Cognitive Development in Early Childhood

By Mohamad Farhan Huszaimi Bin M. Pajar

Introduction

            Cognitive development in early childhood is the development of thought processes such as memory, and problem solving for children from two until six years old (Lightfoot, Cole, & Cole, 2003). Cognitive development is observing how children in early childhood deal with problems, and how they learn from experiences such as ability to name colors, arrange objects, and name shapes. It is important to understand the normal cognitive abilities and milestones for children in early childhood because it can be the baseline for clinicians to detect the presence of psychological disorders in children such as autism and mental retardation as quickly as possible. Thus, studying cognitive ability and milestones in early childhood is important to detect psychological disorder quickly so that early treatment can be provided and to prevent further developmental problems the children might face that could affect their life in the future.

Cognitive Abilities

            During early childhood period, young children often fall into error and confusion because they are still unable to engage in true mental operation (Lightfoot et al., 2013). However, children in this stage are able to label colors, shapes, and sizes. They are able to categorize things based on similarity such as color and shape as they use toys, art materials and equipment. The children should be able to solve simple problems. One of the problems, for instance, is to build a house for a bear doll by using wood bricks. The children are able to put things, and pick the right size of wood bricks to make a rectangular house for the bear doll. They are also be able to solve the puzzle. During early childhood, children are able to navigate and know their surroundings. They should know where a certain thing is located and where a certain thing should be placed. Some children in early stage of childhood are interested to listen to the story told by the caregiver, and they are active in imagining the story at the same time. Early childhood period children are able to understand the stories.

Cognitive Milestone

            According to Piaget, children in early childhood period are in preoperational stage. The three most common errors in early childhood reasoning are egocentrism, confusion of appearance, and reality and precausal reasoning. Children in this stage are limited to centration thinking style in which they are unable to understand another person’s perspective also known as egocentrism (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Children in this stage are easily captured by the surface appearances, and are often confused about causal relations due to centration (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Piaget believed that young children are not yet capable of true mental operations, and they cannot engage in genuine cause-and-effect reasoning. He also believes that children think transductively which causes confusion regarding confuse cause and effect. Piaget referred to this thinking style as precausal thinking because it does not follow the procedures of either deductive or inductive reasoning (Piaget, 1930).

            Another approach on cognition which focuses on changes within specific areas of knowledge acquisition known as privileged domains (Chen & Siegler, 2000; Goswami, 2008). There are three domains which are physics, psychology, and Biology. Physics domain states that children harbor “everyday ideas” about how the physical world works. Psychology domain states that children are gaining more comprehensive ideas about how other people’s beliefs are related to how they behave in the world and this can be tested by false-belief task. Children will construct theories about mental life and activity, which are known as theory of mind (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Last domain is biology which explains the children understanding on distinction between animate and inanimate things (Lightfoot et al., 2013).

Methods

Procedure

            The observation was carried out in the green room at the Center for Child and Family Studies (CCFS), University of California, Davis. The observation was done for 30 minutes in the CCFS. Three most active children’s behaviors and cognitive abilities was analyzed. Observed one kid at a time, and peers who interacted with the observed kid. Each of the three children was observed for approximately 10 minutes. Distance approximately three meters was kept from the observed children to allow the children to feel more comfortable and not realize that they were being observed. Communication with the children was prevented by not making eye contact, and not starting or having a conversation with them. Answered with simple words and gestures to respond to their thoughts such as nodding head and saying one word such as “yes” when the observed children was trying to interact and start a conversation. Face interaction with the children was prevented. Followed the kid under observation with maintaining the distance, and picked another kid to be observed when the previous observed child was out of sight. Behaviors of interest regarding cognitive development were noted in notebook. Observation done while sitting on an unused chair and tried to be as unnoticeable as possible. Interrupting other children’s activities was prevented by moving away from them when their activities got blocked in the classroom. Notes of behaviors were taken as much as possible when observing a child. Left the room as unnoticeable as possible to let the children continue with their activities.

Participants

            The total number of preschool children is 18 in the green room; 9 males and 10 females supervized by 3 teachers. The age range of the children are 4 years; 6 months to 5 years; 5 months. Approximately 55% of the participants are females in this study.

Result

Behaviors Observed

            All of the children observed (William, Chang, and Linda) have the ability to name color, label shapes and sizes, and tell numbers properly. William was able to arrange the wood bricks to build a cube house. William knew how to match the shape of the rectangular cube wood brick to build a house for the doll bear to stay in it. William managed to put back the wood bricks at the correct place based on the shape similarity after he had finished building a cube house for the bear. He arranged the brick based on the similarity of the shapes. William was able to tell number by counting on the wood bricks that he had picked to build the shelter for the bear when putting the bricks back at the shelf. Linda on the other hand, was able to name the colors such as blue and green when she was trying to put the chips of chain together. Linda told her friend that she wanted to pick blue chip chain. When Linda tried to put chips of the chain together, she counted the number of chains that she had assembled together. Linda was able to put the chips back to its original place after she had done making a long colourful chain. Cheng did not show any ability to label colors, shapes, and sizes, but he was able to recognize one of the caregiver’s picture that he found in the folder. Cheng got so excited and showed his caregiver that he has found one of the caregiver’s picture in the binder. Cheng also was able to recognize objects in the pictures such as egg and dog.

            The children were able to solve problem that they faced during playtime in the greenroom. For William, he needed to build a house by using wood bricks to provide house for the toy bear. He found it was not easy to build a house for the bear because he needed to be able to maintain the stability of the cube house. Then he found a solution by arranging many wood bricks of similar shape together, and increasing stability of the cube by increasing the surface area of the base of the house. However, William got assistance from the caregiver who watched him on how to build a house for the bear. The caregiver gave him hints and suggestions to build a house and to make the cube high enough for the bear to be in the house. On the other hand, Linda’s problem was that she needed to make a long chain by uniting the chain’s chips together. In order for the chips to be combined, Linda needed to put the chips together in a specific orientation. She was struggle at first in putting the chips together. She then got a little help from the caregiver who watched her. Linda followed the initial step that the caregiver showed her and she also compared her method with her peer that sat beside her, Sarah. Linda was able to make a long colourful chain at last. She also knew what a chain could do. Linda tried to lock her teacher’s hand by using the chain that she has made and acted as a police who keeps her eyes on the prisoner (caregiver). Moreover, Cheng’s problem was to diagnose his patients and determine the disease that his patient had. Cheng had a character as a doctor, and he used the stethoscope properly by putting the diaphragm of the stethoscope diaphragm on his friend’s chest. Cheng also tried to look at his friend’s ear to understand his friend’s sickness. Cheng put his hand at the chin of his patient to feel the temperature. Cheng concluded that his friend was having a fever. All three children were able to solve the problems that they are facing.

            Moreover, all the observed children (William, Linda, and Cheng) were able to navigate their surrounding and knew their way around the facility. For William, he knew where to get the wood bricks, and where to put the wood bricks back to their original position. Other than that, William also ran around the room and knew where to get certain things or toys. William knew where to get his boot, and where to find a dinosaur. Furthermore, Linda knew where to hide and run from the prisoner (the caregiver who was having a fantasy play with her) when the prisoner tried to escape from the chain and grab Linda. Linda kept running to her “safe place” on the second floor in the green room whenever the caregiver tried to catch her. Cheng knew where to find the file and put the file back on the table, the place where he found the binder, although he brought the binder far from its original location. Sometimes it seemed like the children needed to be reminded on how to behave. For instance, William destroyed the house he built by kicking it and shouted “killer!” at the bear. Then, the caregiver who watched him at that time reminded him that it was not proper to do that and asked William to stop doing that. William was also reminded by the caregiver when he teased his friends because he wore shoes quicker than his friend. The caregiver reminded him that he should not do that and asked William to apologize to his friend that he teased. It turned out that William took the advice of the caregiver and ask for an apology from his peer by saying “sorry” to his peer that he teased. Cheng was also needed to be reminded on how to behave when he threw the doctor’s toy tools on the floor after he had done diagnosing his friend. The caregiver asked him to pick the toys back up and put them in the proper basket so that the floor would not be messy and safe for other children to walk. Cheng picked the toys up and put them in the proper place. Later, Cheng walked alone to other place and with sadness on his face. For Linda, she got reminded to run carefully and slow down a little when taking up the stairs by the caregiver when she ran up the stairs. Hence, all the children observed needed reminders on how to behave and what to do and were able to navigate throughout the room.

            William, Linda, and Cheng were able to make decisions by selecting the correct tools and find other methods to solve their problems. William chose the correct size of the wood bricks and placed the rectangular brick by placing the large surface on bottom. By doing this, he could increase the stability of a brick and at the same time increasing the stability of the cube house for the bear. Cheng were able to choose a correct toy medical tools for checking his friends, and tried to understand the friend’s disease. Cheng understood the usage and concept of the objects shown by using the materials in a proper way when diagnosing his friend such as stethoscope to hear heartbeats. Linda picked the chip of chain to create a chain. She managed to pick the chip and put them together with correct orientation to create a long colourful chain. She also did not pick the same color of chips constitutively during making the chain. She solved problem on making the chip more beautiful by choosing different colored chips. Other than that, they also were able to listen and understand story. William listened to his caregiver’s story of a scared lonely bear in the forest that was why William tried to build a house for the bear by using wood bricks. Linda also listened to the caregiver’s story but she seemed to misunderstand the story. The caregiver tried to ask Linda for help to let the caregiver go from the chain, but Linda thought that the caregiver was trying to catch do something to her so she ran away from the caregiver. Sarah, who had a parallel play with Linda when making chain, only looked at the fantasy play but she did not participate in the play because she seemed to not understand the story that Linda made. For Cheng, he did not engage in fantasy play neither with his friends nor the caregiver because he seemed to like playing alone. Hence, all the children were able to solve problems.

            All the observed children were able to display a fantasy play and they all liked it. Linda displayed fantasy play when she being a police officer who watched the prisoner. She also got scared and run excitedly when the prisoner, the caregiver, tried to reach her. This shows that she was really in a fantasy play because she could imagine the real situation of being a policewoman, chased by a prisoner. She really did engage with this fantasy play although one of her friend that played with her was not involved. Cheng also displayed fantasy play by being a doctor checking his patient and giving them instructions such as keeping their heads up to take their temperature, and stay still when he tried to listen to his patient’s heartbeats. All Cheng’s friends (patients) also engaged in the play. William showed fantasy play that he is in the jungle and fight with the bear by destroying the bear’s house made by him. Thus, all the children showed fantasy play.

Discussion

Individual Differences in Cognitive Development

            There are differences in cognitive development among the children under observation (William, Cheng, Linda). One of the differences observed was variety of motor skill development among the children. Some of the children were more advanced compared to others. For instance, William was able to wear red boots faster than his peer. William seemed to have a good motor coordination when he tried to wear the boots compared to his friend, who was stuck many times and needed help from the caregiver to wear the boot. William has better motor indicates that he has more myelinated brain parts which makes his movement smoother and coordinated (Lightfoot, Cole, & Cole, 2003). Moreover, Linda showed that she has a normal motor development by her ability to control her arms when putting the chips of chains together. Linda was able to coordinate her arms to achieve her goal without having any problem with involuntary movement. Linda was also able to run around the room, which indicates that she has a normal motor development. Cheng, on the other side, was able to pick medical kit toys up when he tried to diagnose his friend when engaging in a fantasy play as a doctor indicates that he has developed his reach and grip ability. As predicted by Lightfoot et al. that by the time they are 5, children have achieved a great deal of mastery over their bodies (2013).

            Furthermore, variety of intelligence was also shown among the children. William, for example, can choose correct shapes to build a cube house for a toy bear. William was able to choose the rectangular cube brick to build a house. He did not need help from the caregiver on what to pick to make a cube house, but he was not able to arrange the wood bricks at the beginning on building house for the bear. William had problem to initiate the activity. William still was not able to plan and predict future causation. This inability to think about causality is normal for William because it is one example of precausal thinking where young children neither use deductive nor inductive reasoning when thinking of causation (Lightfoot et al., 2013). William did not know if he build a tall house with small base, the house would fall due to lack of stability. The caregiver gave William hints and tips on how to start and arrange the bricks so that it was possible for him to build a house. William did not fully understand the concept of stability, which, based on Lightfoot et al., is one type of cognitive development in physics domain (2013). Developmentalists refer William’s inability to understand stability as naïve physics (Baillargeon, 2002) which is one type of privileged domains (Goswami, 2008). William also shouted “Killer!” at the bear and destroyed the house that he has made which indicate his development in psychology domain. William has developed what developmentalists refer to as theory of mind which states that the ability to think about other people or organisms’ mental states (Lightfoot et al., 2013). William knew the bear’s mental state which is bear has desires to eat. William’s early understanding of the relationship between mental states and behavior of others is referred to naïve psychology (Lightfoot et al., 2013).

            Cheng showed his intelligence when he tried to diagnose his friend during fantasy play as a doctor. He showed that he was able to understand the usage of the tools such that stethoscope is used to hear heartbeats, and that he placed the diaphragm on the chest. Based on information-processing approaches to cognitive development, Cheng showed that he has developed working memory where Cheng was able to combine incoming information from sensory register with memory of past experiences, changing the new information into new form (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Moreover, Linda was not able to put the chip of chains together when she just started the activity. Same as William, Linda was initially stuck at the activity, but she managed to put the chips together after her caregiver taught her, and after observing her parallel playmate during the activity. Linda’s problem in starting the activity was normal because she was exposed to a new experience. Once the caregiver showed Linda method to assemble the chips together, she managed to make a chain. Linda also looked how her parallel playmate, Xi, on how to put the chips of chain together to see other alternative. Meanwhile, Linda ran away from the caregiver because she did not want to get caught by the prisoner (caregiver) during fantasy play. Linda misunderstood the caregiver’s intention which was actually asking Linda for help to free the caregiver’s hand from the chains, but Linda failed to understand the caregiver’s intention, and misunderstood the story. Linda’s misunderstanding in the story was due to egocentrism where she tended to “center on herself” and was unable to take another person’s perspective (Lightfoot et al., 2013). The inability to take another person’s perspective is considered normal in early childhood stage, according to Piaget (1929), because children in early childhood period are dealing with centration.

            The caregiver dealed with children of different cognitive ability differently. For William, the caregiver who was with him gave William ideas on how to put the wood bricks. William initially erected the rectangular cube with small base but it fell. The caregiver asked him “why don’t you put the bricks like this?” William followed the advice from the caregiver without any consideration, and laid the rectangular bricks down so that it would have a larger base surface area. The caregiver gave attention to William because William needed ideas on how to start building a cube house for the toy bear. Linda on the other hand, was having a problem in putting the chips of chain together while her parallel playmate, Xi, did not have any problem starting the activity. The caregiver showed Linda how to put the chain at first and then Linda just followed the procedure that has been taught by the caregiver. The caregiver spent more time on guiding Linda compared to Xi because Linda needed a little more guidance in putting the chips of chain together. Cheng was not observed by the caregiver individually because he did not need any guidance from the caregiver on how to use the medical kits toy. The caregiver however took a look at a group of children that were in the same spot with Cheng for safety. None of the observed children (William, Linda, and Cheng) showed any abnormalities. All of them showed normal cognitive development for children in early childhood period such as egocentrism, precausal thinking, naïve psychology and naïve physics (Piaget, 1930; Lightfoot et al., 2013).

Importance of Individual Differences

            Understanding individual differences is very crucial for clinical purposes. Understanding individual differences among the children will help clinicians to determine what is normal and what is not normal compared to their peers. This understanding is important for clinicians so that they will get an idea of the spectrum of psychological disorder, and to detect for any abnormal behaviors among children. By having understanding of spectrum, many psychological disorders that are likely to occur among children such as autism can be diagnosed and treated for a higher chance to be cured. Without having ideas about children abilities and behavior on a certain stage of life, it is impossible and hard for the clinicians to detect and give treatment for the children with psychological disorder. For instance, autistic children were able to be detected and diagnosed by the clinicians in early stages of their life because of understanding on how normal developed children act. Developmentalists created many tests that can distinguish normally developed children and autistic children. One of the test that is helpful in detecting autistic children is false-belief task where autistic children will always have a poor performance in this test (Lightfoot et al., 2013). Without understanding of individual differences, tests to distinguish normally developed children and autistic children might not be created, and it is harder for clinicians to detect autism in early childhood. Thus, it is important to understand individual differences for clinicians to help and give treatment for early prevention of psychological disorder.

References

Bailargeon, R. (2002). The Acquisition of Physical Knowledge in Infancy: A Summary of Eight lessons. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell’s Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 47-83). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.

Chen, Z., & Siegler, R.S (2000). Intellectual Development in Childhood. In R.J Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 92-116). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goswami, U. (2008). Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain. New York: Psychology Press.

Goswami, U. (2008). Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain. New York: Psychology Press.

Lightfoot, C., Cole., M., & Cole S. (2013). The Development of Children (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Lightfoot, C., Cole., M., & Cole S. (2013). The Development of Children (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Piaget, J. (1929). The Child’s Conception of the World. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Piaget, J. (1930). The Child’s Conception of Physical Causality. New York: Harcourt Brace.