolescents believe that only they have experienced strong and diverse emotions, and therefore others could never understand how they feel. This uniqueness in one’s emotional experiences reinforces the adolescent’s belief of invulnerability, especially to death. Adolescents will engage in risky behaviors, such as drinking and driving or unprotected sex, and feel they will not suffer any negative consequences. Elkind believed that adolescent egocentricity emerged in early adolescence and declined in middle adolescence, however, recent research has also identified egocentricity in late adolescence (Schwartz, et al., 2008).

Consequences of Formal Operational Thought

As adolescents are now able to think abstractly and hypothetically, they exhibit many new ways of reflecting on information (Dolgin, 2011). For example, they demonstrate greater introspection or thinking about one’s thoughts and feelings. They begin to imagine how the world could be, which leads them to become idealistic or insisting upon high standards of behavior. Because of their idealism, they may become critical of others, especially adults in their life. Additionally, adolescents can demonstrate hypocrisy , or pretend to be what they are not. Since they are able to recognize what others expect of them, they will conform to those expectations for their emotions and behavior seemingly hypocritical to themselves. Lastly, adolescents can exhibit pseudostupidity , which is when they approach problems at a level that is too complex and they fail because the tasks are too simple. Their new ability to consider alternatives is not completely under control and they appear “stupid” when they are in fact bright, just inexperienced. 8

Lawrence Kohlberg: Moral Development

Kohlberg (1963) built on the work of Piaget and was interested in finding out how our moral reasoning changes as we get older. He wanted to find out how people decide what is right and what is wrong (moral justice). Just as Piaget believed that children’s cognitive development follows specific patterns, Kohlberg argued that we learn our moral values through active thinking and reasoning, and that moral development follows a series of stages. Kohlberg's six stages are generally organized into three levels of moral reasons. To study moral development, Kohlberg posed moral dilemmas to children, teenagers, and adults. You may remember one such dilemma, the Heinz dilemma, that was introduced in Chapter 12: 9

A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? 10

Based on their reasoning behind their responses (not whether they thought Heinz made the right choice or not), Kohlberg placed each person in one of the stages as described in the image on the following page:

Although research has supported Kohlberg’s idea that moral reasoning changes from an early emphasis on punishment and social rules and regulations to an emphasis on more general ethical principles, as with Piaget’s approach, Kohlberg’s stage model is probably too simple. For one, children may use higher levels of reasoning for some types of problems, but revert to lower levels in situations where doing so is more consistent with their goals or beliefs (Rest, 1979). Second, it has been argued that this stage model is particularly appropriate for Western countries, rather than non-Western, samples in which allegiance to social norms (such as respect for authority) may be particularly important (Haidt, 2001). In addition, there is little correlation between how children score on the moral stages and how they behave in real life.

Perhaps the most important critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that it may describe the moral development of boys better than it describes that of girls. Carol Gilligan has argued that, because of differences in their socialization, males tend to value principles of justice and rights, whereas females value caring for and helping others. Although there is little evidence that boys and girls score differently on Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Turiel, 1998), it is true that girls and women tend to focus more on issues of caring, helping, and connecting with others than do boys and men (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000). 12

Carol Gilligan: Morality of Care

Carol Gilligan, whose ideas center on a morality of care , or system of beliefs about human responsibilities, care, and consideration for others, proposed three moral positions that represent different extents or breadth of ethical care. Unlike Kohlberg, or Piaget, she does not claim that the positions form a strictly developmental sequence, but only that they can be ranked hierarchically according to their depth or subtlety. In this respect her theory is “semi-developmental” in a way similar to Maslow’s theory of motivation (Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Taylor, Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995). The following table summarizes the three moral positions from Gilligan’s theory:

Position 1: Caring as Survival

The most basic kind of caring is a survival orientation , in which a person is concerned primarily with his or her own welfare. As a moral position, a survival orientation is obviously not satisfactory for classrooms on a widespread scale. If every student only looked out for himself or herself alone, classroom life might become rather unpleasant. Nonetheless, there are situations in which caring primarily about yourself is both a sign of good mental health and also relevant to teachers. For a child who has been bullied at school or sexually abused at home, for example, it is both healthy and morally desirable to speak out about the bullying or abuse—essentially looking out for the victim’s own needs at the expense of others’, including the bully’s or abuser’s. Speaking out requires a survival orientation and is healthy because in this case, the child is at least caring about herself.

Position 2: Conventional Caring

A more subtle moral position is caring for others , in which a person is concerned about others’ happiness and welfare, and about reconciling or integrating others’ needs where they conflict with each other. In classrooms, students who operate from Position 2 can be very desirable in some ways; they can be kind, considerate, and good at fitting in and at working cooperatively with others. Because these qualities are very welcome in a busy classroom, it can be tempting for teachers to reward students for developing and using them for much of their school careers. The problem with rewarding Position 2 ethics, however, is that doing so neglects the student’s identity—his or her own academic and personal goals or values. Sooner or later, personal goals, values and identity need attention, and educators have a responsibility for assisting students to discover and clarify them. Unfortunately for teachers, students who know what they want may sometimes be more assertive and less automatically compliant than those who do not.

Position 3: Integrated Caring

The most developed form of moral caring in Gilligan’s model is integrated caring , the coordination of personal needs and values with those of others. Now the morally good choice takes account of everyone including yourself, not everyone except yourself.

In classrooms, integrated caring is most likely to surface whenever teachers give students wide, sustained freedom to make choices. If students have little flexibility about their actions, there is little room for considering anyone’s needs or values, whether their own or others’. If the teacher says simply, “Do the homework on page 50 and turn it in tomorrow morning,” then compliance becomes the main issue, not moral choice. But suppose instead that she says something like this: “Over the next two months, figure out an inquiry project about the use of water resources in our town. Organize it any way you want—talk to people, read widely about it, and share it with the class in a way that all of us, including yourself, will find meaningful.” Although an assignment this general or abstract may not suit some teachers or students, it does pose moral challenges for those who do use it. Why? For one thing, students cannot simply carry out specific instructions, but must decide what aspect of the topic really matters to them. The choice is partly a matter of personal values. For another thing, students have to consider how the topic might be meaningful or important to others in the class. Third, because the time line for completion is relatively far in the future, students may have to weigh personal priorities (like spending time with family on the weekend) against educational priorities (working on the assignment a bit more on the weekend). Some students might have trouble making good choices when given this sort of freedom—and their teachers might therefore be cautious about giving such an assignment. But in a way these hesitations are part of Gilligan’s point: integrated caring is indeed more demanding than the caring based on survival or orientation to others, and not all students may be ready for it. 13

We’ve learned that major changes in the structure and functioning of the brain occur during adolescence and result in the theories about cognitive and behavioral developments (Steinberg, 2008). These cognitive changes include how information is processed, and are fostered by improvements in cognitive function during early adolescence such as in memory, encoding, and storage as well as ability to think about thinking, therefore becoming better at information processing functions. 14

Contributors and Attributions

4. Educational Psychology – Cognitive Development: The Theory of Jean Piaget by Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary Sutton is licensed under CC BY

8. Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective by Martha Lally and Suzanne Valentine-French is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

9. Lifespan Development – Module 6: Middle Childhood references Psyc 200 Lifespan Psychology by Laura Overstreet, which is licensed under CC BY

Beginning Psychology – Chapter 6: Growing and Developing by Charles Stangor is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

10. Heinz Dilemma by Wikipedia is licensed under CC BY 3.0

12. Beginning Psychology – Chapter 6: Growing and Developing by Charles Stangor is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

13. Educational Psychology - 4.5 Moral Development: forming a sense of rights and responsibilities by CNX Psychology is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Contemporary Educational Psychology/Chapter 3: Student Development/Moral Development by Wikibooks is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

14. Content by Dawn Rymond is licensed under CC BY 4.0

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• Administration for Children & Families
• Upcoming Events

Teacher Time

• Open an Email-sharing interface
• Open to Share on Facebook
• Open to Share on Twitter
• Open to Share on Pinterest
• Open to Share on LinkedIn

Prefill your email content below, and then select your email client to send the message.

Recipient e-mail address:

Send your message using:

Problem-solving and Relationship Skills in Preschool

Woman: Places, everyone. Are the lights ready? Three, two, one.

Saameh Solaimani: Hi, everyone. I'm Saameh Solaimani. Welcome to "Teacher Time.” Thank you so much for being here with us today.

Gail Joseph: Hi, everyone. I'm Gail Joseph, and I'm so excited to be joining you on "Teacher Time" today. Now, Saameh, I always think it's better when we start with a song, so shall we?

All: [Singing] "Teacher Time.” "Teacher Time.” "Teacher Time.” "Teacher Time.” "Teacher Time.” "Teacher Time."

Gail: Here we are. I love your puppet moves. You've got some really good moves.

Saameh: Thank you. I worked hard on this.

Gail: Well, hi, everyone, and welcome to our third preschool episode of "Teacher Time" this program year. I'm Gail Joseph.

Saameh: I'm Saameh Solaimani, and we're from the National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching and Learning.

Gail: We are so excited to have you here with us today. We have been focusing on positive behavior supports this season of "Teacher Time.” Hopefully, you've joined us for some of the previous episodes. So far, we've talked about the importance of relationships and how to support emotional literacy. And today, we're going to be focusing on problem-solving and relationships, and friendship skills in preschool.

I want to draw your attention to the viewer's guide. I've printed mine out here. It's beautiful. You can find it in the resource widget. If you haven't looked at our viewer's guide for a while, I strongly encourage you to. This season, our viewer's guide is a viewer's guide for birth to five, including specific age group information for infants and toddlers and preschool children. It is packed with information about development, about teaching practices. There are quick tips in here. There are reminders. There are things you can cut out and post and put up in your learning space. There are spaces for notetaking.

On the last page is just an extensive resource list that you are going to love. You can download the guide and use it throughout our time together for taking notes, for reflecting, planning how you might use some of the "Teacher Time" practices we're going to talk about in your own settings. And please share your viewer's guide with colleagues. Also, we want your ideas in the next issue of "Teacher Time.” You can see on the back that we ask you to submit some of your own strategies and tips, and then you'll be published in the "Teacher Time" viewer's guide.

Saameh: That would be awesome. We always love to hear from you. Thank you so much, Gail. During our time together, we're going to be discussing teaching practices that support positive behavior. We're going to take some time to promote your wellness with our It's All About You segment. We're going to connect effective practice to brain development in our new segment, which some of you may have seen in our last episode's Neuroscience Nook.

We're going to discuss small change, big impact, and in our focus on equity segments, individualized strategies that build a sense of belonging and promote social and emotional skills with all children, including children who have a variety of learning characteristics. And we're going to wrap up our time together, as we always do, with our BookCASE, where we connect our topic to books that you can share with children and families.

Gail: We love the BookCASE and our "Teacher Time" librarian. Like we do at the beginning of most "Teacher Times," we want to check in with how you're feeling, such an important thing to do periodically throughout the day. Look at our "Teacher Time" feeling tree, find a feeling creature. They all have little numbers on them.

And post in the Q&A which number creature you most relate to at the moment and why. We want to hear from you. We have our amazing Q&A team there, ready to see your input. I'm going to go ahead and start. Now, every time I look at — what I love about our little "Teacher Time" tree here is that I always think a little bit differently about how these creatures are feeling, which is fun. It helps children do that, too.

Saameh: Right.

Gail: I think the little guy that is swinging from the tree there. I'm just pretty excited to be here. I've been on some travel. I'm excited to be back with you and back with our "Teacher Time" viewership. How are you feeling, Saameh?

Saameh: I actually was thinking about this. And I think number 12, sitting on the leaf, surrounded by friends, by community, by all of you. Yeah, I'm feeling very part of this learning community.

Gail: I love it. And our viewers are checking in. Five, a rough week. Some weeks are like that. I hope it gets better for you, Amy. We've got a 12. Somebody is feeling like you. One, five. Our viewers are all over the tree, checking in. I feel like number five, pretty rough afternoon. My goodness. We hope that spending some time today thinking about your own professional development might feel a little bit uplifting for you. But we definitely know how it feels when you're not having a great week, too. Just hanging in there. Thank you so much for sharing.

Saameh: Yes, yes.

Gail: Thank you. Keep it going. Keep it going.

Saameh: We're very excited to be focusing on positive behavior supports this season, as you know. And social and emotional development. As you may know, is one of the domains in the Head Start ELOF, which stands for Early Learning Outcomes Framework. The practical strategies we're going to be discussing today are going to be focusing on the relationships with other children subdomain of social and emotional development. And you can see that highlighted here.

Gail: I love that. Now, like we said last month, this season of "Teacher Time" is focused on working our way through the Pyramid Model. Some of you might be really familiar with the Pyramid Model. Maybe your program is participating in a pyramid training. But if you're not familiar with it, the Pyramid Model is really a model or a framework of positive behavioral support for proactively addressing the social and emotional development. And for preventing and addressing challenging behaviors of young children. The framework offers a continuum of evidence-based teaching practices that are organized into four levels of support. And you can see those there.

At the foundation, it's all about nurturing and responsive relationships. Not only between the teacher, the educator, and the children but between children and between educators. It's all about these relationships. And we want them to be nurturing and responsive no matter what relationship they're in. That's the foundation. The next are high-quality supportive environments. How can we create both the physical and temporal structure of the environment to support positive behavior?

Then we level up and go to social and emotional teaching strategies. That's where we're at right now, is going to dig into some of those social and emotional teaching strategies. Then at the very top, when all of the bottom three pieces are in place, there might still be some children that have some behaviors that could require a little bit more intensive intervention. And we're going to talk about that in May. Be sure to come back.

But if you want to learn more about the Pyramid Model, you can check out the resource list in the back of your viewer's guide for a lot more information about it. Now, we would love to hear what strategies and practices you have in place to support young children's problem-solving and their friendship skills with children that you're working with.

Go ahead and start entering those in the Q&A. And our Q&A team, we've got, like, the star Q&A team today. They're going to start sending those out, too. We're going to be tracking them, but they're also going to be sent out so other people can see them as well when you share what strategies you're using. We always learn so much from our viewers. And there's always something that we're, like, a gem out there in how you're supporting young children's problem-solving.

Saameh: Such a wealth of resources out there.

Gail: Absolutely. Now, as a reminder, positive behavioral support, or sometimes called PBS, sometimes you might hear it called PBIS. Sometimes you might even hear it called a multi-tiered system of support. But positive behavioral support is a positive and proactive approach to preventing and addressing challenging behavior. It focuses on using very intentional teaching strategies to proactively, that's such a big part of it, proactively build all social and emotional skills. And today we're specifically thinking about building problem-solving skills and relationship skills for young children. Now, positive behavioral support recognizes that all behavior communicates a message or a need. And some behaviors, as they're trying to get their needs across, we might find challenging.

Once an educator understands the meaning, what is the message that the child is trying to send with their behavior? What's the meaning? They want something. They want to get away from something. They're not sure how to play with their friends, but they're trying in the way that they can. Once you know what the meaning of that challenging behavior is, then we can figure out how to teach the child a more effective way to communicate their needs and problem-solve with support.

Saameh: So important to keep in mind. Now what we're going to do is we're going to turn our attention to you in our All About You segment. We know that we do our best caregiving and teaching when we feel well ourselves. Engaging in self-care practices can help educators build greater social and emotional capacity to work through problem-solving together. And our ability to support children with problem-solving and relationship skills starts with our ability to center ourselves by noticing and observing what's happening with as little judgment as possible.

We can help young children work through challenges with peers from a more grounded, soft, and objective place, naming what we see happening calmly without so many of the other things going on when we're feeling stressed and overwhelmed. What we're going to do is a little body scan. Before we can support the children in our care with problem-solving and relationship skills, it's important to find ways to regulate our own feelings throughout the day.

Taking a minute to do something like a body scan like we have here to notice what's happening in our own bodies is softening in the moment. We can slow down and center ourselves throughout the day. This practice supports our own well-being first, enabling us to hold a non-judgmental space, as we were saying, respond intentionally to children's cues, behaviors, and communications as we support them in building healthy relationships with each other.

Here we go. Start with a deep breath. Okay, I noticed as I was saying that I was holding my breath. Breathe. Okay, so we're going to start in a seated position or laying down, whatever is comfortable for you. And now you can bring your attention to your body, and you can close your eyes if that's comfortable for you. And you can notice your body wherever you are.

As you exhale, you have a sense of relaxing, and you can notice your feet or body on the floor. You can notice your back against the chair or maybe on the floor. Bring your attention into your stomach area. If it feels tight, let it soften. Notice your hands, arms, shoulders, and let them be soft. Let your jaw and facial muscles be soft. Notice your whole body present, and take one more deep breath. Okay.

Okay, we would love to hear how you were feeling during that or feel now or after the body scan. What do you notice? And let's see. And I noticed like I was saying, that I was holding my breath.

Gail: I feel like we should do that right before "Teacher Time.” It would be really helpful.

Saameh: That's right.

Gail: I felt so calm and centered.

Saameh: We'd love to hear from you how that experience was. Thank you so much for taking the time to take time for yourself. Calm. Self-aware. Conscious. More relaxed.

Gail: It doesn't take very long too, and I know that when I was teaching on a regular basis, just having those moments where I could just feel that tension in my body, and it just takes a moment to take a breath before I interact.

Saameh: It is amazing how much one minute of breathing can do. Yes. It’s not something that requires a lot of time, which I know we don't necessarily have as teachers sometimes.

Social competencies like self-regulation, empathy, perspective-taking, and problem-solving skills are key to foundational healthy social-emotional development. And these include positive interactions and friendships and relationships between peers, as we know. Educators can help children learn the skills necessary to develop healthy peer relationships and find ways to work through social conflicts with adult support.

And that's where we come in. And teaching and modeling problem-solving skills early on with preschool children builds a foundation of problem-solving and relationship skills that most children can access with adult support and start to use independently as they continue to develop. The more we can support young children in developing problem-solving skills in their learning environments, the less we'll see some of those challenging behaviors that oftentimes arise from not having the resources, the tools to work through the problem as they come up, which they will because that's life.

It's important to note that there might be some children in your care who don't readily learn these skills through foundational teaching strategies. This might include children with disabilities or suspected delays. It's important to be aware of the progress for all children and use more individualized practices to work on these skills with children who need a little more support. That’s what we'll be doing today, sharing some strategies to do just that.

Gail: Some key ideas and practices for supporting problem-solving and peer relationship skills with preschool children are the first little slide that you see there or picture that you see there is about promoting healthy relationships. Preschoolers are increasingly interested, as our viewers know, in developing friendships with one or two preferred peers, like we see in the photo on the left. They're able to engage in group play and independently initiate interactions with peers, which is so fun to see develop.

Preschoolers might suggest something to do, like let's play a restaurant or let's build a swimming pool for our animals together or join in an existing activity. Hey, can I play too? Educators can support preschoolers in promoting healthy friendships in quite a few ways that I'm sure our viewers are already doing. But just to name a few, one is that you can help children plan what and how they will play together.

One thing that I always like to, I'm going to go off for a moment, is that one thing that I think about a lot as a preschool teacher is thinking about materials and resources and activities that require two children to play together so that you set the stage for children to interact with each other. Things like those teeter-totters or rowboats in classrooms is just one obvious idea that takes two children.

Another thing is providing suggestions for initiating interactions with other children. And a quick tip there too is right before children go to play, if there's a child that you think could use a little bit more support, is to do a little priming and say, “hey, point to two or three things that you could play with a friend,” and you'll see that they can increase their initiations with other children.

Then, encouraging children to consider other ideas. I don't know if anybody out there is a big puppet user, but I used a lot of puppets when I was teaching at Head Start, and this was a great way to model like at a circle time, model with a puppet and other children role-play how I could consider somebody else's idea. Lots of ways to do that.

Saameh: This is a great time for us to pause and think about what value do I place on peer relationships, and how do I expect peers to act with each other? Sort of that, taking a moment to think about our own ideas because we're subjective beings, and we have our own experiences. It's really important to just take a moment. And awareness of our responses to these questions is supportive of our equitable practice. I do have to say I love what you said about puppets, and we're going to be seeing a little bit of puppet work later on in our episode today. I am also a fan of puppets.

As you see, the second photo you see is representing teaching problem-solving steps, which is so important. Preschoolers are willing to try different strategies to solve problems and show flexibility in their actions and behavior, and they can plan ways to solve a problem and evaluate solutions with our support. In a minute, we're going to hear from Dr. Angel Fettig, Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Washington, who will share strategies to support problem-solving in preschool classrooms. She's going to talk about the steps.

Gail: That's great. Of course, another way that we can support children, which you probably feel like you're doing all the time, is teaching problem-solving in the moment. One is to proactively teach, which we're going to hear about strategies for doing that. But the other thing is then supporting that problem-solving as it occurs in the moment. There are a few steps that educators can do to work through that. One is anticipating that social conflicts are going to happen, and you try and anticipate it before they happen.

You might notice a child that's coming into the classroom or into the learning setting feeling a little bit tired, maybe something upsetting happened before, maybe you have some communication with the family and understand that something troubling has just happened at home, and the child is coming into the space. Maybe they're not usually having a difficult time with problem-solving, but today they might be.

But another thing that you can do is anticipate, did you introduce a new toy into your learning space? Maybe you introduced some new props in the dramatic play area, and you know that a lot of children are going to want to use them. You're anticipating that probably in that space, there's going to be a little bit more need to support problem-solving in the moment. You want to anticipate social conflicts before they happen.

Another thing that's so important is being close and helping children manage their feelings. If I'm anticipating that there might be some problem, maybe an individual child might need some more support, or there's an area in the classroom that I think, oh, I'm probably going to want to be close there, is to get close because children will, as they get excited or upset, that fight or flight comes in. You want to be there to support them to help remember some of the problem-solving steps that you've provided.

Now, providing support and reminders of problem-solving steps would be next. I'm going to be close with them, and then I'm going to provide support, and that support could be verbal like I could remind them of the problem-solving steps. It can also be visual, and we're going to talk about some of the visual supports you can have in your classrooms.

Some people in our Q&A have already talked about ways that they've used visuals with problem-solving solution kits, et cetera. We can encourage children to generate and evaluate multiple solutions. I'm going to say that this is really where it's at for preschool children, is to encourage them to generate as many different solutions to a problem as they can. When children have a restricted number of solutions they can try, they're bound to run out of things that are working for them. We want to encourage them to keep being really creative and generating so many different solutions.

Last but not least, when children do problem-solving, find some way to celebrate that. It might be a thumbs-up. It might be a high-five. It might be with a super friend cape or with some other type of big celebration because this is hard work, and it's really hard work when you're a young child just figuring it out. We want to make sure that we're celebrating that. We're going to remember that we always want to individualize the strategies that we're going to use to provide support based on the skills of the children that you're supporting.

Some children might need some additional amount of language that needs to be modified. Some children might need visual cues or gestures paired with verbal language. Some children might need some specific feedback on the consequences to help them learn the effect of their behavior on the environment. Stay tuned for BASICS where we're going to share about some more strategies for providing feedback.

Saameh: I love that. I love what you said about anticipation. I think it goes such a long way. Also, what you were saying about problem-solving and the children coming up with the solutions, generating the solutions, and I keep thinking about how problem-solving is also play in a way.

Gail: Yeah.

Saameh: It's exploration. It's play. In a way, it's fun. It's not necessarily a negative thing. Sometimes we think problem as negative, and it doesn't have to be.

Gail: It can be like a fun challenge. I would support children, and I'd say, “are they making it tough on you?”

Saameh: Exactly.

Gail: And they'd be like, yeah. But then they'd be encouraged to keep going. Sometimes I'd say, let me look. Let me look. I think you've got more solutions in there. I'd peer into their ear, and they'd think that was really fun. You can just really be fun and encourage them to be creative and think of more solutions.

Saameh: I love that one. We’re going to hear from Dr. Angel Fettig, who we were talking about earlier, as she discusses strategies to teach problem-solving skills.

[Video begins]

Angel Fettig: I think in early childhood settings, I think the best thing is to think about simple steps to teach kids. So simple, concrete strategies they can use in the setting. My favorite is to really think about the four-step problem-solving technique. Step one is, what's my problem? Really being able to know that there's a problem here, and this is the problem. Being able to identify it.

Angel: And then step two is helping them brainstorm. What are some things I can do to solve this problem? Guiding them in understanding, How do you brainstorm for solutions?

Gail: Okay.

Angel: And then the next step, step three, is to think about evaluating the solutions you came up with. Do I think using this step is going to be fair for my friends? Is it a safe solution?

Gail: Right.

Angel: Am I going to feel good? Is my friend going to feel good?

Angel: And then step four is guiding them to try it out.

Angel: You try it, see if it works.

Angel: If it doesn't work, then encourage them to try a different strategy, try a different skill. Those are the four steps. And it's really important that we teach those steps systematically and with visuals, just like how we will typically teach any content in early childhood classrooms.

Angel: I think as early childhood educators, we need to plan these into our curriculum in teaching problem-solving skills.

Gail: Great.

[Video ends]

Saameh: So wonderful. As we saw, Dr. Fettig outlines four important steps to go through with preschool children to help teach problem-solving skills. First of all, helping children identify what the problem is in the first place. Next, inviting children to generate and evaluate multiple solutions through brainstorming, as you were sharing, Gail, and then evaluate the solutions. How are these solutions working out? Lastly, we can help children select a solution and try it out and see how it works. We'd love to hear from you in the chat. What are some ways that you support problem-solving with children in your care? Please share in the chat.

As you're doing that, I wanted to share something I remember being surprised to learn early on in my career as an early childhood educator. It was just, like, what a big part of our job supporting children and problem-solving is. It's a huge part. I mean, it was most of the day. It was really doing that, and I was in for a surprise. But, getting down on the children's level, taking the time to be present and understand what's happening, how we can support children to work through the problem in that moment, which I'm sure you all experience many times a day. And the solution kit. We will be talking about that.

Gail: That's right. Owl's Pals, that's a great social and emotional curriculum. I see that one coming up. Tucker the Turtle, we know about that. That's a great one. Trying to hang in there. Sarah, yes, that is so important. It's just that trying to hang in there, taking those deep breaths, getting centered, and getting back into it and knowing that this is part of the job.

Saameh: It truly is.

Gail: What a great job it is to help build this, like, social and emotional foundation for young children so that when they're entering into even larger group settings, they're going to be really successful. Yes, trying to hang in there but knowing you've got a great purpose.

Saameh: Absolutely. What we're going to do now is we're going to take another moment to pause and reflect, a reflective moment, on questions that will support equitable teaching practices. We're going to invite you to reflect on the following questions. How do I expect peers to act with each other? How do I feel about conflict? Do I listen openly to all children when there is a problem? To just take a moment and think about those things. We're going to revisit these questions in our Focus on Equity segment. We thought it would be nice this time to weave throughout.

Gail: I love it. Those are such good questions. I'm just thinking about it myself, like, what was I expecting?

Saameh: Right. Now for our Neuroscience Nook segment. Research tells us that the early years are foundational for brain development. And adults play an important role in supporting healthy brain development connections and architecture.

In this segment, our Neuroscience Nook, we are excited to connect this research to everyday teaching practices. I'm going to just take a moment for this side note. As questions are coming up for you, we want to hear them. Please put them in the Q&A or post them in the "Teacher Time" Community in MyPeers. Just wanted to say that.

What we're going to do is we're going to shift our focus. We're going to talk a little bit about executive functioning, which is a very important brain function. The prefrontal cortex begins to develop very early in life. This area of the brain is responsible for what are called executive functioning skills, which some of you may have heard of. They're essential for development of strong and healthy relationships.

This is a really great graphic here, as you can see. It includes what are some of the main functions of executive functioning and executive functioning skills. What are they? Attention, that would be being able to stay focused on a task. Working memory, which is being able to remember rules and procedures. Self-regulation and the ability to control impulses.

Right there, you can see how important that would be for developing strong and healthy relationships. Organization, things like switching between tasks, that would be called flexible thinking. Problem-solving, planning, behavior, decision-making, and motivation. As you can see, hopefully, you're convinced that executive functioning skills are very important indeed. You can see how all these skills are important.

Gail: Absolutely.

Saameh: Also are interrelated in a lot of ways. What we can do is help young children start to develop these critical relationship building and problem-solving skills. I know what all of you are doing every day, through responsive caregiving and effective teaching practices that are responsive to an individual child's needs. In our most recent episodes of "Teacher Time," those were building relationships and emotional literacy in preschool, we've talked about ways that you can support executive functioning through things like serve and return, and the flipping your lid, the hand model.

Gail: Yes, I remember.

Saameh: Yes. From Dr. Dan Siegel. I practiced that a lot before, by the way.

Gail: Yeah, it was good.

Saameh: We also encourage you to look back at the last two viewers guides, that would be building relationships with children, birth through five, and emotional literacy with children, birth through five, to see more about the importance of nurturing and responsive relationships on the developing brain. What we're going to do is we're going to hear — now we're going to hear from Dr. Juliet Taylor, as she describes the development of executive function.

Juliet Taylor: I'm going to show you a graphic of how executive function develops over time. Here's sort of a graphic representation. And one thing to point out is that we are not born with executive function skills in place. We're born with the potential to develop them, or not, depending on our experiences, our neurophysiology, and the interactions between those things.

This graph shows that on the horizontal axis you can see this is ages birth to 80, and notice that there's not an even distribution between the ages. And that is because there are particular peaks in executive function development. You can see skill proficiency on the vertical axis. And I'm going to highlight a couple of areas where you see tremendous growth in executive function skills, and that is really in the preschool ages, between three to five, and then in early adolescence to early adulthood, there's another spike in development.

The foundations of executive function are laid down in the earliest months and years of life, and that really happens through basic sort of serve and return, it's sometimes called, or those basic interactions between child and adult that happen over and over and over again. And that spike really does happen in the preschool years after children have verbal language.

Saameh: As you can see, that graphic, it's just so helpful to see the development pattern. And we see that we aren't born with executive function. We are, however, born with the potential to develop them, and why our support as educators is so important. We know that the foundation of executive function skills are laid down in the first months and years of life. And what we heard and saw, the yellow highlight, is a spike in executive function development between three and five years old after many children have developed verbal language.

Gail: I love that, and I saw the other spike was like that, like, early or later teen years.

Saameh: I noticed that.

Gail: I've got two of those at home. I feel like I see that on a regular basis. Yeah, very true.

Saameh: It resonates.

Gail: It really resonates, both as a preschool teacher and as a mom of adolescents. That's so great. And, like, looked like some declines as we get older. It's not fun.

Saameh: A little less fun.

Gail: We're going to get to the "Teacher Time" BASICS, and we're going to talk about how we can use BASICS to support problem-solving and relationship skills. If you haven't joined us before, let's just go through really quickly what BASICS is. It's an acronym that helps us remember some really powerful teacher-child or adult-child interaction moves that we can make that can support children's growth and development in any area.

The "Teacher Time" BASICS are B is for behavioral expectations in advance. It is always helpful to tell a young child what you're expecting from them before you start a new activity. A is for attending to and encouraging positive behavior, which is so relevant to the topics that we're talking about now. S is for scaffolding with cues and prompts.

Those can be verbal cues, visual cues. You're going to see some of that today. Increasing engagement is the I. C is for creating and adding challenge. Young children grow when we add some challenge to, whether it's intellectual challenge or social and emotional challenge, that creates some growth for young children. And S is for that specific feedback.

If you've joined us for other webinars, you know that we only take two of these letters to focus on. It's too much to do all of them in one episode. We've focused on different letters at different episodes. You'll see that if you want to go back and look at some prior episodes. You'll see some of the other letters.

But today we're going to focus on the C and the S, create or add challenge, and the second S, which is about providing specific feedback to support problem-solving and relationship skills. We're going to jump to it. We're going to start with creating or adding challenge. This is one of my favorite things.

One fun way that we can create or add challenge to problem-solving and relationship skills is to create a friendship kit and invite children to use it when they notice that another child is upset. You can see on the screen that the friendship kit can have lots of little things in it. Really it could be like a shoebox. It could be a file folder. It could be any way that you can contain it. It could be a lovely basket.

But the idea is that in this friendship kit, there are things like maybe a pack of tissue if somebody is crying. Maybe there's a soft toy for someone to cuddle with if they're feeling like they're missing somebody. Maybe there's a pack of bandages to not only help with a small cut, but maybe if your feelings are hurt. We've had children also apply bandage. Very sweet. A sheet of stickers. Maybe a sticker would help someone.

There can be visual support cards of simple problem-solving solutions and things that you can do when a friend is in duress. Things like giving a gentle hug. Maybe saying, I'm sorry. That is certainly a challenge that we offer to young children is to provide a genuine apology, which is a great repair strategy for them to learn. That's one thing. I'd be curious to see if people are using friendship kits. You can enter that into the Q&A.

I've had lots of lovely experiences in my classroom with these friendship kits where children go to them when another child is upset. I had one experience. Well, I'll tell that story in a little bit. But they're just such great, lovely stories about how young children will use it. It's just like a physical reminder of what it takes to develop those special friendships. Now, there's another way that we can create or add challenges. Thank you for advancing that. That was a nice thing to do from our friendship kit.

Gail: Thanks for advancing the slide.

Saameh: Of course.

Gail: Is to actually create a problem-solving solution kit or problem-solving basket. We have already had viewers tell us that they're using these out and about. You'll see lots of resources for supporting those in your viewer's guide. But this is to add a bunch of visuals about supporting problem-solving. Remember we said that one of the more difficult things for young children to do is to generate multiple solutions that are different from each other.

I do always remember when I started doing a lot of social and emotional development, problem-solving in a classroom, in my preschool classroom, I had a student in there, a child in my classroom named Freddy. I loved that. It was the only Freddy I've ever had. Freddy ran up to me on the playground and he said, "Teacher Gail, I've got a problem.” I was like, "Perfect, so excited about this problem.” I said, "What is it?” "Jordan took the ball and won't give it back.”

Now, that is a real problem that happens on a regular basis in preschool classrooms. I said, "Well, what solutions did you try?” Because we were working on solutions. He said, "I tried five.” I was so excited because that's a lot. I said, "What were they?” He said, "I said, 'Please, please, please.'"

One of the things that this problem-solving basket or solution kit can provide for young children are different solutions. You want children to understand that it's not just trying the same solution over and over again or louder. But it is actually trying different solutions, like wait and take turns, hardest solution. I think to try, make another choice, play together. We could ask an adult if it becomes a big problem.

Gail: Just take a break. Lots of things that can be in there. And check your viewer's guide out because there's lots of visuals that you could cut out and use in your own classrooms and learning settings. We're on to the next. We are going to watch one of our favorite teachers ever. Teacher Heather is going to introduce the problem-solving solution basket to preschoolers in her care. And just pay attention. What do you notice? Share those in chat as you take a look.

Heather: We've been working really hard with the problem-solving basket. I think I'm ready. I'm still mad, but I'm ready. I'm going to use that problem-solving basket you guys told me about. Is that a good idea?

Child: Yeah.

Heather: No, no, no. We got it right here. Remember, guys, we planned it this time. Oh, Eddie, hey, I just happen to have it right here. OK, wait. Here's my mad card because I need to breathe some more. I feel better now. I'm going to get one of those books you guys told me about. Teacher, will you help me? I will. It's hard for Eddie to hold the book, huh? I'm going to find an idea because that's what you guys told me last time. Find an idea in my book. And I don't have to read it, right? We have to look at it, right, Marilyn, because there's pictures, right? Pictures for Eddie. Oh, yeah, I remember. We've been practicing a long time, ever since we started school. Okay, here we go. Sharon, can I trade a block with you? Say no.

Heather: Uh-oh, she said no. I'm so disappointed. I don't know how to fix this. What should we help Eddie say? Hey, Eddie, you know what? Our class does something funny when we feel disappointed. You guys want to help him again? Ready? We say, oh, pickle. And then we try another idea. I'm going to try another idea from a different book because that book didn't have the idea I wanted. Let me see. I'm going to share. Jocelyn, can I have one of your blocks? Great, great, great. Sharon, say yes this time. Can I give you this block and you give me back my three blocks?

Saameh: Love it.

Gail: So great. Oh, pickles.

Saameh: I told you about the puppets.

Gail: Yes, exactly.

Saameh: The puppets showed up.

Gail: Exactly. Puppets are so great for supporting and role-playing social and emotional problems because you can control their —

Saameh: Totally.

Gail: I mean, in a helpful way. You can control what they're saying and experiencing, and the children can help the puppet out. It's really great.

Saameh: I love that.

Gail: She does a great job of that, and our viewers agree. They are commenting that they're loving that, and hopefully we'll share that video with others.

Saameh: I just love that. It's sort of just a way of children stepping outside of the scene and being able to see what's happening.

Gail: It’s like a little fishbowl in a way.

Saameh: When you're in it, you're feeling so many feelings, so many things happening, it's hard to use those executive functioning skills around it. You're actually developing those executive functioning skills when you're like, okay, I wonder how I can support these puppets and planning and working it out and da-da-da. It's really wonderful. It's a great way. Very powerful.

Gail: Yes. Huge puppet family.

Saameh: Yes, we can do so much.

Gail: We're going to have to have a whole episode on puppets.

Saameh: Puppet Time. Yeah, both you and I. Great. We have our S now from our BASICS, and that is specific feedback. Providing specific feedback is another way educators can support problem-solving and relationship skills, and that's naming and acknowledging when we see a child engaging and building relationships. It's really important to be specific about what you see, and we have some examples here.

Like, you're helping me put Natalie's coat on, or I saw you get a tissue for Kai, which was so kind. And I can see that you were both feeling frustrated, and let's get the solution kit and get some ideas of how we might solve the problem. Noticing and acknowledging goes a long way. It's I see you, I hear you, and right there you have buy-in. It's like, OK, let's work together. I think all of us, children, and adults alike.

Educators can provide specific feedback to a child when they see them taking turns, sharing, trying to solve problems, or helping a friend. I can see you being a helpful friend and working with Isaiah to get his mat set up for nap time. That's probably a typical one. Nap time is a big one. Setting up for nap time is a big one. That itself is a whole thing. A lot of ripe opportunities for problem-solving.

Saameh: Providing specific feedback is also a helpful teaching tool. And we might provide feedback on how to be a friend or how to solve a problem, like another one that resonates with me. I hear that you would all like a turn on the tire swing.

Gail: Oh, yes.

Saameh: Many opportunities for problem-solving with a tire swing. Very popular tire swing. Let's try using the sand timer to make sure everyone gets a turn. Or I can see that you're both feeling frustrated. Okay, we talked about this one. Let's get the solution kit. Get some ideas how we might solve the problem. Offer specific ideas of what the child might do next. Remember that how feedback is given, including what you say, how you say it, it should really be individualized to meet the learning characteristics and temperament of each child. It's not just like one size fits all model.

Gail: Absolutely. I think like the key word is the specific here in specific feedback. Because I noticed all the examples that you gave, it wasn't like, a good job. It was really specific and it didn't even have to have a praise statement. It really could just be like saying what you noticed. You got a tissue for Kai. That was so kind.

It's just labeling the behavior that they're doing can be enough to provide them specific feedback that like, wow, that was important enough for my teacher to say or my educational support person to say. Then that specific feedback about like, let's try something new. Let's try something a little bit different. Also, very helpful. It's so great.

Saameh: Yeah.

Gail: I just think it's like the S in there is really important, that specific part. I really love that. Specific. It's almost more important than the praise is the specific sort of I see you.

Saameh: Because empty praise is not necessarily the most helpful.

Gail: Yeah. That's another whole thing that we're going to talk about.

Saameh: At some point.

Gail: But we are so excited that we're going to check back into Teacher Heather's classroom and see how she provides specific feedback while helping two children solve problems. See if maybe a few know this, some of that specific feedback that she's providing.

Heather: Uh-oh. Amy and Jami, what's the problem? You're getting it to make the fort. And it looks like Amy's holding it, too. Thanks, Elina, for moving so I could get up. What are we going to do about it? You both want the same block? What are we going to do about it? How are we going to fix the problem? I'm going to hold the block for a minute while you guys help figure it out. What's your idea? You want to play with it over there. Should we find out what Jami's idea was? What was your idea, Jami? Oh, and she thinks she needs it for that building. You both need this block for two different buildings.

Do you want to look for an idea in the basket? Grab the book. See what you can come up with. There's another one over there, right? I think Amy's got the book. What are we going to do? She's looking. Let's play together. That would be building the same building together. Take a break. You just take a break from building. Wait until she's done. One more minute. She would have it for a minute and then you would have it for a minute.

You build with something else. Maybe next time. Talk to me. Elina dropped it in there. Playing together. You would build it together. Do you want to build together, Jami? Look, Amy's talking to you. Sorry, I just said it and Amy was saying it. Sorry about that, Amy. Here. Amy, you're going to help Jami build her tower. Excellent. You guys are expert problem solvers.

Gail: So great.

Saameh: Live in action.

Gail: And people are providing some feedback on that as well. I mean, she does such a great job of providing that specific feedback along the way.

Saameh: Absolutely.

Gail: Along the way, absolutely.

Saameh: We are ready to move on to our Small Change, Big Impact segment. Small Change, Big Impact, where we share how small adjustments to the way we set up our learning environment, modify our curriculum, or engage with children can make a big difference for a child's learning.

We know that children vary in their learning characteristics and how they engage with the people and materials in their learning environments. These small changes, also known as curriculum modifications, are made based on the individual needs of the child to help promote their engagement and participation. We know that when children are more engaged, they have more opportunities to learn.

Some children might need more highly individualized teaching to help them learn problem-solving, such as embedded teaching or intensive individualized teaching, making curriculum modifications based on a child's individual learning needs. This can be a great place to start to support engagement.

Gail: Absolutely. And today we are focusing on using social stories. I would be so excited to hear how our viewers are using social stories. I imagine that some people are already using these. But for those of you who might not be familiar with social stories, they are a great little curriculum modification, or not little, because they actually take a little bit of time to put in place. But they are there to support a child who might have some more specific or individualized needs to navigate a social situation or just providing them with a little bit more information as to how to navigate a social situation or a change.

These are written from a child's perspective. And this is very individualized. They have the child's picture in them often. The child's name is used in them. The social story highlights and clearly describes to a child what the most important aspects of the social situation are, like what the appropriate behavior expectations are in that situation, how people, including the child, might be feeling or what they might be thinking about in that social situation.

Social stories, hard to say, sometimes social stories can help increase a child's understanding of a social situation. It can help prepare them to use that new focus skill or focus behavior that's going to help them navigate the situation as successfully as possible. They are very effective in introducing many types of new skills and behaviors to children that might need that, again, more focused and turning the volume up, as I like to think about it, on some of the social atmosphere that might be going on for a child to help them learn.

There is a great video, if you haven't seen it yet, because we've actually shown it before. But if you haven't seen it yet, there's a great video on "Teacher Time" Community in MyPeers about how to make and how to use social stories for teaching purposes. We are going to show a video of one preschool educator using a social story to support a child in the learning environment. As we watch, share what you notice about what the teacher is using, how they're using the social story, or anything else that you notice in the Q&A.

Teacher: Andy. Andy, not a big deal, okay?

[Children shouting indistinctly]

All right, Andy, check it out. You need to keep your hands and legs to yourself.

Andy: [Inaudible]

Teacher: And a calm voice.

Andy: It's too hard.

Teacher: Can you show me a calm voice like this? Hmm? Let's do one more.

Andy: I need some help.

Teacher: Look, Andy.

Teacher: If my friends do something I don't like, I can say, "Please.”

Andy: Please.

Teacher: "Stop.”

Andy: Stop.

Teacher: And get a teacher to help me.

Teacher: Well, what do you need help with, Andy?

Andy: That.

Teacher: You can use a calm voice and say, "Please stop.”

Andy: Please stop!

Teacher: This is what we're good at, right, David?

Gail: Well, I love that. That is a real situation. There's a busy, bustling classroom going on, and that teacher still has enough organizational support going on in that classroom to be able to go over and individualize the support for that young child. They are going through a social story, which the child is referencing with the teacher support, but eventually I think the child's able to use it independently on their own.

Again, if you want to know how to create social stories, or if you want some links to social stories, check out your viewer's guide. We've got lots of links to some social stories that you can use, such as using one for Tucker Turtle. There's also that video in MyPeers about how to get those set up.

Saameh: I see somebody in the chat who speaks so much to the relationship that the child has with the teacher, which, yes, as we can see how important that is to starting out, really building that relationship so the child is trusting the teacher to support.

Gail: Absolutely. And Roxanne's comment about being very calm and listening to the child, right, it just takes me back to what you had us do at the beginning. It takes a moment.

Gail: You have to be mindful as an educator to be like, OK, there's a lot going on in the classroom. This child is really needing my support. Taking a deep breath and then walking them through it.

Gail: It's great so that you can stay calm and support them. I love it

Saameh: Very important. Throughout this webinar, as you've noticed, we have been discussing ways to foster social emotional skills for all children. Today in our Focus on Equity segment, we're going to be using our equity lens to take a closer look at implicit bias and how it impacts how we interact with children and support them in building problem-solving and relationship skills.

The value that we place on peer relationships and the way we go about building and maintaining them are influenced by our families, our culture, our community, and our experiences. And sometimes subtle biases can interfere with our ability to support and partner with children and their families with an open mind. Uncovering these biases takes time and reflection.

What you may have noticed is that we paused and we took those reflective moments throughout this webinar today for reflective practice and starting to think about the following questions. These are ones that we've gone through today here at the webinar. What value do I place on peer relationships? How do I expect peers to act with each other? How do I feel about conflict? Do I listen openly to all children when there is a problem? Is there a child that I am more likely to make negative assumptions about when a problem involves that child?

It's really to take a moment to reflect on these things throughout our day or week or in certain situations. It can be really helpful to ask a friend, colleague, or coach to video record you during a time of day where there tends to be more conflict between children and then to watch that video and notice how you respond and interact with each child involved in a conflict. This is interesting because it reminds me of a puppet thing again. It's like taking a step outside and looking at yourself from the outside.

Saameh: It's kind of hard to see your own back is what somebody told me before.

Saameh: This is a way of doing that.

Saameh: And does every child receive the support and instruction they need?

Gail: That's right.

Saameh: We're going to wrap up with our BookCASE. This month, Dr. Gail Joseph had the chance to meet with our "Teacher Time" Librarian, Emily Small.

Saameh: I'm so excited to hear about the books this month.

Gail: I got to go to the library. It's pretty fun.

Saameh: Oh, nice. Let's watch them make the CASE.

Gail: Hi, everyone. It's time for one of our favorite segments, The BookCASE. And how lucky are we to have our very own "Teacher Time" Librarian, Emily Small.

Emily Small: Thanks for having me back.

Gail: We're so excited. This is just such a treat. Emily has brought a collection of fabulous books for us to talk about. And she’s going to make the CASE for one of them. If you're new to "Teacher Time," let me just remind you what the CASE is.

The CASE really stands for an acronym for four strategies that are really helpful to help you maximize the learning you can get from children's books. C is for connect. We want to think about how we can connect the content or the characters or the story of the book to one of the ELOF outcomes. And the A is for advanced vocabulary.

We know that children love big words and finding big words in books is a great strategy to help support their growing vocabulary. S is to support their active engagement with the book reading. And E is to extend the learning beyond the book. Finding ways that you can keep that magic of the book alive. With that, tell us about the books you have.

Emily: The first one we have is "Luli and the Language of Tea.” This book just came out in 2022. It is probably one of my favorites. It features some children that don't know each other because their families are going to an English language learning class. I also feel like we don't see that very often in picture books.

Gail: I've never seen it.

Emily: Luli is trying to connect with the other children in the space. And she discovers that tea is all a part of their culture. They have a tea party. It's just a great way for kids to learn that you are connected to others. And you just have to find that connection piece.

Gail: Love that. And the illustrations look amazing.

Emily: Yes.

Gail: So engaging.

Emily: We have "Amy Wu and the Warm Welcome.” This is the third one in the "Amy Wu" series. Highly recommend them all. There's a new child in Amy's class who doesn't speak English. And Amy really wants him to feel welcome. You see the steps she takes to help the child feel welcome in class. It's a really great story.

Gail: Again, illustrations are beautiful. I don't even know this book and I want to read it.

Emily: Yes, I love how bright the colors are. Just like, yes, it draws you in immediately. We have "I Forgive Alex: A Simple Story About Understanding.” This is a wordless picture book. Wordless books are fantastic to use for all families, but especially ones where English may not be their home language because anyone can tell a story in any language with a wordless book.

Gail: That is such a great strategy to bring in.

Emily: Yeah. I'll show you some of the photos. But basically it's a story of a child that accidentally ruins another child's artwork. It's just an accident and then the steps that are taken to rekindle that friendship.

Gail: It's such a beautiful story and I love it. Without words, but you can still tell the story.

Emily: And for the CASE, we have "The Little Book of Friendship.” This book is tiny but has so much great stuff in it.

Emily: For the connection, it has really good concrete examples of how to be a good friend, how to make a friend, and then it even addresses when you're not getting along with your friends and those challenges that come up.

Gail: Which happens. A lot.

Emily: Yes, yes.

Gail: Great. Emily, for our A, our advanced vocabulary, we see words like bloom, grumpy, amazing, complimenting. We've got a lot of good emotion words.

Emily: For our supporting engagement, this book asks a lot of questions. It would be great for people to pause while they're reading, maybe write them down so kids can reference them later.

Gail: Great strategy.

Emily: Then for our extend the learning, at the beginning it talks about making a friendship garden. And you could make a friendship garden in your classroom where they all work together to build a garden. Also taking photos of your own children in the classroom so that kids can reference back to them, maybe in a photo album or posting when they're having a hard time with friends.

Gail: Such a great way to make the CASE for this book, "The Little Book of Friendship.” We hope you will find all these books at your local library.

Gail: And bring them into your classroom.

Emily: Yeah.

Gail: Thanks for being with us.

Emily: Thanks for having me.

Saameh: Awesome. That was wonderful.

Gail: It was so fun to be in our "Teacher Time" Library.

Saameh: Thank you. That's about all we have time for today.

Gail: That's it.

Saameh: And thank you so much for joining us. Join us again next month for Responding to Challenging Behavior with Infants and Toddlers. And again in May for with Preschoolers. And bye for now. Thank you so much for being here with us.

Gail: See you on MyPeers. Take care.

Children are born ready to solve problems, and they rely on supportive relationships to learn how to recognize problems and find solutions. Problem-solving involves patience, persistence, and creativity from both the child and the adults in their lives. As preschool children explore their world and engage in play with peers, challenges and conflicts provide opportunities to learn and grow. Discuss practical strategies to foster problem-solving and relationship-building skills in preschoolers.

Note: The evaluation, certificate, and engagement tools mentioned in the video were for the participants of the live webinar and are no longer available. For information about webinars that will be broadcast live soon, visit the Upcoming Events section.

Video Attachments

• Webinar Slides (611.22 KB)
• Viewer's Guide (1.31 MB)

Resource Type: Video

National Centers: Early Childhood Development, Teaching and Learning

Age Group: Preschoolers

Audience: Teachers and Caregivers

Series: Teacher Time

Last Updated: September 26, 2023

• Privacy Policy
• Freedom of Information Act
• Accessibility
• Disclaimers
• Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
• Viewers & Players

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

The Power of Playful Learning in the Early Childhood Setting

You are here

Play versus learning represents a false dichotomy in education (e.g., Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff 2008). In part, the persistent belief that learning must be rigid and teacher directed—the opposite of play—is motivated by the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes playful learning (Zosh et al. 2018). And, in part, it is motivated by older perceptions of play and learning. Newer research, however, allows us to reframe the debate as learning via play—as playful learning.

This piece, which is an excerpt from Chapter 5 in  Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8, Fourth Edition (NAEYC 2022), suggests that defining play on a spectrum (Zosh et al. 2018, an idea first introduced by Bergen 1988) helps to resolve old divisions and provides a powerful framework that puts  playful learning —rich curriculum coupled with a playful pedagogy—front and center as a model for all early childhood educators. ( See below for a discussion of play on a spectrum.)

This excerpt also illustrates the ways in which play and learning mutually support one another and how teachers connect learning goals to children’s play. Whether solitary, dramatic, parallel, social, cooperative, onlooker, object, fantasy, physical, constructive, or games with rules, play, in all of its forms, is a teaching practice that optimally facilitates young children’s development and learning. By maximizing children’s choice, promoting wonder and enthusiasm for learning, and leveraging joy, playful learning pedagogies support development across domains and content areas and increase learning relative to more didactic methods (Alfieri et al. 2011; Bonawitz et al. 2011; Sim & Xu 2015).

Playful Learning: A Powerful Teaching Tool

This narrowing of the curriculum and high-stakes assessment practices (such as paper-and-pencil tests for kindergartners) increased stress on educators, children, and families but failed to deliver on the promise of narrowing—let alone closing—the gap.  All  children need well-thought-out curricula, including reading and STEM experiences and an emphasis on executive function skills such as attention, impulse control, and memory (Duncan et al. 2007). But to promote happy, successful, lifelong learners, children must be immersed in developmentally appropriate practice and rich curricular learning that is culturally relevant (NAEYC 2020). Playful learning is a vehicle for achieving this. Schools must also address the inequitable access to play afforded to children (see “Both/And: Early Childhood Education Needs Both Play and Equity,” by Ijumaa Jordan.) All children should be afforded opportunities to play, regardless of their racial group, socioeconomic class, and disability if they have been diagnosed with one. We second the call of Maria Souto-Manning (2017): “Although play has traditionally been positioned as a privilege, it must be (re)positioned as a right, as outlined by the  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 31” (785).

What Is Playful Learning?

Playful learning describes a learning context in which children learn content while playing freely (free play or self-directed play), with teacher guidance (guided play), or in a structured game. By harnessing children’s natural curiosity and their proclivities to experiment, explore, problem solve, and stay engaged in meaningful activities—especially when doing so with others—teachers maximize learning while individualizing learning goals. Central to this concept is the idea that teachers act more as the Socratic “guide at the side” than a “sage on the stage” (e.g., King 1993, 30; Smith 1993, 35). Rather than view children as empty vessels receiving information, teachers see children as active explorers and discoverers who bring their prior knowledge into the learning experience and construct an understanding of, for example, words such as  forecast  and  low pressure  as they explore weather patterns and the science behind them. In other words, teachers support children as active learners.

Importantly, playful learning pedagogies naturally align with the characteristics that research in the science of learning suggests help humans learn. Playful learning leverages the power of active (minds-on), engaging (not distracting), meaningful, socially interactive, and iterative thinking and learning (Zosh et al. 2018) in powerful ways that lead to increased learning.

Free play lets children explore and express themselves—to be the captains of their own ship. While free play is important, if a teacher has a learning goal, guided play and games are the road to successful outcomes for children (see Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013 for a review). Playful learning in the form of guided play, in which the teacher builds in the learning as part of a fun context such as a weather report, keeps the child’s agency but adds an intentional component to the play that helps children learn more from the experience. In fact, when researchers compared children’s skill development during free play in comparison to guided play, they found that children learned more vocabulary (Toub et al. 2018) and spatial skills (Fisher et al. 2013) in guided play than in free play.

Self-Directed Play, Free Play

NAEYC’s 2020 position statement on developmentally appropriate practice uses the term  self-directed play  to refer to play that is initiated and directed by children. Such play is termed  free play  in the larger works of the authors of this excerpt; therefore, free play is the primary term used in this article, with occasional references to self-directed play, the term used in the rest of the DAP book.

Imagine an everyday block corner. The children are immersed in play with each other—some trying to build high towers and others creating a tunnel for the small toy cars on the nearby shelves. But what if there were a few model pictures on the wall of what children could strive to make as they collaborated in that block corner? Might they rotate certain pieces purposely? Might they communicate with one another that the rectangle needs to go on top of the square? Again, a simple insertion of a design that children can try to copy turns a play situation into one ripe with spatial learning. Play is a particularly effective way to engage children with specific content learning when there is a learning goal.

Why Playful Learning Is Critical

Teachers play a crucial role in creating places and spaces where they can introduce playful learning to help all children master not only content but also the skills they will need for future success. The science of learning literature (e.g., Fisher et al. 2013; Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013; Zosh et al. 2018) suggests that playful learning can change the “old equation” for learning, which posited that direct, teacher-led instruction, such as lectures and worksheets, was the way to achieve rich content learning. This “new equation” moves beyond a sole focus on content and instead views playful learning as a way to support a breadth of skills while embracing developmentally appropriate practice guidelines (see Hirsh-Pasek et al. 2020).

Using a playful learning pedagogical approach leverages the skill sets of today’s educators and enhances their ability to help children attain curricular goals. It engages what has been termed active learning that is also developmentally appropriate and offers a more equitable way of engaging children by increasing access to participation. When topics are important and culturally relevant to children, they can better identify with the subject and the learning becomes more seamless.

While educators of younger children are already well versed in creating playful and joyful experiences to support social goals (e.g., taking turns and resolving conflicts), they can use this same skill set to support more content-focused curricular goals (e.g., mathematics and literacy). Similarly, while teachers of older children have plenty of experience determining concrete content-based learning goals (e.g., attaining Common Core Standards), they can build upon this set of skills and use playful learning as a pedagogy to meet those goals.

Learning Through Play: A Play Spectrum

As noted previously, play can be thought of as lying on a spectrum that includes free play (or self-directed play), guided play, games, playful instruction, and direct instruction (Bergen 1988; Zosh et al. 2018). For the purposes of this piece, we use a spectrum that includes the first three of these aspects of playful learning, as illustrated in “Play Spectrum Showing Three Types of Playful Learning Situations” below.

The following variables determine the degree to which an activity can be considered playful learning:

• level of adult involvement
• extent to which the child is directing the learning
• presence of a learning goal

Toward the left end of the spectrum are activities with more child agency, less adult involvement, and loosely defined or no particular learning goals. Further to the right, adults are more involved, but children still direct the activity or interaction.

Developmentally appropriate practice does not mean primarily that children play without a planned learning environment or learn mostly through direct instruction (NAEYC 2020). Educators in high-quality early childhood programs offer a range of learning experiences that fall all along this spectrum. By thinking of play as a spectrum, educators can more easily assess where their learning activities and lessons fall on this spectrum by considering the components and intentions of the lesson. Using their professional knowledge of how children develop and learn, their knowledge of individual children, and their understanding of social and cultural contexts, educators can then begin to think strategically about how to target playful learning (especially guided play and games) to leverage how children naturally learn. This more nuanced view of play and playful learning can be used to both meet age-appropriate learning objectives and support engaged, meaningful learning.   

In the kindergarten classroom in the following vignette, children have ample time for play and exploration in centers, where they decide what to play with and what they want to create. These play centers are the focus of the room and the main tool for developing social and emotional as well as academic skills; they reflect and support what the children are learning through whole-group discussions, lessons, and skills-focused stations. In the vignette, the teacher embeds guided play opportunities within the children’s free play.

Studying Bears: Self-Directed Play that Extends What Kindergartners Are Learning

While studying the habits of animals in winter, the class is taking a deeper dive into the lives of American black bears, animals that make their homes in their region. In the block center, one small group of children uses short lengths and cross-sections of real tree branches as blocks along with construction paper to create a forest habitat for black bear figurines. They enlist their friends in the art center to assist in making trees and bushes. Two children are in the writing center. Hearing that their friends are looking for help to create a habitat, they look around and decide a hole punch and blue paper are the perfect tools for making blueberries—a snack black bears love to eat! Now multiple centers and groups of children are involved in making the block center become a black bear habitat.

In the dramatic play center, some of the children pretend to be bear biologists, using stethoscopes, scales, and magnifying glasses to study the health of a couple of plush black bears. When these checkups are complete, the teacher suggests the children could describe the bears’ health in a written “report,” thus embedding guided play within their free play. A few children at the easels in the art center are painting pictures of black bears.

Contributed by Amy Blessing

Free play, or self-directed play, is often heralded as the gold standard of play. It encourages children’s initiative, independence, and problem solving and has been linked to benefits in social and emotional development (e.g., Singer & Singer 1990; Pagani et al. 2010; Romano et al. 2010; Gray 2013) and language and literacy (e.g., Neuman & Roskos 1992). Through play, children explore and make sense of their world, develop imaginative and symbolic thinking, and develop physical competence. The kindergarten children in the example above were developing their fine motor and collaboration skills, displaying their understanding of science concepts (such as the needs of animals and living things), and exercising their literacy and writing skills. Such benefits are precisely why free play has an important role in developmentally appropriate practice. To maximize learning, teachers also provide guided play experiences.

Guided Play

While free play has great value for children, empirical evidence suggests that it is not always sufficient  when there is a pedagogical goal at stake  (Smith & Pellegrini 2008; Alfieri et al. 2011; Fisher et al. 2013; Lillard 2013; Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013; Toub et al. 2018). This is where guided play comes in.

Guided play allows teachers to focus children’s play around specific learning goals (e.g., standards-based goals), which can be applied to a variety of topics, from learning place value in math to identifying rhyming words in literacy activities. Note, however, that the teacher does not take over the play activity or even direct it. Instead, she asks probing questions that guide the next level of child-directed exploration. This is a perfect example of how a teacher can initiate a context for learning while still leaving the child in charge. In the previous kindergarten vignette, the teacher guided the children in developing their literacy skills as she embedded writing activities within the free play at the centers.

Facilitating Guided Play

Skilled teachers set up environments and facilitate development and learning throughout the early childhood years, such as in the following:

• Ms. Taglieri notices what 4-month-old Anthony looks at and shows interest in. Following his interest and attention, she plays Peekaboo, adjusting her actions (where she places the blanket and peeks out at him) to maintain engagement.
• Ms. Eberhard notices that 22-month-old Abe knows the color yellow. She prepares her environment based on this observation, placing a few yellow objects along with a few red ones on a small table. Abe immediately goes to the table, picking up each yellow item and verbally labeling them (“Lellow!”).
• Mr. Gorga creates intrigue and participation by inviting his preschool class to “be shape detectives” and to “discover the secret of shapes.” As the children explore the shapes, Mr. Gorga offers questions and prompts to guide children to answer the question “What makes them the same kind of shapes?”

An analogy for facilitating guided play is bumper bowling. If bumpers are in place, most children are more likely than not to knock down some pins when they throw the ball down the lane. That is different than teaching children exactly how to throw it (although some children, such as those who have disabilities or who become frustrated if they feel a challenge is too great, may require that level of support or instruction). Guided play is not a one-size-fits-all prescriptive pedagogical technique. Instead, teachers match the level of support they give in guided play to the children in front of them.

Critically, many teachers already implement these kinds of playful activities. When the children are excited by the birds they have seen outside of their window for the past couple of days, the teachers may capitalize on this interest and provide children with materials for a set of playful activities about bird names, diets, habitats, and songs. Asking children to use their hands to mimic an elephant’s trunk when learning vocabulary can promote learning through playful instruction that involves movement. Similarly, embedding vocabulary in stories that are culturally relevant promotes language and early literacy development (García-Alvarado, Arreguín, & Ruiz-Escalante 2020). For example, a teacher who has several children in his class with Mexican heritage decides to read aloud  Too Many Tamales  (by Gary Soto, illus. Ed Martinez) and have the children reenact scenes from it, learning about different literary themes and concepts through play. The children learn more vocabulary, have a better comprehension of the text, and see themselves and their experiences reflected. The teacher also adds some of the ingredients and props for making tamales into the sociodramatic play center (Salinas-González, Arreguín-Anderson, & Alanís 2018) and invites families to share stories about family  tamaladas  (tamale-making parties).

Evidence Supporting Guided Play as a Powerful Pedagogical Tool

Evidence from the science of learning suggests that discovery-based guided play actually results in increased learning for all children relative to both free play and direct instruction (see Alferi et al. 2011). These effects hold across content areas including spatial learning (Fisher et al. 2013), literacy (Han et al. 2010; Nicolopoulou et al. 2015; Hassinger-Das et al. 2016; Cavanaugh et al. 2017; Toub et al. 2018; Moedt & Holmes 2020), and mathematics (Zosh et al. 2016).

There are several possible reasons for guided play’s effectiveness. First, it harnesses the joy that is critical to creativity and learning (e.g., Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki 1987; Resnick 2007). Second, during guided play, the adults help “set the stage for thought and action” by essentially limiting the number of possible outcomes for the children so that the learning goal is discoverable, but children still direct the activity (Weisberg et al. 2014, 276). Teachers work to provide high-quality materials, eliminate distractions, and prepare the space, but then, critically, they let the child play the active role of construction. Third, in guided play, the teacher points the way toward a positive outcome and hence lessens the ambiguity (the degrees of freedom) without directing children to an answer or limiting children to a single discovery (e.g., Bonawitz et al. 2011). And finally, guided play provides the opportunity for new information to be integrated with existing knowledge and updated as children explore.

Reinforcing Numeracy with a Game

The children in Mr. Cohen’s preschool class are at varying levels of understanding in early numeracy skills (e.g., cardinality, one-to-one correspondence, order irrelevance). He knows that his children need some practice with these skills but wants to make the experience joyful while also building these foundational skills. One day, he brings out a new game for them to play—The Great Race. Carla and Michael look up expectantly, and their faces light up when they realize they will be playing a game instead of completing a worksheet. The two quickly pull out the box, setting up the board and choosing their game pieces. Michael begins by flicking the spinner with his finger, landing on 2. “Nice!” Carla exclaims, as Michael moves his game piece, counting “One, two.” Carla takes a turn next, spinning a 1 and promptly counting “one” as she moves her piece one space ahead. “My turn!” Michael says, eager to win the race. As he spins a 2, he pauses. “One . . . two,” he says, hesitating, as he moves his piece to space 4 on the board. Carla corrects him, “I think you mean ‘three, four,’ right? You have to count up from where you are on the board.” Michael nods, remembering the rules Mr. Cohen taught him earlier that day. “Right,” he says, “three, four.”

Similar to guided play, games can be designed in ways that help support learning goals (Hassinger-Das et al. 2017). In this case, instead of adults playing the role of curating the activity, the games themselves provide this type of external scaffolding. The example with Michael and Carla shows how children can learn through games, which is supported by research. In one well-known study, playing a board game (i.e., The Great Race) in which children navigated through a linear, numerical-based game board (i.e., the game board had equally spaced game spaces that go from left to right) resulted in increased numerical development as compared to playing the same game where the numbers were replaced by colors (Siegler & Ramani 2008) or with numbers organized in a circular fashion (Siegler & Ramani 2009). Structuring experiences so that the learning goal is intertwined naturally with children’s play supports their learning. A critical point with both guided play and games is that children are provided with support but still lead their own learning.

Digital educational games have become enormously popular, with tens of thousands of apps marketed as “educational,” although there is no independent review of these apps. Apps and digital games may have educational value when they inspire active, engaged, meaningful, and socially interactive experiences (Hirsh-Pasek et al. 2015), but recent research suggests that many of the most downloaded educational apps do not actually align with these characteristics that lead to learning (Meyer et al. 2021). Teachers should exercise caution and evaluate any activity—digital or not—to see how well it harnesses the power of playful learning.

Next Steps for Educators

Educators are uniquely positioned to prepare today’s children for achievement today and success tomorrow. Further, the evidence is mounting that playful pedagogies appear to be an accessible, powerful tool that harnesses the pillars of learning. This approach can be used across ages and is effective in learning across domains.

By leveraging children’s own interests and mindfully creating activities that let children play their way to new understanding and skills, educators can start using this powerful approach today. By harnessing the children’s interests at different ages and engaging them in playful learning activities, educators can help children learn while having fun. And, importantly, educators will have more fun too when they see children happy and engaged.

As the tide begins to change in individual classrooms, educators need to acknowledge that vast inequalities (e.g., socioeconomic achievement gaps) continue to exist (Kearney & Levine 2016). The larger challenge remains in propelling a cultural shift so that administrators, families, and policymakers understand the way in which educators can support the success of all children through high-quality, playful learning experiences.

Consider the following reflection questions as you reflect how to support equitable playful learning experiences for each and every child:

• One of the best places to start is by thinking about your teaching strengths. Perhaps you are great at sparking joy and engagement. Or maybe you are able to frequently leverage children’s home lives in your lessons. How can you expand practices you already use as an educator or are learning about in your courses to incorporate the playful learning described in this article?
• How can you share the information in this chapter with families, administrators, and other educators? How can you help them understand how play can engage children in deep, joyful learning?

This piece is excerpted from NAEYC’s recently published book  Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8,  Fourth Edition. For more information about the book, visit  NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/books/dap-fourth-edition .

Teaching Play Skills

Pamela Brillante

While many young children with autism spectrum disorder enjoy playing, they can have difficulty engaging in traditional play activities. They may engage in activities that do not look like ordinary play, including playing with only a few specific toys or playing in a specific, repetitive way.

Even though most children learn play skills naturally, sometimes families and teachers have to teach children how to play. Learning how to play will help develop many other skills young children need for the future, including

• social skills:  taking turns, sharing, and working cooperatively
• cognitive skills:  problem-solving skills, early academic skills
• communication skills:  responding to others, asking questions
• physical skills:  body awareness, fine and gross motor coordination

Several evidence-based therapeutic approaches to teaching young children with autism focus on teaching play skills, including

• The Play Project:  https://playproject.org
• The Greenspan Floortime approach: https://stanleygreenspan.com
• Integrated Play Group (IPG) Model: www.wolfberg.com

While many children with autism have professionals and therapists working with them, teachers and families should work collaboratively and provide multiple opportunities for children to practice new skills and engage in play at their own level. For example, focus on simple activities that promote engagement between the adult and the child as well as the child and their peers without disabilities, including playing with things such as bubbles, cause-and-effect toys, and interactive books. You can also use the child’s preferred toy in the play, like having the Spider-Man figure be the one popping the bubbles.

Pamela Brillante , EdD, has spent 30 years working as a special education teacher, administrator, consultant, and professor. In addition to her full-time faculty position in the Department of Special Education, Professional Counseling and Disability Studies at William Paterson University of New Jersey, Dr. Brillante continues to consult with school districts and present to teachers and families on the topic of high-quality, inclusive early childhood practices.  

Photographs: © Getty Images Copyright © 2022 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints online at  NAEYC.org/resources/permissions .

Alfieri, L., P.J. Brooks, N.J. Aldrich, & H.R. Tenenbaum. 2011. “Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning?” Journal of Educational Psychology 103 (1): 1–18.  

Bassok, D., S. Latham, & A. Rorem. 2016. “Is Kindergarten the New First Grade?” AERA Open 2 (1): 1–31. doi.10.1177/2332858415616358. 

Bergen, D., ed. 1988. Play as a Medium for Learning and Development: A Handbook of Theory and Practice . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. 

Bonawitz, E.B., P. Shafto, H. Gweon, N.D. Goodman, E.S. Spelke, & L. Schulz. 2011. “The Double-Edged Sword of Pedagogy: Instruction Limits Spontaneous Exploration and Discovery.” Cognition 120 (3): 322–30. 

Cavanaugh, D.M., K.J. Clemence, M.M. Teale, A.C. Rule, & S.E. Montgomery. 2017. “Kindergarten Scores, Storytelling, Executive Function, and Motivation Improved Through Literacy-Rich Guided Play.” Journal of Early Childhood Education 45 (6): 1–13. 

Christakis, E. 2016. The Importance of Being Little: What Preschoolers Really Need from Grownups . New York: Penguin Books.  

Duncan, G. J., A. Claessens, A.C. Huston, L.S. Pagani, M. Engel, H. Sexton, C.J. Dowsett, K. Magnuson, P. Klebanov, L. Feinstein, J. Brooks-Gunn, K. Duckworth, & C. Japel. 2007. “School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology 43 (6): 1428–46. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 .  

Fisher, K.R., K. Hirsh-Pasek, N. Newcombe, & R.M. Golinkoff. 2013. “Taking Shape: Supporting Preschoolers’ Acquisition of Geometric Knowledge Through Guided Play.” Child Development 84 (6): 1872–78. 

García-Alvarado, S., M.G. Arreguín, & J.A. Ruiz-Escalante. 2020. “Mexican-American Preschoolers as Co-Creators of Zones of Proximal Development During Retellings of Culturally Relevant Stories: A Participatory Study.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy : 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468798420930339 . 

Gray, P. 2013. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life . New York: Basic Books.  

Han, M., N. Moore, C. Vukelich, & M. Buell. 2010. “Does Play Make a Difference? How Play Intervention Affects the Vocabulary Learning of At-Risk Preschoolers.” American Journal of Play 3 (1): 82–105. 

Hannaway, J., & L. Hamilton. 2008. Accountability Policies: Implications for School and Classroom Practices . Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/411779.html . 

Hassinger-Das, B., K. Ridge, A. Parker, R.M. Golinkoff, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & D.K. Dickinson. 2016. “Building Vocabulary Knowledge in Preschoolers Through Shared Book Reading and Gameplay.” Mind, Brain, and Education 10 (2): 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12103 . 

Hassinger-Das, B., T.S. Toub, J.M. Zosh, J. Michnick, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek. 2017. “More Than Just Fun: A Place for Games in Playful Learning.” Infancia y aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Education and Development 40 (2): 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1292684 . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., & R.M. Golinkoff. 2008. “Why Play = Learning.” In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online], eds. R.E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R.D. Peters, topic ed. P.K. Smith, 1–6. Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. www.child-encyclopedia.com/play/according-experts/why-play-learning . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., H. S. Hadani, E. Blinkoff, & R. M. Golinkoff. 2020. A new path to education reform: Playful learning promotes 21st-century skills in schools and beyond . The Brookings Institution: Big Ideas Policy Report. www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/a-new-path-to-education-reform-playful-learning-promotes-21st-century-skills-in-schools-and-beyond . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., J.M. Zosh, R.M. Golinkoff, J.H. Gray, M.B. Robb, & J. Kaufman. 2015. “Putting Education in ‘Educational’ Apps: Lessons from the Science of Learning.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16 (1): 3–34. 

Isen, A.M., K.A. Daubman, & G.P. Nowicki. 1987. “Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem Solving.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6): 1122–31. 

Kearney, M.S., & P.B. Levine. (2016, Spring). Income, Inequality, Social Mobility, and the Decision to Drop Out of High School . Washington, DC: Brookings. www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/income-inequality-social-mobility-and-the-decision-to-drop-out-of-high-school . 

King, A. 1993. “From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side.” College Teaching 41 (1): 30–35.  

Lillard, A.S. 2013. “Playful Learning and Montessori Education.” American Journal of Play 5 (2): 157–86. 

Meyer, M., J.M. Zosh, C. McLaren, M. Robb, R.M. Golinkoff, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & J. Radesky. 2021. “How Educational Are ‘Educational’ Apps for Young Children? App Store Content Analysis Using the Four Pillars of Learning Framework.” Journal of Children and Media . Published online February 23. 

Miller, E., & J. Almon. 2009. Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School . College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504839.pdf . 

Moedt, K., & R.M. Holmes. 2020. “The Effects of Purposeful Play After Shared Storybook Readings on Kindergarten Children’s Reading Comprehension, Creativity, and Language Skills and Abilities.” Early Child Development and Care 190 (6): 839–54. 

NAEYC. 2020. “Developmentally Appropriate Practice.” Position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC. www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap .  

Neuman, S.B., & K. Roskos. 1992. “Literacy Objects as Cultural Tools: Effects on Children’s Literacy Behaviors in Play.” Reading Research Quarterly 27 (3): 202–25.  

Nicolopoulou, A., K.S. Cortina, H. Ilgaz, C.B. Cates, & A.B. de Sá. 2015. “Using a Narrative- and Play-Based Activity to Promote Low-Income Preschoolers’ Oral Language, Emergent Literacy, and Social Competence.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 31 (2): 147–62. 

Pagani, L.S., C. Fitzpatrick, I. Archambault, & M. Janosz. 2010. “School Readiness and Later Achievement: A French Canadian Replication and Extension.” Developmental Psychology 46 (5): 984–94.  

Pedulla, J.J., L.M. Abrams, G.F. Madaus, M.K. Russell, M.A. Ramos, & J. Miao. 2003. “Perceived Effect of State-Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning: Findings from a National Survey of Teachers” (ED481836). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481836 . 

Ravitch, D. 2010. “Why Public Schools Need Democratic Governance.” Phi Delta Kappan 91 (6): 24–27. 

Resnick, M. 2007. “All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (by Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten.” In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition , 1–6. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 

Romano, E., L. Babchishin, L.S. Pagani, & D. Kohen. 2010. “School Readiness and Later Achievement: Replication and Extension Using a Nationwide Canadian Survey.” Developmental Psychology 46 (5): 995–1007.  

Salinas-González, I., M.G. Arreguín-Anderson, & I. Alanís. 2018. “Supporting Language: Culturally Rich Dramatic Play.” Teaching Young Children 11 (2): 4–6. 

Siegler, R.S., & G.B. Ramani. 2008. “Playing Linear Numerical Board Games Promotes Low-Income Children’s Numerical Development.” Developmental Science 11 (5): 655–61. 

Siegler, R.S., & G.B. Ramani. 2009. “Playing Linear Number Board Games—but Not Circular Ones—Improves Low-Income Preschoolers’ Numerical Understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (3): 545–60. 

Sim, Z., & F. Xu. 2015. “Toddlers Learn from Facilitated Play, Not Free Play.” In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , Berkeley, CA. https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/past-conferences . 

Singer, D.G., & J.L. Singer. 1990. The House of Make-Believe: Children’s Play and the Developing Imagination . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  

Smith, K. 1993. “Becoming the ‘Guide on the Side.’” Educational Leadership 51 (2): 35–37.  

Smith P.K., & A. Pellegrini. 2008. “Learning Through Play.” In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online], eds. R.E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R.D. Peters, 1–6. Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/pdf/expert/play/according-experts/learning-through-play . 

Souto-Manning, M. 2017. “Is Play a Privilege or a Right? And What’s Our Responsibility? On the Role of Play for Equity in Early Childhood Education.” Foreword. Early Child Development and Care 187 (5–6): 785–87. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004430.2016.1266588 . 

Toub, T.S., B. Hassinger-Das, K.T. Nesbitt, H. Ilgaz, D.S. Weisberg, K. Hirsh-Pasek, R.M. Golinkoff, A. Nicolopoulou, & D.K. Dickinson. 2018. “The Language of Play: Developing Preschool Vocabulary Through Play Following Shared Book-Reading.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 45 (4): 1–17.  

Weisberg, D.S., K. Hirsh-Pasek, & R.M. Golinkoff. 2013. “Guided Play: Where Curricular Goals Meet a Playful Pedagogy.” Mind, Brain, and Education 7 (2): 104–12. 

Weisberg, D.S., K. Hirsh-Pasek, R.M. Golinkoff, & B.D. McCandliss. 2014. “Mise en place: Setting the Stage for Thought and Action.” Trends in Cognitive Science 18 (6): 276–78. 

Zosh, J.M., B. Hassinger-Das, T.S. Toub, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & R. Golinkoff. 2016. “Playing with Mathematics: How Play Supports Learning and the Common Core State Standards.” Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College 7 (1): 45–49. https://doi.org/10.7916/jmetc.v7i1.787 . 

Zosh, J.M., K. Hirsh-Pasek, E.J. Hopkins, H. Jensen, C. Liu, D. Neale, S.L. Solis, & D. Whitebread. 2018. “Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum.” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124 . 

Jennifer M. Zosh, PhD, is professor of human development and family studies at Penn State Brandywine. Most recently, her work has focused on technology and its impact on children as well as playful learning as a powerful pedagogy. She publishes journal articles, book chapters, blogs, and white papers and focuses on the dissemination of developmental research.

Caroline Gaudreau, PhD, is a research professional at the TMW Center for Early Learning + Public Health at the University of Chicago. She received her PhD from the University of Delaware, where she studied how children learn to ask questions and interact with screen media. She is passionate about disseminating research and interventions to families across the country.

Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, PhD, conducts research on language development, the benefits of play, spatial learning, and the effects of media on children. A member of the National Academy of Education, she is a cofounder of Playful Learning Landscapes, Learning Science Exchange, and the Ultimate Playbook for Reimagining Education. Her last book, Becoming Brilliant: What Science Tells Us About Raising Successful Children (American Psychological Association, 2016), reached the New York Times bestseller list.

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, PhD, is the Lefkowitz Faculty Fellow in the Psychology and Neuroscience department at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  She is also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Her research examines the development of early language and literacy, the role of play in learning, and learning and technology. [email protected]

Vol. 77, No. 2

Print this article

Theories of Early Childhood Education: A Critical Examination

By GGI Insights | April 22, 2024

Table of contents

In this article, we will delve into the various theories of early childhood education and explore their significance in promoting holistic development in young children.

The Significance of Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education is more than just a form of childcare. It is a critical phase in a child's life that lays the groundwork for their intellectual, social, emotional, and physical growth. Research has consistently shown that high-quality early childhood education programs improve school readiness, enhance cognitive skills, and improve children's social and emotional competence.

During the early years of a child's life, their brain undergoes rapid development. This period, often called the "critical period," is when the brain is most receptive to learning and forming connections. However, the field also faces significant challenges facing early childhood education , such as accessibility, quality of training, and funding constraints. Early childhood education takes advantage of this window of opportunity by providing a stimulating and nurturing environment that supports children's overall development.

The Role of Early Childhood Education in Cognitive Development

Cognitive development refers to the intellectual abilities and processes children acquire as they grow. Early childhood education theories emphasize the importance of providing enriching experiences that stimulate and nurture children's cognitive growth. Children can enhance their language, problem-solving, and critical-thinking skills through interactive activities, playful exploration, and guided instruction. It's supplemented by various early childhood education resources , assisting in enriching the learning experience for both educators and students.

Early childhood education programs often incorporate hands-on learning experiences encouraging children to explore their environment and engage in problem-solving tasks. These activities promote cognitive development and foster a love for learning. Early childhood education sets the stage for lifelong learning and academic success by creating a positive and stimulating learning environment.

'Ignite Potential' merch – wear your dedication to Quality Education. Each item symbolizes support for enlightening minds globally. Shop, support, make an impact!

Social and Emotional Benefits of Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education also plays a crucial role in fostering young children's social and emotional development. To understand this in a broader context, exploring what is the Head Start program can provide insights into how these goals are achieved on a larger scale. A supportive and nurturing environment teaches children how to interact with their peers, develop empathy, and regulate emotions. High-quality early childhood education programs also build positive relationships between children and adults, promoting a sense of belonging and security.

Children learn important social skills through social interactions with their peers and teachers, such as sharing, taking turns, and resolving conflicts. They also develop a sense of empathy and understanding towards others, which lays the foundation for healthy relationships later in life. Early childhood education programs often incorporate activities that promote emotional regulation and self-control, helping children manage their feelings and reactions positively and constructively. Additionally, early childhood education research emphasizes the profound impact these interactions have on children’s cognitive and emotional development.

Early childhood education provides a platform for children to develop a strong identity and self-esteem. By celebrating each child's unique qualities and encouraging their strengths, early childhood educators help children develop a positive self-image and a belief in their abilities.

In conclusion, early childhood education is not just about providing childcare; it is a crucial period in a child's life that sets the stage for their future development. Early childhood education programs create a solid foundation for children to thrive academically, socially, and emotionally by focusing on cognitive, social, and emotional growth. Investing in high-quality early childhood education benefits individual children and society, contributing to future generations' overall well-being and success.

Overview of Key Theories in Early Childhood Education

Several theories and approaches have been developed to guide early childhood education practices. Each theory emphasizes different aspects of learning and development and offers unique perspectives on how best to support children. Let's explore some of the prominent theories in early childhood education.

Montessori Method: Learning Through Experience

The Montessori Method, developed by Dr. Maria Montessori, emphasizes hands-on, experiential learning. It focuses on providing a prepared environment where children can independently explore and engage in purposeful activities. The Montessori approach promotes self-directed learning, respect for individual interests, and the development of practical life skills.

Children can choose their activities from various carefully designed materials within the Montessori classroom. These materials are specifically designed to promote the development of various skills, such as fine motor skills, problem-solving abilities, and mathematical understanding. The Montessori approach also strongly emphasizes the importance of order and structure in the learning environment, as it contributes to a child's sense of security and independence.

The Montessori Method recognizes the importance of mixed-age classrooms, where younger children learn from older peers and older children reinforce their understanding by teaching younger ones. This collaborative learning environment fosters community and encourages children to develop empathy, social skills, and respect for others.

Reggio Emilia Approach: The Hundred Languages of Children

The Reggio Emilia Approach, originating in Italy, views children as capable learners with a hundred different ways of expressing themselves. This approach emphasizes the importance of the arts, creativity, and collaboration. It encourages open-ended exploration, project-based learning, and documentation of children's experiences.

In a Reggio Emilia-inspired classroom, children are seen as active participants in their learning journey. The environment is designed to be aesthetically pleasing and inviting, with natural materials and open spaces encouraging movement and exploration. The curriculum is emergent, meaning the interests and ideas of the children shape it. Teachers act as facilitators, guiding children's learning experiences and documenting their progress.

One unique aspect of the Reggio Emilia Approach is using an "atelier," or art studio, where children can engage in various artistic activities. These studios allow children to express themselves through different art forms, such as painting, sculpture, and music. The documentation of children's work, through photographs, videos, and written descriptions, is an essential part of the Reggio Emilia philosophy, as it allows for reflection, assessment, and communication with parents and the wider community.

Waldorf Education: Fostering Creativity and Imagination

Waldorf Education, inspired by the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, focuses on nurturing children's imagination, creativity, and holistic development. The Waldorf approach provides a balanced curriculum incorporating artistic and practical activities. It emphasizes rhythm, play, and the importance of nature in learning.

In a Waldorf classroom, there is a strong emphasis on creating a warm and nurturing environment that supports children's emotional well-being. The curriculum engages children's senses and imagination with storytelling, puppetry, and dramatic play. Artistic activities like painting, drawing, and handwork are integrated into daily lessons to foster creativity and self-expression.

Another unique feature of Waldorf Education is the importance placed on the natural world. Outdoor play and nature exploration are essential for children's physical, cognitive, and emotional development. The curriculum often includes gardening, farming, and environmental education, allowing children to develop a deep connection with nature and understand their role in caring for the environment.

HighScope Curriculum: Active Participatory Learning

The HighScope Curriculum promotes active learning, where children actively engage in hands-on experiences to construct their knowledge. This approach encourages problem-solving, decision-making, and social interaction. The HighScope curriculum incorporates a daily routine, individual and group activities, and materials that support active exploration.

In a HighScope classroom, the daily routine is carefully structured to balance child-initiated and teacher-directed activities. Children can make choices within the framework of the curriculum, allowing them to take ownership of their learning. The curriculum is organized into content areas, such as language and literacy, mathematics, science, and social-emotional development, to ensure a comprehensive and well-rounded learning experience.

The HighScope approach also places a strong emphasis on the development of social skills and conflict resolution. Children are encouraged to communicate their needs, collaborate with peers, and solve problems. The use of group activities and cooperative play promotes the development of teamwork, empathy, and respect for others.

Comparing and Contrasting Different Theories

While each theory in early childhood education has unique strengths and perspectives, it is essential to analyze their similarities and differences. Understanding the various teaching methods, the role of the teacher, and the learning environment helps educators make informed decisions when designing their curriculum and instructional practices.

Early childhood education theories provide educators with a framework to understand and guide their teaching practices. These theories are based on extensive research and observations of children's development and learning. By exploring the similarities and differences between these theories, educators can better understand how to support children's growth and development best.

Similarities and Differences in Teaching Methods

Despite their differences, many early childhood education theories share common foundations. For example, they all emphasize the importance of providing a supportive and nurturing environment that promotes active engagement and fosters children's curiosity. However, their instruction approaches, activity structuring, and assessment methods differ.

One theory may focus on child-led learning, where children can explore and discover their interests at their own pace. Another theory may emphasize structured activities and explicit instruction to ensure children acquire specific skills and knowledge. Understanding these different teaching methods allows educators to choose the approach that aligns with their educational goals and the unique needs of their students.

Role of the Teacher in Different Theories

Teachers play a pivotal role in early childhood education, regardless of the theory or approach employed. Each theory highlights different aspects of the teacher's role, ranging from being a facilitator of learning to a collaborator and guide. Educators need to understand these roles and adapt their instructional practices accordingly.

In some theories, the teacher is a facilitator, creating an environment that encourages children to explore and discover knowledge independently. In other theories, the teacher is more active in guiding and scaffolding children's learning experiences. By understanding the different roles of the teacher, educators can create a balanced and effective learning environment that meets the diverse needs of their students.

Learning Environment and Materials in Various Theories

Another crucial aspect to consider when exploring early childhood education theories is the learning environment and the materials used. Each theory emphasizes different aspects of the learning environment, be it natural and open-ended spaces, aesthetically pleasing classrooms, or diverse and developmentally appropriate materials. The physical environment greatly influences children's learning experiences and engagement.

Some theories advocate for natural and open-ended spaces where children can freely explore and interact with their surroundings. Others emphasize the importance of aesthetically pleasing classrooms that stimulate children's senses and create a welcoming atmosphere. Additionally, theories may differ in their recommendations for materials, with some prioritizing hands-on manipulatives and others emphasizing digital tools.

By carefully considering the learning environment and materials, educators can create a space that supports children's learning and fosters curiosity. The environment should promote exploration, creativity, and independence, allowing children to engage in meaningful learning experiences actively.

Practical Application of Theories in the Classroom

While theories provide a framework for understanding early childhood education, their practical application in the classroom truly impacts children's learning and development. Let's explore how each theory can be effectively implemented to create enriching and supportive learning environments.

When implementing the Montessori Method, teachers carefully curate a prepared environment designed to meet the specific developmental needs of the children. The classroom has various carefully selected materials to match the children's abilities and interests. These materials are organized to promote order and accessibility, allowing children to choose activities that align with their interests and abilities independently. The Montessori classroom emphasizes the development of concentration, order, and self-discipline as children engage in purposeful work and explore their environment.

The Reggio Emilia Approach, on the other hand, focuses on creating an environment that encourages exploration, self-expression, and collaboration. Teachers act as facilitators, documenting children's experiences and providing opportunities for them to engage in long-term projects. The classroom is designed to be open and flexible, with spaces that invite children to explore and interact with their surroundings. The integration of the arts is a key element of the Reggio Emilia approach, as children are encouraged to express themselves through various artistic mediums. Additionally, community involvement plays a crucial role in the Reggio Emilia approach, as children are given opportunities to connect with the world outside the classroom.

Adopting the Waldorf Education approach involves creating a nurturing and aesthetically pleasing environment that reflects the natural world. The classroom is designed to be warm and inviting, with soft lighting, natural materials, and a focus on creating a sense of rhythm and routine. Teachers incorporate storytelling and imaginative play to spark children's curiosity and creativity. Integrating arts, music, movement, and practical activities is central to the Waldorf classroom, as children engage in activities that stimulate their senses and foster their holistic development.

The HighScope Curriculum takes a different approach, emphasizing active participatory learning through daily routines, child-initiated activities, and small group experiences. Teachers provide choices and opportunities for problem-solving, allowing children to take ownership of their learning. The curriculum also strongly emphasizes social interactions, as children engage in collaborative activities and learn to navigate social situations. Scaffolding techniques support children's learning and development, as teachers provide guidance and support to help children build upon their existing knowledge and skills.

By implementing these theories in the classroom, educators can create enriching and supportive learning environments catering to each child's unique needs and interests. Whether through the Montessori Method, the Reggio Emilia Approach, Waldorf Education, or the HighScope Curriculum, these theories provide valuable insights and strategies for promoting children's learning and development.

The Impact of Theories on Child Development

The early childhood education theories discussed profoundly impact various child development aspects. By understanding their long-term effects and influence, educators can better support children's growth and prepare them for future learning.

One theory that has had a significant impact on child development is the behaviorist theory . This theory, pioneered by psychologists such as B.F. Skinner focuses on the role of environmental factors in shaping behavior. According to this theory, children's actions are influenced by the consequences of their behavior. For example, if a child receives praise for completing a task, they are more likely to repeat that behavior in the future. Understanding this theory helps educators create positive reinforcement strategies to encourage desired behaviors in children.

Another influential theory is the constructivist theory . This theory, championed by Jean Piaget, emphasizes the active role of children in constructing their knowledge and understanding of the world. According to Piaget, children go through different stages of cognitive development, and their thinking becomes more complex as they interact with their environment. Educators who embrace this theory create hands-on learning experiences that allow children to explore, experiment, and discover knowledge independently.

Long-term Effects of Early Childhood Education Theories

Research has shown that high-quality early childhood education programs, inspired by different theories, improve academic outcomes, decrease dropout rates, and enhance social skills in the long run. Children who have experienced supportive and stimulating environments during their early years are likelier to succeed in school and beyond.

For instance, a study by the National Institute for Early Education Research found that children who attended high-quality preschool programs, which incorporated elements of various early childhood education theories, showed higher levels of school readiness. These children demonstrated stronger language and math skills, better self-regulation abilities, and improved social competence compared to their peers who did not have access to such programs.

Theories and Their Influence on Future Learning

The theories of early childhood education serve as a foundation for future learning. They provide the building blocks for children's cognitive, social, and emotional development. The skills and knowledge acquired during preschool years lay the groundwork for continued growth and learning throughout their educational journey.

For example, the sociocultural theory , developed by Lev Vygotsky, highlights the importance of social interaction and cultural context in learning. According to this theory, children learn best when they engage in meaningful activities with more knowledgeable others, such as teachers or peers. Educators who apply this theory in their practice create collaborative learning environments where children can collaborate, share ideas, and learn from each other's experiences.

Theories and Their Role in Shaping Personality and Behavior

Early childhood education theories contribute to cognitive and academic development and shape children's personality and behavior. These theories' emphasis on social and emotional learning, self-regulation, and character development helps foster empathy, resilience, and positive relationships.

One theory that highlights the importance of social-emotional development is the attachment theory proposed by John Bowlby. This theory suggests that secure attachments between children and their caregivers during early childhood play a crucial role in their emotional well-being and future relationships. Educators who understand this theory can create nurturing and supportive environments that promote healthy attachment relationships between children and their teachers.

The ecological systems theory developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner emphasizes the influence of various environmental systems on child development , including early childhood organizations and early childhood associations . These entities contribute significantly to the systemic support of a child's learning and growth. According to this theory, children are influenced by multiple contexts, including their family, school, community, and culture. Educators who apply this theory in their practice recognize the importance of creating a supportive and inclusive learning environment that considers children's diverse backgrounds and experiences.

Future Trends in Early Childhood Education Theories

As early childhood education continues to evolve, new theories and approaches emerge to adapt to the changing needs of society and children. Let's explore future trends that influence early childhood education theories.

Emerging Theories and Approaches in Early Childhood Education

New theories and approaches, such as the emergent curriculum and the holistic development approach, are gaining prominence in early childhood education. These theories focus on child-led learning, individualized instruction, and valuing children's diverse backgrounds and experiences.

The Role of Technology in Early Childhood Education Theories

The integration of technology presents both opportunities and challenges in early childhood education. Some theories highlight using appropriate digital tools to support children's learning, while others emphasize limiting screen time and promoting hands-on experiences. The role of technology in early childhood education theories is an ongoing topic of research and discussion.

Theories and Their Adaptation to the Changing World

Early childhood education theories must adapt to the changing world to effectively prepare children for the challenges they will face. The incorporation of global perspectives, sustainability education, and a focus on critical thinking and problem-solving are some of the elements that future theories may emphasize.

In Conclusion

In conclusion, exploring the theories of early childhood education provides valuable insights into the importance of providing high-quality educational experiences for young children. By understanding the various theories, educators can make informed decisions when designing their curriculum, creating supportive learning environments, and fostering children's holistic development. The theories serve as a guide that helps shape children's learning experiences and lays the foundation for their lifelong love of learning.

Popular Insights:

Shop with purpose at impact mart your purchase empowers positive change. thanks for being the difference.

Customer Onboarding: Proven Techniques for Seamless Client Integration

Customer journey: optimizing interactions for lasting customer loyalty, email open rates: enhancing the readership of your marketing emails, revenue: the fundamental pillar of business viability and growth, marketing strategies: craft dynamic approaches for business expansion, startup school: accelerating your path to entrepreneurial success, ecommerce marketing strategy: data-driven tactics for enhanced loyalty, hubspot crm review: a comprehensive look into what makes hubspot great, hubspot growth suite: catalyzing your company growth with integration, hubspot service hub: taking superb customer service to the next level.

Advertisement

Research on early childhood mathematics teaching and learning

• Survey Paper
• Open access
• Published: 23 June 2020
• Volume 52 , pages 607–619, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Camilla Björklund   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5436-537X 1 ,
• Marja van den Heuvel-Panhuizen 2 , 3 &
• Angelika Kullberg 1  

62k Accesses

25 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper reports an overview of contemporary research on early childhood mathematics teaching and learning presented at recent mathematics education research conferences and papers included in the special issue (2020–4) of ZDM Mathematics Education . The research covers the broad spectrum of educational research focusing on different content and methods in teaching and learning mathematics among the youngest children in the educational systems. Particular focus in this paper is directed to what lessons can be drawn from teaching interventions in early childhood, what facilitates children’s mathematical learning and development, and what mathematical key concepts can be observed in children. Together, these themes offer a coherent view of the complexity of researching mathematical teaching and learning in early childhood, but the research also brings this field forward by adding new knowledge that extends our understanding of aspects of mathematics education and research in this area, in the dynamic context of early childhood. This knowledge is important for future research and for the development of educational practices.

Similar content being viewed by others

Research in Early Childhood Mathematics Education Today

Mathematics Education in the Early Years

Early childhood mathematics education: reflections and moving forward.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Early childhood mathematics education is a rich field of study and practice that includes the provision of stimulating activities and learning environments, organized and orchestrated by teachers, care-takers and other professionals with the aim of offering young children experiences that extend their knowledge and development of mathematical concepts and skills. Generally, early childhood mathematics education involves children aged 3–6 years, but in many countries even the youngest toddlers go to early childhood centres. Therefore, contemporary research on early mathematics education focuses on children from birth until they enter formal schooling in the first grade. To develop this field of research, a strong foundation of theory and methodology is necessary, along with consideration of the practical settings of young children’s learning as well as the societal needs and relevant educational policy frameworks. Moreover, from a didactical perspective, it also requires consideration of the essence of the mathematics to be taught to young children.

High-quality research grounded in theory is necessary for all areas of mathematics education, in order to move forward and contribute to the generation of new knowledge from which the educational practice can benefit. Since there is much evidence that later development in mathematics is laid in the early years (e.g., Duncan et al. 2007 ; Krajewski and Schneider 2009 ; Levine et al. 2010 ), such high-quality research is especially critical for early childhood mathematics education. Research involving young children entails certain challenges that cannot simply be solved by adopting research designs that are used with older students. The aim of gaining deep knowledge of how young children’s mathematical understanding can be fostered places high demands on research methods. As early as 40 years ago, Donaldson ( 1978 ) stated that children act differently in their everyday situations than they do in experiment situations, and this has been confirmed by many others since then. Thus, gaining knowledge about teaching and learning mathematics in the early years requires research that is conducted in various learning environments and that acknowledges that these learning environments are complex, multifaceted, and dynamic.

Research in mathematics education is a relatively recent scientific discipline beginning in the last century (Kilpatrick 2014 ). Investigating young children’s mathematical learning and teaching became part of this discipline much later. Early childhood mathematics has long been the research field of developmental psychology and cognitive sciences. From the studies of mental abilities and thinking in mathematical problem-solving carried out in these disciplines, we have gained knowledge about the influence of working memory and attention span (e.g., Ashcraft et al. 1992 ; Passolunghi and Costa 2016 ; Stipek and Valentino 2015 ), as well as about the role of innate abilities of numerical awareness in children’s mathematical performance (e.g., Butterworth 2005 ; Wynn 1998 ). Yet, these studies lack a deeper investigation of the mathematics that is performed and how it is developed by children. Neither do such investigations address why certain mathematical competencies are important or why some activities stimulate their development and others do not. Contrary to psychological research, mathematics education research has a didactic perspective, which means that it is linked to the perspective of the learning child, the teaching teacher, and the environment offering learning opportunities in which the teaching and learning take place. Above all, didactic research distinguishes itself from psychological research because it deals explicitly with the question of what the mathematics is in early childhood activities, both within and outside formal education.

2 A brief overview of the current field of early mathematics education research

As shown by the many publications on teaching and learning of mathematics in early childhood that have been released in the past few years, this area of mathematics education research has increasingly become a mature discipline. The same is reflected by the special interest groups, working groups, and research fora dedicated to mathematics education in the early years. No self-respecting conference today can afford not to pay attention to the area of early mathematics, and there are now also communities and conferences that focus exclusively on early childhood mathematics education. All these communities and conferences are the epicentres where the latest developments in this field are brought together. To set the scene for research on early childhood mathematics teaching and learning, without it being complete, we first provide a brief overview of recently presented and discussed early mathematics education research. As an orientation point for this overview, we used what has recently been presented by researchers at three international meetings.

2.1 CERME 11 thematic working group (TWG) on early years mathematics

A conference that already has a considerable track record for including early childhood mathematics as a fixed part of its programme is the biennial conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (ERME). This conference started in 2009 with a Thematic Working Group (TWG) on Early Years Mathematics. Since then, the number of participants in this group has grown consistently. In 2019, this TWG (that is, TWG13) consisted not only of European researchers but also attracted participants from Canada, Japan, and Malawi. The most dominant theme presented there involved studies of children’s emerging number knowledge. Many of these presentations were traditional in design, including giving children tasks that had to be solved both individually when the children were interviewed and when they worked in groups in a classroom setting. Based on these studies, researchers formulated descriptions of the children’s knowledge. Sometimes, learning trajectories could be generated from these empirical observations. However, within this TWG several examples of studies with more innovative designs and research settings were also presented, including different modes of exploring and expressing numbers, which can extend our knowledge of early childhood mathematics education. An example of such research is Bjørnebye’s ( 2019 ) study, in which a dice game including elements of multiple representations and embodiment of counting strategies opened up the possibility of observing how children’s actions and responses reflect their understanding. Other studies investigated how affordances of manipulatives and applications encouraged children to develop new ways of thinking about numbers either by working in a digital environment (Bakos and Sinclair 2019 ) or by using their fingers to represent numbers (Lüken 2019 ; Björklund and Runesson Kempe 2019 ).

A characteristic of the research community gathered at CERME11 TWG13 is that the participants generally had in common an interest in better understanding the mathematical thinking of the child. Therefore, it was considered crucial that research establish clues for how to recognize mathematical thinking in the early years. For this purpose, Sprenger and Benz ( 2019 ) used eye-tracking data, as this platform was considered to contribute to the analysis of children’s perception of structure in the process of determining quantities. Yet, what Sprenger and Benz discovered is that data from technological devices still need to be interpreted, and that other expressions of children’s perceptions and reasoning are necessary assets for drawing valid conclusions.

A further important issue that was present at CERME11 TWG13 was related to teaching practice. Specifically, several presentations addressed the questions of how mathematics education should be orchestrated in early childhood education and what opportunities to learn should be offered to children. For example, Breive ( 2019 ) investigated the link between inquiry-based education and open-ended problem-solving, and the role of the teacher in orchestrating such conditions for mathematical exploration. In her paper, Breive described the teachers’ behaviour in terms of the degrees of freedom offered to the children with respect to their actions related to the mathematical content and context. Based on the data she collected, Breive concluded that teachers’ ways of acting, and the accompanying learning opportunities, should be given more attention within early mathematics education research. Similarly, Vogler ( 2019 ), who observed teacher–child group interactions, concluded that so-called indirect learning (which can be found as a common approach in many preschool settings) may induce an obstacle to learning mathematics embedded in activities if there is not a mutual understanding of what learning content is the aim of the activity. In line with these two studies, other researchers who focused on teachers’ interactions with children also highlighted critical issues for educational practice and supported further research inquiries.

Another source for learning about the latest developments in early childhood mathematics education research is the POEM conferences (Mathematics education perspective on early mathematics learning between the poles of instruction and construction). The latest conference, POEM4, was held in 2018. The presentations published in the conference proceedings (Carlsen et al. 2020 ) all, in one way or another, reflect the question “In what way—and how much—should children be ‘educated’ in mathematics before entering primary school?” This was also the recurring question in the discussions between the participating scholars. Among the contributions, three themes stood out: children’s mathematical reasoning, early mathematics teaching, and parents’ role in children’s mathematical development. There was a strong interest in children’s reasoning abilities and strategies in problem-solving. For example, Tsamir et al. ( 2020 ) investigated how children express their understanding of patterning. For this purpose, the researchers provided preschoolers with patterns to be copied and compared, while observing their strategies. Children’s strategy use was also observed in relation to play situations. Bjørnebye and Sigurjonsson ( 2020 ) observed them in teacher-led outdoor games, while Lossius and Lundhaug ( 2020 ) observed child-initiated play activities. Some researchers used their observations of children’s encounters with mathematical content for theoretical discussions on how to understand children’s meaning-making, for example by taking the semiotic mediation perspective (e.g., Bartolini Bussi 2020 ) or through the lens of attentional processes (Verschaffel et al. 2020 ).

With respect to early mathematics teaching, at POEM4 it was discussed that teachers’ educational work largely concerns how to empower children in the learning process, assuming that children have agency in their learning (Radford 2020 ). Some of the presented studies (e.g., Palmér and Björklund 2020 ) specifically chose children's perspectives and problematized how seriation was made a content for learning in a children’s story. They showed how different manipulatives and tools used in teaching have different implications for what is made possible for the children to learn. A critical but essential notion was expressed by Tzekaki ( 2020 ), who underlined that whether children act and think mathematically and learn mathematical concepts depends on what is defined to be mathematical thinking and acting. In line with this perspective, Keuch and Brandt ( 2020 ) and Bruns et al. ( 2020 ) also raised the issue that teachers’ and student teachers’ knowledge of mathematics in early childhood education affects their readiness to exploit the content in ways that facilitate children’s mathematical learning.

The issue of the knowledge of mathematics in early childhood was also addressed in papers on the role of parents in children’s learning of mathematics. Parents are recognized as young children’s first educators, contributing to their mathematical understanding and skills. One example of this research focus is Lembrér’s ( 2020 ) study. In order to know what experiences children bring with them into preschool education and thus might inform their encounter with mathematics, she investigated what parents value in the mathematics activities in which their children are engaged at home.

2.3 ICME-13 monograph “Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education”

The ICME-13 Monograph “Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education” (Elia et al. 2018 ) is the third source for becoming informed about the state of the art in the field of teaching and learning mathematics in early childhood. This book, which has its foundations in the ICME-13 (International Congress on Mathematical Education) Topic Study Group 1 (TSG1) “Early childhood mathematics education” held in 2016, contains chapters on a broad range of topics grouped into five key themes: pattern and structure, number sense, embodied action and context, technology, and early childhood educators’ professional issues and education.

Within these themes, the domain-overarching theme of pattern and structure played a prominent role. As Mulligan and Mitchelmore ( 2018 ) showed in a series of studies, children’s awareness of mathematical structures turned out to be crucial for acquiring mathematical competence. Particularly children’s structuring skills were found to be critical to developing coherent mathematical concepts and relationships. These findings are in line with Lüken and Kampmann’s ( 2018 ) intervention study with first graders, in which 5 months of explicit teaching of pattern and structure during regular mathematics lessons resulted in significant differences between pre- and post-test arithmetic achievement scores in the intervention group. Moreover, the intervention was most beneficial to the low-achieving children.

The research within the theme number sense examined a large variety of different aspects of number development. For example, there was a study about children’s enumeration skills when making lists for designating and representing collections of objects (Dorier and Coutat 2016 ). Also, attention was paid to the use of numerical finger gestures and other bodily-based communication in order to facilitate the learning process (Rinvold 2016 ), children’s spontaneous focusing on numerosity (SFON) (Rathé et al. 2018 ; Bojorque et al. 2018 ), and the link between writing skills and number development (Adenegan 2016 ). Furthermore, an exploration of children’s ability to operate with numbers revealed that 5-year-olds were able to solve multiplication and division problems when they were presented in familiar contexts (Young-Loveridge and Bicknell 2016 ).

In the theme embodied action and context , Karsli’s ( 2016 ) video-ethnographic research in a pre-kindergarten classroom showed that young children’s hand and body movements hold rich potential for engaging them in mathematics, and underlined the importance of early childhood teachers’ attention to the embodied ways in which children engage with mathematics, with potential for creating teachable moments. Other studies investigated children’s engagement in the context of play. In Henschen’s ( 2016 ) study free play was examined, while Nakken et al. ( 2016 ) compared free with guided play, of which the latter resulted in the children exhibiting deeper mathematical thinking, and engagement with more specific mathematical concepts. Anderson and Anderson ( 2018 ) broadened the scope by investigating children’s learning of mathematics in their home environment. Thom’s ( 2018 ) and Elia’s ( 2018 ) research on geometrical and spatial thinking in early childhood offered further insights into the crucial role of the body and other semiotic resources (language, drawings, and artefacts) by which young children develop and communicate spatial-geometrical thinking. A general conclusion within this theme was that the limited ways in which young children are invited to engage with geometrical, spatial, and measurement concepts undervalue the embodied, gestural, in-context nature of their mathematical thinking.

The theme technology specifically addressed the integration of technology into early childhood mathematics teaching and learning both at school and at home. The focus was mostly on touch-screen tablet-based applications. Because this new technology significantly differs from the traditional physical aid materials, professional development is needed to help educators identify and implement effective uses of these applications. To learn more about the role of the educator (teacher or parent) in the child’s interaction with the software, Baccaglini-Frank ( 2018 ) carried out an analysis of student-software-teacher relations, revealing how the teacher’s goal of helping the children experience success actually limited their development of numerical abilities. The use of technology also opened a window to a new perspective in early childhood mathematics, namely by exposing young children to advanced mathematics such as understanding symmetric transformation (Fletcher and Ginsburg 2016 ) and dealing with large numbers (also in symbolic form) and ordinality (Sinclair 2018 ).

In the theme early childhood educators’ professional issues and education , Cooke and Bruns ( 2018 ) provided a comprehensive overview of the various contributions in TSG1, for which they proposed to distinguish conditions at three levels that influence opportunities for young children to develop mathematical understanding and skills. At the macro level, curricula provide a framework (aims, content to learn, and activities) for mathematics teaching and learning in early childhood, with varying views. Several papers mentioned the tensions regarding new curricula and frameworks that may impose mathematical content rather than allowing the child to develop understanding of mathematical concepts through play. At the meso level, with focus on the teachers’ competence, all involved papers agreed as to the importance that the teacher possess a fundamental understanding of mathematics as the basis for high-quality early mathematics education. However, different studies used different conceptualizations and instruments to measure teachers’ mathematical competence. The micro level refers to the mathematics educational programmes and materials, as well as to the required training for teachers to develop their ability to effectively select and implement such programmes that address children’s mathematical needs (Fritz-Stratmann et al. 2016 ).

In sum, the common themes that stand out from the three international meetings are children’s learning through play, and concerns regarding how to apply content-focused teaching, with or without technology. We found that a great deal of the research is on children’s mathematical thinking and learning, including two main areas concerning children’s emerging number knowledge and children’s learning of patterns. It is noteworthy that in both areas, how children perceive structure or how they manifest structuring abilities were analysed in several of the studies. There were also a number of studies that focused on how finger patterns, gestures, or bodily-based communication may facilitate children’s learning of numbers.

Children’s learning through free or guided play is also a main issue that was discussed. Teachers’ guiding interaction with children in play was shown to contribute more to deeper mathematical thinking and engagement with specific mathematical content. How teaching affects children’s learning opportunities in preschool was furthermore of great concern in several of the studies. A conclusion drawn from this research is that teachers’ ways of acting and the learning opportunities created for children should be given more attention. In what way, and how much, children should be educated before entering primary school remains a central issue.

3 The contributions of this special issue

In this special issue of ZDM Mathematics Education (Issue 2020–4), contemporary research on early childhood mathematics teaching and learning is discussed by researchers from all over the world. The initiative emanated from the 42nd PME conference in Umeå, Sweden (July 2018), where we had the opportunity to organize a Research Forum in which researchers involved in the field of early childhood mathematics education gathered to present and discuss theoretical and methodological challenges and outcomes of studies on learning and teaching arithmetic skills in early years (Björklund et al. 2018 ; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen 2018 ). The conclusion of the Research Forum was that early childhood mathematics education research is key, but that more efforts are needed to bring together the state of the art within this field as a foundation for moving early childhood mathematics education research forward. This special issue again provides a window into the contemporary field of research on early childhood mathematics teaching and learning. To discuss what this special issue adds to this field and reflect on the challenges that lie ahead for research on early childhood mathematics education, in the next section we synthesize the themes that emerge from the 15 papers included in this special issue. Each theme highlights the papers’ shared knowledge and contributions to research methods. Many papers are related to several themes, but for our discussion we chose those papers that predominantly belong to a particular theme. In total, we identified three recurring themes: the early interventions and their effects, the facilitating factors for learning and development, and the mathematical key concepts that can be observed in children. Together, these themes bring to the fore aspects that are essential for understanding the learning and teaching of mathematics in the early years.

3.1 What lessons can be drawn from interventions?

Research shows that children’s development of mathematical skills and knowledge is often influenced by socio-economic and curricular factors, and by social interaction in both short- and long-term perspectives (Pruden et al. 2011 ). Thus, there is a raised awareness of the impact early childhood education may have on reducing differences in conditions for learning and on increasing and securing equal opportunities for a good foundation in learning for all children. Based on their meta study of early mathematics education research, Duncan et al. ( 2007 ) stated that early intervention counts and numerous references to the same study indicate that this is an important standpoint in research. Why else indulge in the challenging task of researching learning among the youngest in our education systems, if one does not believe that efforts made through teaching are significant for children’s wellbeing and lifelong learning path?

Research on teaching and learning mathematics often shares a common research design in which interventions are implemented (designed, conducted, and the outcomes assessed) with the aim of finding ways to improve teaching practice for the benefit of the learning child, and often to reduce socio-economic inequality. Intervention studies can be objects of research in different ways, focusing on the children’s learning outcomes or the teaching practices. Nevertheless, the goal is to enhance learning through improved teaching. In the papers in this special issue we find efforts to implement well-designed interventions, explicitly focusing on how to teach. Some implement and analyse fine-grained differences in (teaching) actions and the effects on children’s attention to certain content (Paliwal and Baroody 2020 ; Mulligan et al. 2020 ), while others study the effects of attentiveness to children’s experiences and knowledge and the related choices of tasks (Clements et al. 2020 ; Grando and Lopes 2020 ). Nevertheless, essential to studying intervention success or failure is how learning outcomes are measured and interpreted, which is also an important aspect of early childhood mathematics education research (Li et al. 2020 ).

How teaching is framed to present mathematical content to young children, in order for it to be meaningful to them, and in order to be attentive to children’s experiences and knowledge, is investigated and discussed by Grando and Lopes ( 2020 ). Through narratives provided by early childhood teachers, they find insights into how teachers chose to frame the subjects of statistics and probability in ways that engaged children and were responsive to the children’s own experiences, rather than using materials provided by textbooks. Unconventional teaching methods whereby teachers turned their mathematics classroom into a space of creative insubordination are discussed in this paper in relation to the opportunities they offer children to become equipped with critical thinking. The authors argue that the specific content—statistics and probability—demands problematizing activities and experimentation with uncertain outcomes of problems in order to develop probabilistic thinking. This study highlights an essential issue in didactical research: that the content to be taught is not indifferent to how the teaching is designed. The study particularly raises concerns that the design of teaching cannot be random but rather has to be linked to the educational environment and the students attending that particular environment. Consequently, the generalizability of intervention programmes and teaching methods has to be taken into serious consideration if they are to be implemented in different educational settings.

Clements et al. ( 2020 ) set out to investigate the efficacy of implementing an intervention programme in which instructions and progression are grounded in a research-based learning trajectory. Even though the programme itself had previously been found to have positive outcomes for preschool children’s mathematics learning, the goal of the current study was to investigate how to teach in the most successful way. For this purpose, the authors used the same programme but adapted the choices of the tasks’ difficulty level to the children’s current knowledge levels. How to teach was then related to what to teach individual children. Results indicate that skipping difficulty levels to shorten the steps to the learning goals was not successful. This thorough investigation of teaching by adapting the complexity of the content to the child’s ability to learn best what is intended draws attention to the delicate work of teaching in early childhood education. The study supports child-centred approaches that are sensitive to the individual needs and potential of the child, while simultaneously aiming for the learning goals set by the curriculum.

While Clements et al. investigated the effects of an intervention programme covering broader numerical knowledge, Paliwal and Baroody ( 2020 ) aimed to investigate what conditions for learning the cardinality principle are most effective and how subitizing abilities impact on cardinality knowledge achievement. Their efforts were directed towards a fine-grained analysis of how to teach this aspect of the number concept, and what learning processes different approaches elicit in children. What stands out in their study is that they used a highly advanced research design, which allowed them to examine the effects of different ways of directing children’s attention to seeing numbers’ cardinality. In their paper, they point out the importance of directing children’s attention to various ways of seeing numbers’ cardinality, as follows: as a constructing act by adding units to get a number; as an act starting from naming the whole set with a counting word and then differentiating the added units by counting; and a third condition, attending only to single units in a counting act. Thus, their intervention was designed with explicit rigour as to what was made possible for the children to experience, and their investigation concerned the learning outcomes of the different conditions. While this attention in Paliwal and Baroody’s study to the different conditions can at first glance be considered subtle and far from the instruction children encounter in their mathematics education, the study offers insight into the importance of teachers’ awareness of their way of directing children’s attention to certain meanings of the content.

In another paper focusing on the effects of an intervention programme, Mulligan et al. ( 2020 ) analysed children’s written answers to pattern tasks in order to identify differences and changes in their structural awareness. They found a positive effect on the children’s development of awareness of mathematical pattern and structure (AMPS), and showed how the levels changed as an effect of a 37-week intervention programme. Mulligan et al. add to the field of early childhood mathematics knowledge of a particular ability (structural awareness), how it can be identified among young children, and also how the ability changes over a prolonged period of time (during an intervention), which may provide insight into what children actually learn while taking part in an intervention programme.

Children’s learning is of course at the centre of attention in intervention studies, and Li et al. ( 2020 ) pay explicit attention to how to interpret results from a pre- and post-diagnostic test. In their study, Li et al. investigated the development of mathematics problem-solving skills among kindergarteners by analysing their responses to a cognitive diagnostic test. As in most large-scale analyses, it can be shown in quantitative terms how children develop in producing correct answers that indicate growth in knowledge within certain domains that are tested for. However, Li et al. take a step further in their inquiry and illustrate how two children who scored similarly on the cognitive diagnostic test before an intervention had made different progress during the intervention period. Li et al. suggest that the reason for this difference may lie in how children understand and approach tasks, indicating different understanding even though similar answers are produced. Quantitative measures alone do not reveal such differences. The study thus shows the significance of paying attention to how children reason in order to solve a task. Based on their study, Li et al. recommend that children’s learning outcomes from participating in interventions be seen in the light of how the effects of interventions are measured, as it is observed that some developed skills do not endure over time and similar outcomes among children may conceal different learning paths.

3.2 What facilitates children’s learning and development?

Today, it is undisputed that the development of mathematical skills and the teaching of emerging skills in the early years are essential for mathematics education and developmental progress in the long term (Aunio and Niemivirta 2010 ; Duncan et al. 2007 ; Krajewski and Schneider 2009 ). However, in contrast to this perspective, a recent overview of the long-term effects of preschool mathematics education and interventions (Watts et al. 2018 ) challenges this almost taken-for-granted assumption, as most early interventions have a substantial fadeout effect. Thus, there is a need to revisit our current knowledge of teaching and learning, and scrutinize what seems to make a difference. Some of the papers in the special issue particularly consider this issue in their efforts to ascertain what facilitates children’s mathematical learning and development, and focus on influential aspects found in play settings (Reikerås 2020 ; Tirosh et al. 2020 ), verbal communication in teaching practices (Hundeland et al. 2020 ), and the home numeracy environment (Rathé et al. 2020 ).

Hundeland et al. ( 2020 ) raise the question of how children learn to use and understand the canonical language of mathematics, and study this aspect in terms of mathematical discourses taking place in kindergarten teaching sessions. They take a sociocultural stance (see Vygotsky 1987 ), seeing communication as the link between internal communication (thinking) and external communication (interaction). Therefore, children’s opportunities to contribute ideas and arguments are vital for their (mathematical) learning processes. Earlier research has also shown that care-takers’ talk influences not only children’s vocabulary but also, for instance, their spatial problem-solving (Pruden et al. 2011 ). The deeper knowledge that the study by Hundeland et al. ( 2020 ) provides regarding the quantity and quality of mathematical talk in which children are involved, offers us better opportunities also to organize supportive and stimulating conditions for knowledge growth.

What differs in the study by Hundeland et al. compared to most others with similar research questions is their focus on the kind of interaction that the mathematical discourse induces, which, based on the chosen sociocultural theoretical framework, should be crucial for positive learning outcomes. However, what they study and compare is the impact on the mathematical discourse that a certain in-service training has. This places mathematics in the spotlight of mathematics education research. While psychological and cognitive research provides us with important knowledge of mental processes and developmental advancement, studies like the one by Hundeland et al. have a clear direction towards understanding, and not least improving, the conditions for children’s learning and development, either by implementing teachers’ professional development or through curriculum improvements.

It is commonly agreed that young children’s learning is often situated in play. In a large-scale observation study, Reikerås ( 2020 ) conducted a thorough examination of the kind of play in which toddlers engage, for the purpose of learning how play skills may be related to early mathematical skills. It was found that competencies that allow the child to be active in solitary and parallel play, as well as children’s ability to initiate and remain in a play activity, correlated positively with the toddlers’ mathematical skills. The kind of play skills that showed the highest correlation with mathematical skills was their competence to interact in play. General social play skills thus seem to have an impact on mathematical learning, but Reikerås’ study cannot reveal how these are connected or any causal effects. An effort to better understand the interaction going on in toddlers’ play is made by Tirosh et al. ( 2020 ), investigating the challenges toddlers may face as they practise one-to-one correspondence in a playful context, and how different individuals participate in the playful mathematical context. Here, interaction and social skills become one issue with an impact on the learning opportunities arising in the play.

In many cases, the messy context of children’s play is a methodological challenge. It is not possible to control influencing variables to the same extent as in an experimental design. On the other hand, findings from the messy settings are more likely to bring to the fore aspects that were not anticipated, which raises new questions for research and theory development. Design research supports this kind of knowledge contribution, as several cycles are conducted, each developed based on insights from the previous cycle. These cycles adhere to children’s initiatives such as practising one-to-one correspondence in a setting the table task by putting one spoon inside each cup instead of placing one spoon beside each cup (see Tirosh et al. 2020 ); thus, the child is expressing an understanding of the concept, but is expressing it differently than how the task suggests. This highlights the importance of directing attention to instructions used in research studies, and particularly to the language of mathematics and the spatial aspects of props used in a task, related to the possibilities involved as young children interpret and execute a task.

Children take part in cultural life, where today numerical aspects are an inevitable part of the everyday environment. Nevertheless, there are differences in the extent to which children attend to these aspects, and consequently in how they learn the meaning of numbers, graphical representations of numbers, and how to use numbers. A common assumption is that home numeracy environment is a strong factor (LeFevre et al. 2009 ; Skwarchuk et al. 2014 ), which is reflected not least in the abundance of studies regarding socio-cultural background and demographic factors as a pre-cursor for learning progress. Rathé et al. ( 2020 ) put the common assumption to the test—that home environment has an influence on children’s progress in mathematical development—by comparing young children’s tendency to focus spontaneously on numeracy and numerical symbols in their home numeracy environment. Concerning this specific directionality to numbers, which is assumed to have an impact on children’s arithmetic skills in later years (see McMullen et al. 2015 ), based on their study they propose that the home numeracy environment does not seem to have any significant impact.

3.3 What mathematical key concepts can be observed in children?

A great deal of research in the field of early childhood mathematics education studies what mathematics children understand and how this understanding evolves. This knowledge is crucial in designing teaching that contributes to more advanced thinking and problem-solving strategies that support conceptual growth. Therefore, children’s utterances and how they act are the centre of interest for many researchers. Also, in this special issue, much attention is paid to the mathematical key concepts that can be attributed to children’s thinking, resulting in papers addressing children’s understanding of similarity in mathematical objects (Palmér and Van Bommel 2020 ), their understanding and use of structures (Sprenger and Bentz 2020 ; Kullberg and Björklund 2020 ), their understanding of the concept of cardinality and ordinality (Askew and Venkat 2020 ), and the underlying structure of their quantitative competencies (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Elia 2020 ).

Children’s expressions, and how they are allowed to express themselves, are critical for our understanding of the learning of mathematics. Children’s problem posing is one aspect that can tell us about their understanding of mathematics (Cai et al. 2015 ). In the special issue, this is particularly addressed in the paper by Palmér and Van Bommel ( 2020 ), who investigated children’s understanding of similarity in mathematical objects. They analysed how children themselves created tasks in three-dimensional geometry that were similar to a previous problem-solving task they had worked on. It is suggested that this finding sheds light on the children’s interpretation of the specific mathematical features of the original task.

How children perceive structure has been shown to play an important role in how they, for example, determine a number of objects or solve an arithmetic problem (Ellemor-Collins and Wright 2009 ; Resnick 1983 ). In line with these earlier studies, Sprenger and Bentz ( 2020 ) investigated how 5-year-olds perceive structures in visually presented sets. By having the children determine the number of eggs in a 10-egg box while using an eye-tracking device (and recording the children’s utterances and gestures), they were able to analyse the children’s gaze when determining the cardinality of the set, and thereby gain insight into the process of perception. The eye-tracking data showed, for example, that many of the children were able to see structures (e.g. 4 + 1 or 3 + 2) and use them to determine a quantity without having to count all the objects. The authors argue that children’s ability to perceive structures in sets and use them to determine cardinality is central for their further arithmetic learning, as how children perceive sets (e.g., as individual objects, as a composite whole, or in structured part-whole relations) affects the strategies they use for solving arithmetic tasks.

Similar ideas are found in the study by Kullberg and Björklund ( 2020 ), who studied 5-year-olds’ use of finger patterns to structure number relations while solving an arithmetic problem. They identified two major ways of structuring the task: only structuring, and counting and structuring. In the group that both structured using their fingers and counted on some fingers, some ways were found to be more powerful. Children who solved the arithmetic task (3 + _ = 8) by creating a finger pattern of eight raised fingers and simultaneously identifying (‘seeing’) the missing part (5) on two hands (3 + (2 + 3) = 8) were more successful in solving arithmetic tasks, even in a later follow-up assessment. It is suggested that a possible reason for this later success is that these children were able to see numbers as parts included in other numbers, which has been found in earlier research (Resnick 1983 ) to be important for developing arithmetic skills.

Baccaglini-Frank et al. ( 2020 ) also argue that the appropriate use of fingers can contribute to developing children’s number sense. They studied how 4-year-olds interacted (verbally and using finger patterns) when using the application TouchCounts. The app combines multi-touch with audile, visual, and symbolic representation, and several solution strategies are possible, affording the simultaneous experience of, for example, finger patterns on the screen, with the number both seen and spoken. In their paper the authors emphasize how multimodal affordances may encourage children to use different strategies in response to different tasks, and thus experience a broad range of abilities related to number sense, including both cardinality and ordinality.

Askew and Venkat ( 2020 ) examined children’s understanding of the concept of cardinality and ordinality in connection with their awareness of additive and multiplicative number relations. To investigate this topic, first graders (6- and 7-year-olds) in South Africa were asked to position the numerals 1–9 on a bounded 0–10 number line. The children were able to do this in the correct order, with the fewest errors at the upper and lower ends of the number range. Furthermore, evidence was found that awareness of ordinality and that of cardinality develop alongside each other. However, the logarithmic scale, predicted in earlier research, which is considered to indicate a multiplicative structuring of number relationships, was not confirmed in the South African data. Instead, when the numerals grew larger the intervals became more stretched out rather than compressed. In fact, the children’s responses were closer to the linear model, which is considered to indicate an additive structuring of number relationships. Also, the use of unit sizes that did not take into account the length of the number line, together with the underestimation of the position of 5 on the 0–10 line, offered limited evidence of the children’s awareness of the multiplicative structure of the cardinality of numbers. More research is needed to disclose the deep interconnections between children’s understanding of cardinality and ordinality, and their understanding of multiplicative and additive number relations.

Another effort to unravel the complex nature of children’s early number understanding was carried out by Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Elia ( 2020 ), investigating the structure of the quantitative competence repertoire of kindergartners. Based on a literature review, they arrived at a model consisting of two constituent parts: quantification (the ability to connect a number to a given collection of objects) and quantitative reasoning (the ability to think and operate with quantities). Quantification was split up into counting and subitizing, and quantitative reasoning into additive and multiplicative reasoning. Although this model is partly in line with models found in earlier research, it also extends previously developed models by including multiplicative reasoning. Data were collected in the Netherlands and Cyprus. A series of confirmatory factor analyses showed that the hypothesized four-factor model fitted the empirical data of the Netherlands, but not those of Cyprus, which clearly challenges the model’s generalizability. A comparison of the component performances in the Dutch sample revealed that, in accordance with other studies, the lowest scores were found for multiplicative reasoning and that the competence of subitizing seems to develop before counting. This was partly confirmed by a statistical implicative analysis at item level. Although this analysis resulted in different implicative chains in the two countries, in both samples the multiplicative reasoning and conceptual subitizing items were found at the top of the chain and the counting and perceptual subitizing items at the end. Also, more research is necessary here, particularly concerning the generalizability of the model to other countries.

4 Future directions for research on early mathematics teaching and learning

After the Research Forum at PME42 we concluded that to move early childhood mathematics education research forward, more efforts are needed to bring together the state of the art within this field. Thus, we proposed a special issue on the theme Research on early childhood mathematics teaching and learning for the purpose of opening up further discussion and inquiry. In this article, the 15 papers included in the special issue are synthesized and discussed in terms of their contribution to the current field of research in early mathematics teaching and learning along with recent research presented at international mathematics education research conferences. Naturally, these do not cover the worldwide field of research, but they at least give a general idea of the current research interests and challenges.

All the papers in this special issue address aspects of early mathematics education and its underlying theories and research methodologies. They share common interests and challenges concerning how to gain knowledge of the youngest children’s mathematical development, and they identify prosperous teaching approaches. Our appeal to researchers participating in the special issue was to cover the broad span of mathematical ideas that are relevant in early childhood education. Nevertheless, we see a strong direction towards research on the learning and teaching of number concepts and basic arithmetic. This is in line with Alpaslan and Erden ( 2015 ) review of early mathematics research published in 2000–2013 in high-ranked scientific journals in the field of mathematics education, in which the most frequently reported research topics were number systems and arithmetic. The same trend is also found in the research addressed in the latest meetings of ICME, ERME, and POEM. We believe further research should widen this scope, and consider and investigate mathematical topics that are currently less highlighted. There is a need for deeper insight into what mathematics means to young children, and also how the foundations can be laid for the domains of spatial and geometric thinking and measurement, as well as for the domains of structures and patterns, data handling, problem-solving and mathematical reasoning.

Moving an educational field forward, however, is not solely based in covering a broad field of content. To strengthen the field, we need to scrutinize the research designs and methods that are used and the knowledge that is generated. Here, new technologies may open up opportunities for designing tools for investigating children’s competencies. However, this initiative goes beyond choosing digital tools or concrete building blocks; it concerns children’s opportunities to express themselves within different environments and make use of tools and manipulatives that may reveal new insights into their competencies and open up for innovative research questions to be posed. What is made available to experience surely has an impact on children’s expressions of knowledge. And expressions in both words and gestures are important keys here to interpreting the youngest children’s knowledge and skills. We can see this in the recent ICME, ERME, and POEM meetings’ presentation of a large variety of research designs and in the papers of this special issue. Many innovative research designs have been developed that allow thorough investigation of children’s mathematical competence and understanding. What we see, for example, is that subtle differences in expression (e.g. gaze, finger use, or ways of posing questions) reveal new and important insights for developing knowledge of children’s mathematical learning. These innovations in methodology allow for the thorough investigation of key features of learning mathematics that go beyond the broad content areas and highlight how mathematical aspects such as cardinality, ordinality, and number structure are experienced by children. Several of the papers in the special issue particularly attend to these aspects, and do so by creating and using new methodologies and technologies.

The consensus in the field of early mathematics education, reflected in the papers and conference presentations, is strong concerning the impact of early interventions on children’s opportunities to thrive as mathematics learners. From longitudinal studies, we know that early knowledge and skills seem to follow through the child’s development; that is, weak mathematical skills in early childhood years are likely to predict weak mathematics performance in later school years (Reikerås and Salomonsen 2019 ; Hannula-Sormunen et al. 2015 ). This means that early intervention and knowledge of how to offer all children a good start for their mathematical learning are essential to the field of early childhood mathematics education. However, it cannot be assumed that simply participating in education, whether it is framed as free or guided play or problem-solving, or stimulating interactive environments, will result in successful learning outcomes, even though most interventions do have a positive impact and most children develop their knowledge to some extent (Wang et al. 2016 ). Common research objectives, therefore, concern intervention implementation, and analyses of children’s learning outcomes from participating in differently designed activities. These studies are of high importance, as they connect the teaching to the learning and provide insights into what seem to be key aspects in the teaching practice. Nevertheless, researching interventions is delicate work, and it is essential to maintain scientific rigor in the design and analysis. Because early childhood education most often takes place in dynamic settings, the conditions under which children learn vary greatly. This diversity is observed in many studies in which children’s engagement in play, both self-initiated and guided, is used as data for analysing their mathematics competencies and learning of mathematics. This phenomenon means that the conditions offered to explore mathematical concepts and principles should be critically examined, along with how learning from interventions is measured and valued. There is a need to determine what works, what seems critical, and what aspects serve as particular challenges. In research, also special attention has to be given to the nature of the teaching practices. What we learn from intervention studies, both those included in the special issue and those in other contemporary research, is the importance of situating research in the current field of knowledge and the context in which the research is conducted. Each study broadens the picture of the teaching–learning relationship, which is by no means one-directional. There are many aspects to consider that potentially influence this relationship, and all of them cannot be included in one study alone.

Early childhood mathematics education research often attends to the opportunities and conditions that are offered for learning. There is no doubt that children’s activities and interaction with others, already from an early age, offer many opportunities to learn mathematical concepts and basic principles, but our ability to discern what children actually learn from the mathematical learning environments offered to them places high demands on the interpretation process. How to understand the processes going on in play and interaction, and what impacts the children’s learning outcomes—what is made possible to learn—often remains an unsolved issue, as the interaction between teacher and children is dynamic, and particularly as play is multidirectional in nature. Studies of interaction in both formal and informal contexts are nevertheless important, as they are conducted in the complex of social and cultural settings that do influence, through norms and individuals’ experiences, what is possible for children to learn.

Adenegan, K. E. (2016). An investigation into the writing and computational skills of school pupils of age 3–6: Implications for early childhood numeracy. In Paper presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Alpaslan, Z. G., & Erden, F. T. (2015). The status of early childhood mathematics education research in the last decade. In CERME9—Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1933–1939). Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education; ERME, Feb 2015, Prague, Czech Republic.

Anderson, A., & Anderson, J. (2018). Math-in-context: The types of math preschoolers ‘do’ at home. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 183–202). Cham: Springer Nature.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ashcraft, M. H., Donley, R., Halas, M. A., & Vakali, M. (1992). Working memory, automaticity and problem difficulty. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills, advances in psychology, vol. 91 (pp. 301–329). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Askew, M., & Venkat, H. (2020). Deconstructing South African Grade 1 learners’ awareness of number in terms of cardinality, ordinality and relational understandings. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01132-2 . (This issue) .

Article   Google Scholar  

Aunio, P., & Niemivirta, M. (2010). Predicting children’s mathematical performance in grade one by early numeracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (5), 427–435.

Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2018). What schemes do preschoolers’ develop when using multi-touch applications to foster number sense (and why)? In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 223–243). Cham: Springer Nature.

Baccaglini-Frank, A., Carotenuto, G., & Sinclair, N. (2020). Eliciting preschoolers’ number abilities using open, multi-touch environments. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01144-y . (This issue) .

Bakos, S., & Sinclair, N. (2019). Pips (times) Pods: Dancing towards multiplicative thinking. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11) , Utrecht University, Feb 2019, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2020). Early years mathematics: Semiotic and cultural mediation. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 1–21). Berlin: Springer.

Google Scholar  

Björklund, C., Kullberg, A., Runesson Kempe, A., Reis, M., Clements, D., Sarama, J., Levenson, E., Barkai, R., Tirosh, D., Tsamir, P., Askew, M., Venkat, H., & Hannula-Sormunen, M. (2018). Learning and teaching of arithmetic skills in early years. (Research Forum). In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg & L. Sumpter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1) (pp. 125–155). Umeå, Sweden: PME.

Björklund, C., & Runesson Kempe, U. (2019). Framework for analysing children’s ways of experiencing numbers. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11) , Utrecht University, Feb 2019, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Bjørnebye, M. (2019). Pre-schoolers’ ability to synchronise multiple representations of numerosity in embodiment of a counting-on-strategy. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11) , Utrecht University, Feb 2019, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Bjørnebye, M., & Sigurjonsson, T. (2020). Young children’s cross-domain mapping of numerosity in path navigation. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 109–126). Cham: Springer.

Bojorque, G., Torbeyns, J., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Van Nijlen, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2018). Ecuadorian kindergartners’ spontaneous focusing on numerosity development: Contribution of numerical abilities and quality of mathematics education. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 69–86). Cham: Springer Nature.

Breive, S. (2019). Kindergarten teachers’ orchestration of mathematical learning activities: The balance between freedom and structure. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11) , Utrecht University, Feb 2019, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Bruns, J., Carlsen, M., Eichen, L., Erfjord, I., & Hundeland, P. S. (2020). Situational perception in mathematics (SPiM)—Results of a cross-country study in Austria and Norway. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 317–332). Cham: Springer.

Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetical abilities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00374.x .

Cai, J., Hwang, C., Jiang, C., & Silber, S. (2015). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: Some answered questions and unanswered questions. In F. M. Singer, N. F. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Mathematical problem posing: From research to effective practice (pp. 3–34). New York: Springer.

Carlsen, M., Erfjord, I., & Hundeland, P. S. (Eds.). (2020). Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 . Berlin: Springer.

Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Baroody, A. J., & Joswick, C. (2020). Efficacy of a learning trajectory approach compared to a teach-to-target approach for addition and subtraction. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01122-z . (This issue) .

Cooke, A., & Bruns, J. (2018). Early childhood educators’ issues and perspectives in mathematics education. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 267–289). Cham: Springer Nature.

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's minds . Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.

Dorier, J. L., & Coutat, S. (2016). Conceptualizing order in early school. In Paper presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43 (6), 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 .

Elia, I. (2018). Observing the use of gestures in young children’s geometric thinking. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 159–182). Cham: Springer Nature.

Elia, I., Mulligan, J., Anderson, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Benz, C. (Eds.). (2018). Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education. ICME-13 monographs . Cham: Springer Nature.

Ellemor-Collins, D., & Wright, R. (2009). Structuring numbers 1–20: Developing facile addition and subtraction. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21 (2), 50–75.

Fletcher, N., & Ginsburg, H. (2016). Teaching symmetry in the early childhood classroom: Using software to facilitate discourse and promote understanding of symmetric transformations. In Paper presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Fritz-Stratmann, A., Ehlert, M., & Herzog, A. (2016). From thought to reality— Implementation of an in-school mathematics training in South Africa. In Paper presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Grando, R. C., & Lopes, C. E. (2020). Creative insubordination of teachers proposing statistics and probability problems to children. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01166-6 . (This issue) .

Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Lehtinen, E., & Räsänen, P. (2015). Preschool children’s spontaneous focusing on numerosity, subitizing, and counting skills as predictors of their mathematical performance seven years later at school. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17 (2–3), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2015.1016814 .

Henschen, E. (2016). Mathematical content of play activities in kindergarten, exemplified on blockplay activities. In Poster presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Hundeland, P. S., Carlsen, M., & Erfjord, I. (2020). Qualities of mathematical discourses in Kindergartens. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01146-w . (This issue) .

Karsli, E. (2016). Young children’s embodied mathematical practices in a pre-K classroom. In Paper presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Keuch, S., & Brandt, B. (2020). ‘You are already bigger than the giraffe!’ The use of adjectives in measurement activities in Kindergarten. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 369–384). Cham: Springer.

Kilpatrick, J. (2014). History of research in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education . Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_71

Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Early development of quantity to number-word linkage as a precursor of mathematical school achievement and mathematical difficulties: Findings from a four-year longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 19 (6), 513–526.

Kullberg, A., & Björklund, C. (2020). Preschoolers’ different ways of structuring part-part-whole relations with finger patterns when solving an arithmetic task. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01119-8 . (This issue) .

LeFevre, J.-A., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Home numeracy experiences and children’s math performance in the early school years. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41 , 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014532 .

Lembrér, D. (2020). Parents’ valuing of mathematics for young children. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 403–420). Cham: Springer.

Levine, S., Suriyakham, L. W., Rowe, M., Huttenlocher, J., & Gunderson, E. (2010). What counts in the development of young children’s number knowledge? Developmental Psychology, 46 (5), 1309–1319.

Li, L., Zhou, X., Gao, X., & Tu, D. (2020). The development and influencing factors of Kindergarteners’ mathematics problem solving based on cognitive diagnosis assessment. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01153-x . (This issue) .

Lossius, M., & Lundhaug, T. (2020). Mathematical problem-solving visualised in outdoor activities. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 127–141). Cham: Springer.

Lüken, M. (2019). Using finger patterns—The case of communicating age. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11) , Utrecht University, Feb 2019, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Lüken, M., & Kampmann, R. (2018). The influence of fostering children’s patterning abilities on their arithmetic skills in Grade 1. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 55–66). Cham: Springer Nature.

McMullen, J., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., & Lehtinen, E. (2015). Preschool spontaneous focusing on numerosity predicts rational number conceptual knowledge 6 years later. ZDM, 47 (5), 813–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0669-4 .

Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2018). Promoting early mathematical structural development through an integrated assessment and pedagogical program. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 17–33). Cham: Springer Nature.

Mulligan, J., Oslington, G., & English, L. (2020). Supporting early mathematical development through a ‘pattern and structure’ intervention program. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01147-9 . (This issue) .

Nakken, A., Grimeland, Y., Nergard, B., & Thiel, O. (2016). Young children’s play in a mathematics room. In Poster presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Paliwal, V., & Baroody, A. J. (2020). Cardinality principle understanding: The role of focusing on the subitizing ability. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01150-0 . (This issue) .

Palmér, H., & Björklund, C. (2020). Preschoolers’ ways of using fingers in numerical reasoning. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 93–107). Cham: Springer.

Palmér, H., & Van Bommel, J. (2020). Young students posing problem-solving tasks: What does posing a similar task imply to students? ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01129-x . (This issue) .

Passolunghi, M. C., & Costa, H. M. (2016). Working memory and early numeracy training in preschool children. Child Neuropsychology, 22 (1), 81–98.

Pruden, S., Levine, S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: does talk about the spatial world matter? Developmental Science, 14 (6), 1417–1430.

Radford, L. (2020). Play and the production of subjectivities in preschool. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 43–60). Cham: Springer.

Rathé, S., Torbeyns, J., De Smedt, B., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., & Verschaffel, L. (2018). Kindergartners’ spontaneous focus on number during picture book reading. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 87–99). Cham: Springer Nature.

Rathé, S., Torbeyns, J., De Smedt, B., & Verschaffel, L. (2020). Are children’s spontaneous number focusing tendencies related to their home numeracy environment? ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01127-z . (This issue) .

Reikerås, E. (2020). Relations between play skills and mathematical skills in toddlers. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01141-1 . (This issue) .

Reikerås, E., & Salomonsen, T. (2019). Weak mathematical skills at an early age: Persistent or temporary? Children with weak mathematical skills and their development from toddlers to preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 189 (4), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1337753 .

Resnick, L. B. (1983). A developmental theory of number understanding. In H. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 109–151). New York: Academic Press.

Rinvold, A. R. (2016). The difficulty of learning the three first numerosities. In Poster presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Sinclair, N. (2018). Time, immersion and articulation: Digital technology for early childhood mathematics. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 205–221). Cham: Springer Nature.

Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2014). Formal and informal home learning activities in relation to children’s early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121 , 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.006 .

Sprenger, P., & Bentz, C. (2020). Children’s perception of structures when determining cardinality of sets: Results of an eye-tracking study with five-year-old children. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01137-x . (This issue) .

Sprenger, P., & Benz, C. (2019). Perceiving and using structures in sets—The contribution of eye-tracking in a three-level evaluation process. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11) , Utrecht University, Feb 2019, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Stipek, D., & Valentino, R. A. (2015). Early childhood memory and attention as predictors of academic growth trajectories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (3), 771–788. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000004 .

Thom, J. S. (2018). (Re)(con)figuring space: Three children’s geometric reasonings. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary research and perspectives on early childhood mathematics education (pp. 131–158). Cham: Springer Nature.

Tirosh, D., Tsamir, P., Levenson, E. S., & Barkai, R. (2020). Setting the table with toddlers: A playful context for engaging in one-to-one correspondence. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01126-9 . (This issue) .

Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Barkai, R., & Levenson, E. (2020). Copying and comparing repeating patterns: Children’s strategies and descriptions. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 63–78). Cham: Springer.

Tzekaki, M. (2020). Mathematical activity in early childhood and the role of generalization. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 301–313). Cham: Springer.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2018). Theories, methodologies, results in early arithmetic research. In Presented at PME 42, in Research Forum: Learning and teaching of arithmetic skills in early years , Umeå, Sweden, 3–8 July, 2018.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Elia, I. (2020). Mapping kindergartners’ quantitative competence. ZDM . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01138-w . (This issue) .

Verschaffel, L., Rathé, S., Wijns, N., Degrande, T., Van Dooren, W., De Smedt, B., et al. (2020). Young children’s early mathematical competencies: The role of mathematical focusing tendencies. In M. Carlsen, I. Erfjord, & P. S. Hundeland (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years. Results from the POEM4 conference, 2018 (pp. 23–42). Cham: Springer.

Vogler, A-M. (2019). Chances and obstacles of ‘indirect’ learning processes in situations with preschool teachers. In Eleventh congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11) , Utrecht University, Feb 2019, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology, including the volume Thinking and Speech. Edited by R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton; translated by N. Minick. New York: Plenum.

Wang, A., Firmender, J., Power, J., & Byrnes, J. (2016). Understanding the program effectiveness of early mathematics interventions for prekindergarten and kindergarten environments: A meta-analytic review. Early Education and Development, 27 (5), 692–713.

Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2018). What is the long-run impact of learning mathematics during preschool? Child Development, 89 (2), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12713 .

Wynn, K. (1998). Numerical competence in infants. In C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of mathematical skills . Hove: Psychology Press.

Young-Loveridge, J., & Bicknell, B. (2016). Tens awareness: A framework for early place value learning. In Poster presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Camilla Björklund & Angelika Kullberg

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Marja van den Heuvel-Panhuizen

Nord University, Bodø, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camilla Björklund .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Björklund, C., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. & Kullberg, A. Research on early childhood mathematics teaching and learning. ZDM Mathematics Education 52 , 607–619 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01177-3

Download citation

Accepted : 18 June 2020

Published : 23 June 2020

Issue Date : August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01177-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research