It might seem odd to think of pre-kindergarten toddlers as students in need of teachers, but the latest research suggests that some form of instruction may help children to better prepare for school.
Nina Chien, a post doctoral researcher in pediatrics at the University of California San Diego found that children who were left to engage in free play in pre-kindergarten centers showed the least improvement in reading and math skills after one year compared to children who benefited from some form of teacher instruction. The free play groups were provided with educational toys designed to stimulate their creative and cognitive processes, but they still learned up to two fewer alphabet letters and three fewer numbers than those who worked with teachers. Overall, when the children reached kindergarten, their teachers rated them up to 96% lower on language and literacy skills compared to their classmates.
Chien based her study on 701 state-funded pre-kindergarten programs in 11 states, was surprised by the findings since more than 50% of children were enrolled in free-play based centers, an indication of their popularity. “It’s very popular to give kids rich educational materials, let them chose which ones they want to play with, and let them play,” she says. “It was surprising that this very popular model turned out not to be that beneficial.”
The children who showed the most gains over the year in terms of learning the alphabet and numbers, as well as achieving basic reading and math skills, were those who had more individual interaction with teachers. Some teacher-based programs emphasized group instruction, while others involved more one-on-one guidance, in which teachers would encourage students to think more broadly or creatively. If a child drew a sun, for example, an instructor might ask how he could depict the brightness of sun, and guide the child to coming up with a way to draw the sun’s rays. Such encouragement, known as scaffolding, resulted in the most academic gains among the children.
Based on her findings, Chien believes that there is still a role for free play, as the children in these programs exhibited greater creativity over the year. She also notes that the study involved public programs in which many of the students came from lower income households. Previous studies have shown that such children benefit more from individualized instruction since they many not be receiving much guidance or support at home. But overall, she says, greater teacher interaction, combined with free play, might enhance children’s learning ability and better prepare them for school. Given the dwindling resources in public education, however, that may be harder and harder to achieve.
Write a comment
Roger (Thursday, 16 September 2010 15:40)
This is an interesting article on education. I hope people will add their names to the tags so we can know who contributes to the group and what their interests are.
I think there is little question that if a teacher drills words or arithmetic into a pupil, the pupil will score higher than will the pupil with little or no such exposure. So, the question is what has been demonstrated?
Reading this article and in fact almost any article on studies makes me wish I had access to the original study. This study measured some language and arithmetic skills one-year later.
I think there are a few things that are questionable in the experimental design or in the reporting of the experiment.
1. In kindergarten, teachers related that unexposed children were “up to” 96% lower than those who had been exposed to special training in verbal skills. That phrase is more like a phrase used in advertising than one used in scientific investigation. It is an improper reporting of statistical data. One expects to see the range, median and standard deviation or some description of the range. To not have this reported and to have an “up to” statement is anecdotal. It reveals a bias toward one point of view. In addition, no mention is made of arithmetic skills in the kindergarten evaluation, so a comparative measure in only one subject is available.
2. We have no idea of the size of the group, and whether parametric or non-parametric measures were used. I think this sounds more like a “study” which is sort of anecdotal or gossipy: “Did you hear Billy did worse than Betty on reading 4 letters and 2 numbers?”
3. I’m wondering if pre-treatment measures were also made of creativity, ability to manipulate ideas, expression of various emotions, or any other areas. Had any of those changed? It might be that the more advanced users of language would be behind in empathy, creativity and/or other very important parts of human activity.
4. It is of interest to know what factors were held constant. As by example, was there some measure of social economic status of the pupils, and was this experimentally or statistically held constant?
It is an interesting area for discussion. Thanks for adding this article who ever you are.
Mike (Thursday, 16 September 2010 16:31)
Thank you for your comments, ROger. It is me having the article posted. However, I'm still not familiar with the "write a new post" system, so I miss the name and others.
Roger (Thursday, 16 September 2010 20:09)
Please also read: The Importance of Free Play Activities for Kids posted later than this by Roger. This study should have also measured and compared their pupils abilities in the areas listed as fun in the article: The Importance of Free Play Activities for Kids