Chapter 5 Motor Development PDF

Preview

Summary

Introduction to Motor Development - Textbook required according to the unit guide....

Description

Effects of Early Stimulation and Deprivation

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES From the information presented in this chapter, you will be able to ●

Describe some effects of early stimulation

●

Describe some programs to enhance early motor development

●

Describe McGraw’s famous twin study involving early stimulation and deprivation

●

Describe some effects of early deprivation

●

Explain the major concepts in the study of stimulation and deprivation

101

102

Part II

Factors That Affect Development avid elkind is a professor, psychologist, and prolific author who observes that many parents are convinced that earlier is better in terms of the training and education of their children. the trend toward early education has become ingrained in many sectors of our society, where a common attitude is that it is rarely too early to start children in programs such as reading, math, swimming, violin, or even martial arts. this, according to elkind, has resulted in a confounding of the perceived

need for early education and all children’s need for quality child care. In a 2007 edition of elkind’s book The Hurried Child: Growing Up Too Fast Too Soon, the author proclaims that this unfortunate trend has given rise to “an explosion of interest in stimulating and educating infants” (p. x). he writes, “Infancy and early childhood . . . are now the focus of our hurrying” (p. xi). this focus has even extended to the fetus in the womb. an array of prenatal, infant, and early childhood products on the market are designed to enhance untold aspects of our children’s development. DVDs, software programs, toys, and gadgets, as well as exercise, swimming, and sports programs, exist for the youngest of children. Millions of dollars are being spent to ensure that our children have every chance to be all they can, yet few of these products have any research to support their efficacy. according to elkind, the most important interaction a child can have is with a parent or caregiver, and too many of the cascade of new products may be gradually replacing the parents’ and caregivers’ role in the interaction (elkind, 2007).

Interestingly, and perhaps logically, the general belief behind this trend is that stimulation is always “good” and deprivation is “bad.” Although we admire parents who “stimulate” their child, we often scorn parents who “deprive” their child. However, can we overstimulate our children, starting too soon with too much? Is some degree of deprivation ever in the child’s best interest? When are the best times for stimulation or the worst times for deprivation? Is stimulation helpful for the acquisition of all human behaviors, or are there some behaviors that cannot be facilitated by early exposure to stimulating experiences? These are all questions that researchers consider as they examine the effects of stimulation and deprivation. EFFECTS OF EARLY STIMULATION

n recent years, parents have been involving their children more than ever in early educational programs—everything from swimming, gymnastics, and violin lessons to the study of reading and foreign languages. The unusual aspect of these programs designed for early stimulation is that in some cases they start as early as birth, or even earlier, as numerous products have been created to stimulate the baby while still in utero. The rush to enroll children in early programs is not new; it was highlighted over 30 years ago in “Bringing Up Superbaby” (Langway, Jackson, Zabarsky, et al., 1983). This article accurately described what was happening and what was predicted to come. Many of the issues it raises are even more timely today than they were when the article was published. For example, many of today’s babies are born to parents who are older and more affluent than those of earlier generations and who have been assured that any behavior they desire for their child can be taught. Increased knowledge concerning child development and the idea that the environment influences human behavior have motivated parents to seek all possible advantages for their children. In fact, some may believe that kindergarten is “too late” and waiting until then is a waste of many good learning years. Contrary to the philosophy of Elkind, Glenn Doman is an advocate of this perspective. Doman has written numerous books about teaching reading and math skills to babies, in addition to making babies fitter, smarter, and more physically “superb.” He even attempts to describe how to “give your baby encyclopedic knowledge” (see Doman & Doman, 2005, 2006; Doman, Doman, & Aisen, 2005; Doman,

I

Effects of Early Stimulation and Deprivation ChaPter 5

103

Doman, & Hagy, 2006). One of his newest books is entitled Fit Baby, Smart Baby, Your Baby! (Doman, Doman, & Hagy, 2012). Although many reading and math skills are often believed to be essentially intellectual, the fine control of eye movement needed for these activities is just one example of the role of motor development in success in these subjects. For optimal success in these skills, Doman recommends initiating instruction by using flashcards during the first few days of neonatal life. Doman has received harsh criticism from the academic and scientific communities for not scientifically substantiating the effectiveness of the techniques he recommends, and popular opinion as to his programs’ value is mixed. Some children have learned to respond appropriately to flashcards, for example, but others simply play with the cards. Critics of such early programs question the advantage of the simple recognition skills enhanced by the flashcards. They further contend that pressure to learn at an early age may actually frighten the child away from future experiences of a similar nature. Some child developmentalists believe the emphasis on achievement so early may hamper the emotional, physical, or creative aspects of the child’s development. A 2007 Boston Globe article on the push for early education was particularly critical of the extreme approach espoused by Doman. In fact, the approach was characterized as possibly being a waste of time. In that article, author Neil Swidey noted that Doman had never produced empirical data to support his contentions and that children following his early education approach rarely performed better than other children with motivated parents. Most significantly, Swidey continued, these early pushes for achievement may slow a child’s development, a function of a phenomenon he termed “neurological crowding,” or simply too much information too soon (Swidey, 2007). Regardless of such opinions, parents generally believe early educational stimulation is valuable, as evidenced by the quantity and popularity of the early educational programs available today (see Figure 5.1). These programs may have positive effects, but such factors as the child’s age, the type of stimulation, and the parents’ and child’s attitudes are doubtless critical factors in their success or failure. figure 5.1

Research on Early Stimulation

Clearly, early stimulation is often beneficial. Research studying young children (6 months to 2 years old) who had been severely malnourished in Bangladesh demonstrates this (Nahar, Hamadani, Ahmed, et al., 2009). At the beginning of this study, the children were provided with “standard” nutritional care and psychosocial stimulation. This stimulation included daily group meetings with the mothers, organized play sessions in a hospital setting, and regular home visits across a 6-month period. Both growth and development were monitored. Though several children tragically died before the culmination of the study, the surviving children were found to have improved significantly beyond a control group of children who did not receive the interventions. The improvements included mental scores, scores on motor ability, and measures of body weight for age. In short, for the severely malnourished children in this research, early stimulation was found to be an effective component of treatment. As another example of the effects of early stimulation, Lee and Galloway specifically examined the effects of early daily experiences on the development of head control of 20 healthy babies who were placed in a control or training group. Head control was deemed particularly important as it is one of the first major motor milestones and an important precursor to establishing the visual field as well as movements involving the trunk and arms like sitting, reaching and grasping, and eventually standing. In typical situations in many Western cultures, babies are given

Programs of early motor stimulation have become increasingly popular over the past decade.

104

Part II

Factors That Affect Development

considerable external support to maintain head position. The authors indicate that these cultural approaches may affect the rate of acquisition in the development of head control. Starting at 1 month of age, training group babies were provided with postural and movement activities for a third of an hour every day for 1 month. Their movement activities involved increased use of the neck, shoulders, and trunk in addition to reaching activities. They were also carried daily for 20 minutes using a front carrier. The babies in the control group were provided with regular social interaction with a caregiver for 20 minutes daily for 1 month, like the training group. This social activity was designed to compensate for the social interaction that would be experienced by the training group babies. During this time, the control group babies were placed in a supine position and interacted with their caregivers without actually physically contacting them or playing with toys. All babies were tested on a standardized developmental test on alternate weeks for 3 months (1 to 4 months of age). Infants in the training group were found to yield higher test scores, especially on items related to head control. This included keeping their heads vertical and in the midline without external support longer than the control group. The training group also demonstrated more active movement of the head more frequently and across longer distances. This led these researchers to conclude that early postural and movement activities can expedite the development of head control. The likely contributing factors were the positioning of the infant, the way the infant was handled by the caregiver, and the overall interplay between the caregiver and the baby. These findings may be especially important for a baby’s demonstrating developmental delays early in life (Lee & Galloway, 2012). In similar research, Lobo and Galloway (2012) enrolled 2-month-old babies in a 3-week-long program designed to provide enhanced “handling and positioning” (p. 1290) of the babies by their caregivers. The researchers indicated that “enhanced” meant that these were activities well beyond what would be experienced by the babies in a typical day in typical Western culture. Activities specifically encouraged sitting and standing with support, unassisted head control and support, and an emphasis on placing the baby in a prone position. These experiences were provided to the baby by the caregiver for 15 minutes per day for the first 3 weeks of the more than year-long study. A second group of babies (control group) was provided with social interaction for the same period of time that the control babies received their movement experiences— 15 minutes per day for 3 weeks. The control group caregivers were also asked to place the baby in a supine, rather than prone, position when possible. All babies were tested using a standardized measure of infant motor performance. Results indicated that babies in the training group, who had received enhanced handling and positioning, were developmentally advanced in a number of ways. The training appeared to enhance motor ability immediately, and the skills were maintained through the first year of life, well after training had ceased. Specific advantages noted in the training group included more mature head control as well as reaching and sitting abilities. The training group also showed better skill in their general play when on the floor, their object manipulation, and even in early forms of locomotion. The researchers believed all of these advances were a result of improved postural control resulting from the training. Postural control is fundamental in the acquisition of many subsequent movement skills during infancy. In addition, the babies in the training group may have benefitted physiologically; their muscle systems were “primed” and their “neurological systems better prepared for action” (p. 1298). Lastly, the authors posited that the training group infants may have benefitted perceptually. As a result of their early experiences, their visual and vestibular systems may have been positively impacted. These findings are particularly important as they may have medical implications for professionals dealing with babies who have special needs. Early interventions of the kind employed in this study may advance the abilities of those who have the greatest need (Lobo & Galloway, 2012).

Effects of Early Stimulation and Deprivation ChaPter 5

Though more research is needed on programs of early stimulation, including motor stimulation, many programs do conduct self-evaluations intended to determine how children’s development has been enhanced. These evaluations, however, are seldom devised to detect any detrimental effects. Furthermore, developmental gains that are noted are often those that would have occurred anyway with typical exposure to a stimulating home environment. This is not to suggest, however, that such programs should never be considered or employed. We must be careful consumers by seeking programs with qualified professionals, clean and appropriate facilities, reasonable fees, and objectives that seem appropriate for the baby or child to be enrolled. Programs that make indiscriminate claims should be avoided. Programs Designed to Enhance Early Motor Development Whole-child early stimulation programs

In recent years many new programs of early stimulation have evolved, and few have gained the attention and popularity of Gymboree Play & Music (www.gymboreeclasses. com). The first Gymboree program was designed for children from birth to 5 years. It was opened in 1976 and by 2014 had grown to more than 700 franchises in 40 countries (Gymboree Play & Music, 2015). The organization is based on the belief that the preschool years may be the most critical time for education and when parents have the least amount of outside help in educating their children. Furthermore, the Gymboree Play & Music philosophy assumes preschoolers need to be provided with certain types of play activities that are believed to be essential to their development but are not readily available at home, on the playground, or in the nursery. The developer of Gymboree describes its environment as being safe and noncompetitive while challenging the psychomotor needs of preschoolers, with a focus on the “whole” child—motor skills, social skills, and self-esteem. Programs are devised to emphasize areas such as physical fitness; arts; international play, music, and dance; music; and yoga (Gymboree, 2010). Most Gymboree Play & Music sessions offer a variety of colorful, scaled-down equipment for children to explore with varying degrees of guidance from their parent(s) or Gymboree personnel. Balance beams, balls, scooters, tunnels, rollers, hoops, and ladders are a few of the many pieces of equipment that may be available for exploration during the “free time” segment of each Gymboree session. Gymboree proponents claim that parents benefit from participation by learning their child’s needs and increasing their understanding of the child’s growth and development. This, proponents say, will help parents meet their child’s needs and encourage development in an efficient yet fun way. In general, Gymboree Play & Music claims that its participants should show improvement in balancing, performing fundamental movements (running, jumping, throwing, catching, and so forth), switching among different modes of locomotion, assuming a variety of body positions, changing direction and speed, socializing (sharing and taking turns), and expressing the imagination freely. However, as mentioned earlier, little research exists to substantiate the claims made by programs such as Gymboree Play & Music. Self-evaluations must be viewed cautiously, as there is an obvious bias. Gymboree makes some significant, though tempered, claims and is careful to point out that fun is paramount. Until controlled research is conducted, however, we will not know whether Gymboree attains its goals or if participants are simply developing skills that are typically part of the developmental process. Swim programs for infants and preschoolers

For years, one of the most common forms of early motor stimulation has been swim programs for infants and preschoolers (see Figure 5.2). For infants (birth to 1 year), in particular, there may be little justification for programs designed to teach swim-

105

106

Part II

Factors That Affect Development

figure 5.2

Surprisingly to many, infant swim programs are controversial, and professional organizations dispute their sometimes lofty claims.

ming. Nevertheless, the popularity of swim programs for infants and preschoolers has grown, and many programs have long waiting lists. This popularity is often fueled by a belief on the part of parents or other caregivers that they have to start their children swimming as early as possible. Nevertheless, hard evidence as to the success of early swim programs in facilitating children’s later swimming success is lacking and difficult to produce given the complexity of the research question (Berton, 2008). Clearly, some children who have graduated from these swim programs have achieved considerable success in their later swimming endeavors, but others have left such early programs with no apparent improvement. In fact, in some cases, parents claimed that their children became more fearful of the water! Often, parents involve infants in “swimming” programs from a desire to improve the child’s safety around water, and some early aquatic programs do not profess to teach swimming but rather “drownproofing,” “waterproofing,” or simply making an infant watersafe. Most experts agree that these terms are inappropriate. Infant and toddler swim “programs that claim to make children safe in the water or safe from drowning are misrepresenting what is possible and are giving parents a false sense of security about their child’s safety in the water” (AAP, 2010, p. 178). Interestingly, given the risks of some infant swim programs, a child’s overall odds of drowning could actually increase with participation in an early swim program. A position statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics specifically states that infant and toddler aquatic programs do not decrease the risk of drowning and that children are generally not ready for swimming lessons until their fourth birthday (AAP, 2010). recommendations. Selected American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations regarding infant and toddler swim programs are listed in Table 5.1, including warnings about health considerations with early swimming. These are discussed below. Program

table 5.1 Selected recommendations on infant and toddler swim programs.

1. Children are generally not ready for formal swimming lessons until after their fourth birthday. 2. Aquatic programs for infants and toddlers should not be promoted as a way to decrease the risk of drowning. 3. Parents should not feel secure that their child is safe in the water or safe from drowning after participation in infant swim programs. 4. Whenever infants and toddlers are in or around water, an adult should be within an arm’s length for safety purposes. 5. Aquatics p...