Natural learning from birth

[aravinda]

Dear friends, I am grateful to EC forum for vital support in my early months of EC. Here is a little article I am working on concerning Natural Learning in the early years, which also mentions EC. I am posting here hoping for comments and criticisms.

---------
Foundations of natural learning begin at birth or even before. I am not talking about making the womb a classroom and reciting lessons for the benefit of the baby. Just as we feel that baby listens to everything going on, when we listen to baby we develop communication skills- both ours and baby's. Many parents talk to baby during pregnancy. Mothers speak of tuning in closely to baby during labour and birth.

After birth, everyone tunes in. Long lost songs fill the air. What about these calls and responses from early days and years has to do with learning?

When we listen to children we model listening. It sounds obvious yet so often we see parents "telling" children to listen but not themselves listening. Children learn to listen by being listened to.

Listening to Infants

Adults can eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom without ever speaking to anyone. Not so for infants who need someone to feed them, hold them, breathe near them. And change them or better yet take them to relieve themselves. While most of the world still practices diaper-free hygiene and learns to listen to babies signals for this need just like all other needs, the rapid mass conversion to the diapers is leading many to forget that babies actually do communicate hygiene needs from infancy. Fortunately many people are reviving this lost language and in the first world it is known as "Elimination Communication."

Elimination Communication

Compare a diaper to a curriculum: the lighter it is the more scope for the child to communicate. Disposable diapers or heavy plastic-covered cloth diapers, promoted for "not leaking" stand as a barrier to communication, like a rigid curriculum. To consider a diaper successful if it passes the "leak-proof" test is like a child considered successful based on passing an exam. And the more "leak-proof" diaper one uses, the longer it takes for the child to learn to go to potty on his or her own. In fact, babies are born with this awareness, it is the constant use of the diaper that makes them tune out and have to unlearn diaper-use and "learn" or "train" to recognize elimination needs again later.

Babies who are listened to, with respect to hygiene or any other aspect of living, will develop trust and communication skills more readily.

Just as diaper free hygiene helps a child stay in tune with her or his body so many other aspects of natural family living such as natural birth, breastfeeding, unrushed solids, sleep-sharing and respect for the body's immune system help to draw an arc of holistic learning.

When school started at 5 or 6 years of age and playschool was just that, then one left the early years free for natural learning. As it was natural to learn to walk and talk without instruction or monitoring, children had the opportunity to be exposed to letter, number, color, shape and other "pre-school" concepts as they occur in the surroundings without subjecting them to lessons and reviews and gold stars. Moreover, in these precious pre-literate, pre-numerate years we experience the world as a whole, not confined into words, divided into parts and counted, compared, compiled. Why cut them short? Why not leave these years free for children to learn vital skills like healthy eating and sleeping, at their own pace with fewer demands on their time?

Leaving the early childhood years free of school schedules not only frees their minds from the impact of an external curriculum, but frees their time to learn life skills that may otherwise be shortchanged.

Aravinda

[isabchi]

Love it!

[heatherr30]

I like your article. Are you still taking comments? I love the parts about EC. I would be interested to hear more about your views on "positive" learning in the preschool years--I can see your point about overscheduling and overpressuring kids, but then you end the article just as you are making me think about what kind of learning IS the best at that age. There is another extreme--where kids get little adult attention or interaction and start school at age 5 not knowing the colors, or how to put on a jacket, for example. Surely, to be done right, "natural learning" has certain criteria--ie adult attention, a stimulating environment, social opportunities, adequate discipline, limits on TV time, etc? Maybe not the main point of your article but worth another paragraph, I thought, considering you brought the topic up...

[aravinda]

Thanks Isabchi and Heatherr30 for your responses.
Heather, your concern about "not knowing colors" intrigues me. Perhaps after some age "not knowing" should cause concern. However, "knowing" also marks the close of other forms of imagining or knowing - should we worry about closing these doors too early?

I will share my reflections on something I did recently, that made me think about this.
Even while I was doing it I was asking myself, why am I doing this? We were playing blocks with a friend, who is almost 2 years old. I asked her where is the green block etc. As if to “teach” her about “color.” But why, why was I doing this? I don’t believe in this kind of teaching. And yet there I was, drumming it in, “yes, this is green!” etc.

My behaviour made me wonder ...

Why do we make efforts to teach little kids to identify red, yellow and blue? Primary for whom? for what? In my native language, Telugu it is not easy to distinguish pink, orange and red, because all are called red. In fact we can’t even say “red” but have to say “redlike.” There are, on the other hand very specific colours named “eggplant,” “peacock’s neck” or “parrot” and heaven help you if you call these violet or blue or green (esp if you are in the fabric store!)

Some years ago I participated in an experiment for a study on “categorization of color*” and joined a listserv called colorcat dedicated to this research.

So even if we know that by age 5 or 6 or 7 children will have to accept the colours in standard crayon boxes, why not leave the years before that free for them to perceive light and color in various ways without us dictating names for these things. I say the same for letters and numbers. Treasure those precious pre-literate and pre-numerical years without rushing to count, classify, compile and categorize. Though the languages* of infancy and early childhood may not survive for long, the opportunity to discover and develop and discard concepts in those years, the sense of being a principal investigator rather than passive recipient of concepts others have tried and found true, can serve one throughout life. Let us stand on our feet before we stand on the shoulders of giants. (*Wade Davis on endangered cultures give us a glimpse of what values might survive along with non-dominant languages and concepts.)

Our daughter shared some memorable observations around age 2 about the number 0 and about white as a color. Yes, she currently uses our decimal number system and no longer objects to seeing colors the way we do. But we also got a glimpse of the questions our prevailing system raised for her and thought momentarily about what it would be like to see it her way. Alas, that moment may no longer be with us but the chance she had to protest the way zero was valued or the role of the white crayon is something that kindled in us respect for her imagination and analysis.

Just before posting this, I happened to see a brilliant animated explanation by Sir Ken Robinson on education paradigms, and he too speaks to the creative genuis, diversity of concepts and "divergent thinking" with which we are all born and which we lose through the standard process of education, which teaches us that there is one right answer. Or, I might add, "one way of naming colors."

[emmaegbert]

I like your article and I agree with your basic premises.

I, however, get kind of antsy when things are called "natural"... as if they aren't cultural. The discussion of colors is a case in point! While there is a natural phenomenon of certain light wavelengths being reflected from surfaces, and of the rods and cones in our eyes and neural systems in our brain... "color perception" is totally cultural...

kids are arguing have to go!

[heatherr30]

Hi Aravinda,

Thanks for the clarification. These are some interesting ideas, I can honestly say I have never heard anyone say these things before! Very thought-provoking.

I'm not sure I agree with you 100%--I find it hard to imagine how a child could make it to age 5 or 6 without picking up on cultural concepts like the names of colors.... perhaps the child is having a very enlighted upbringing where adults do not like to label the colors and thus limit the imagination... perhaps the family or culture in question is just not very bothered about colors.... however my concern would be that this is an indication these children may not have not had very much adult attention. We can't make it through a single day here without my nearly-3 yr old voicing what color socks she wants to wear, which piece of candy or color of apple or grape she will and won't eat, or which color crayon she is looking for. Sad to me that some children might live in an environment where no one has the time to communicate with them about their likes and dislikes and the environment around them. (I am not trying to say that knowing the colors or not knowing them is a "test" of some sorts... I'm just giving one example of something that children can and do "pick up" through positive interaction with adults.)

I definitely think it's useful--and inevitable--that our children learn the names of colors, shapes, letters etc as soon as they are ready so that they can communicate with us about the things around them. I don't think it has to mean the closing of a door--it is more like opening a door. Knowing the names and concepts helps them communicate with adults, ask questions, share their theories and discoveries. Surely early learning does not have to mean stifling the imagination--it can also be a springboard from which to explore further.

However I totally agree with you about the educational systems in schools often ignoring the need for free thinking. I think it's a lovely idea encouraging children to be creative, using their imagination and respecting their ideas rather than correcting them every time. What a shame that students who do not know the right answer are often put down and made to feel inadequate rather than encouraged to find the answer or solve the problem in another way.

[aravinda]

I, however, get kind of antsy when things are called "natural"... as if they aren't cultural.

Point well taken. Glad you chimed in.   With that in mind, I would say that by "natural learning" I am thinking of learning that is free of what I will call "teacherly" teaching.  One might be teaching by example (and not necessarily something that one would intend for a child to learn) or some kind of teaching may occur during conversation / games / stories, etc but I am distinguishing this from a story or song or game that aims to teach.

Heatherr30

We can't make it through a single day here without my nearly-3 yr old voicing what color socks she wants to wear, which piece of candy or color of apple or grape she will and won't eat, or which color crayon she is looking for.

I wonder how much of this is specific to our lifestyle - so many choices to make.  I have sometimes heard parents advised to give children the impression (illusion?) of choice by asking them "what color socks?" or "what color toothbrush?" so that they don't question the need to wear the socks or use the toothbrush (for its intended purpose ;-). 

[ASusan]

Originally Posted by aravinda 

I wonder how much of this is specific to our lifestyle - so many choices to make.  I have sometimes heard parents advised to give children the impression (illusion?) of choice by asking them "what color socks?" or "what color toothbrush?" so that they don't question the need to wear the socks or use the toothbrush (for its intended purpose ;-). 

I, too, think about this. In our culture, choice is often equated to "freedom" and is presented as a very good thing. But, too many choices can be overwhelming and anxiety provoking (see, for example, research and writing by Barry Schwartz, http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html). And, I think, emphasizing choice runs the risk of conflating consumer choice with freedom. The two are not the same. We gave our son very few choices when he was young, and, within limits, respected his wishes when he DID indicate a preference. For example, all of his socks are the same brown (10 pair, all from Children's Place; SO easy to sort and fold!). He has 3 pair of shoes that we rotate daily; at one point, all three were the same style. When he did tell us he didn't like one of them, we put them on his feet less frequently. All our drinking glasses are the same, save for one child's cup with a straw. If he tells us he wants the straw - and it's clean and we haven't poured the drink yet - we'll give it to him. But, sock color, shoe style, color of cup...these things do not matter. Asking our children which one they want - especially as a regular mode of interaction - communicates that they DO matter - moreso than that they are dressed, or even have clothes to wear - and that the cognitive energy spend on these choices is energy well spent.

ETA: Our child-rearing culture tends to emphasize that it is important to give children a choice so that they have the opportunity to learn and develop autonomy. I also question that assumption.

[heatherr30]

I wonder how much of this is specific to our lifestyle - so many choices to make.  I have sometimes heard parents advised to give children the impression (illusion?) of choice by asking them "what color socks?" or "what color toothbrush?" so that they don't question the need to wear the socks or use the toothbrush (for its intended purpose ;-). 

Well this is a very good point!  I remember reading about cultures where they only have 3 words for colors:  black, white, and colorful.  And obviously in nature (ie the rain forest etc) things come in a range of colors... whereas in a box of legos there is a very clear distinction between red, orange, or blue--perhaps creating a need to label them as such.

[heatherr30]

Oops not trying to say that the legos define the colors... obviously it happens the other way round... just trying to give an example of how even the toys are children play with tend to teach them the names for the colors!

[EchoSoul]

"So even if we know that by age 5 or 6 or 7 children will have to accept the colours in standard crayon boxes, why not leave the years before that free for them to perceive light and color in various ways without us dictating names for these things. I say the same for letters and numbers. Treasure those precious pre-literate and pre-numerical years without rushing to count, classify, compile and categorize. Though the languages* of infancy and early childhood may not survive for long, the opportunity to discover and develop and discard concepts in those years, the sense of being a principal investigator rather than passive recipient of concepts others have tried and found true, can serve one throughout life. Let us stand on our feet before we stand on the shoulders of giants. (*Wade Davis on endangered cultures give us a glimpse of what values might survive along with non-dominant languages and concepts.)"

Interesting point. My MIL has been on us about defining colors since my son first started really looking around at his world. To me, it seemed silly to show him something and say, "RED!" or "BLUE!" I feel like he's thinking, "Yeah, okay. ....So?" And before too long it seemed downright silly. But people do it because they figure the earlier you expose them, the earlier they'll "get it", and the quicker they'll be able to operate well in society and in school. Still..I could never shake how silly I felt saying, "GRASS!" "BLUE!" "LEAF!" It feels much more natural to explain it to him as if I were speaking to a young child, not a 6 month old. "Look at the pretty green leaf." Or "See the silly brown dog?" That has always felt more natural to me.

[aravinda]

I definitely think it's useful--and inevitable--that our children learn the names of colors, shapes, letters etc as soon as they are ready so that they can communicate with us about the things around them. I don't think it has to mean the closing of a door--it is more like opening a door. Knowing the names and concepts helps them communicate with adults, ask questions, share their theories and discoveries. Surely early learning does not have to mean stifling the imagination--it can also be a springboard from which to explore further.

It feels much more natural to explain it to him as if I were speaking to a young child, not a 6 month old. "Look at the pretty green leaf." Or "See the silly brown dog?" That has always felt more natural to me.

Hi there heatherr30, EchoSoul,

I came to post a revised version of this article, first want to respond to your comments.

I agree that it is inevitable that our children learn the cultural framework of their surroundings, because it is useful to communicate etc.  And while it may come naturally to mention colors in your conversations with children, and one need not artificially refrain from doing so, I would perhaps argue against intentionally  "name dropping" for the purpose of teaching.

What I am suggesting is that there is also some value to the time they spend before they have learned the prevailing system of words, numbers, colors, and experiment with their own.  Most of us get the chance to see our babies make up verbal expressions that have no meaning in the language we know, even before they make up "baby talk" where the word may differ but still corresponds to something that is represented by a different word in our own language, e.g my daughter said "puthyapa" when she meant "fruit."  No one knows how she came up with this word, but we could figure out that it meant fruit.  Now when I think back I am wondering if by "puthyapa" she recognized exactly the same set of foods that comes under the domain of "fruit" or whether she extended it to anything else - I don't remember though, I have a feeling that she had understood the class of objects that are called fruit, but simply had a different word to refer to them.  However, many months before that, she was also making sounds and we do not know if they meant something to her, that was not necessarily translatable using the language and concepts known to us.   You may have seen the video of the baby twins talking.  Though the baby language does not survive, would we deny its value for the baby at the time and also as part of the springboard you mention, that allows one to explore further?

Therefore I would hesitate to cut short the time available for such exploration of ideas, even though they will be discarded and forgotten.  As you say, learning the colors and numbers that the grown ups around them use is inevitable, so we need not rush the process.  If we see value in what goes on in the mind before it accepts or "learns" the colors and shapes, words and numbers that we have decided signify learning, then one will not even want to rush the process.  (Rather, one will sigh, it goes by all too quickly. )