l-carroll-blog1

[l-carroll-blog1]

Blog Post Six

To truly be able to assess the role of emerging technologies in early learning and education, we must first outline the pre-distinguished evidence used in this investigation. This evidence can be turned into key terms (Findings) that relate directly to the analysis of neurophysical development of mentalization in infants from the age of 3 - 12 months. The key findings of this explored topic, vital to its analysis include: 

From 3 months infants... 

Show a strong preference for social stimuli.

Show more interest in kinematic patterns of point-light displays of a person walking than of random movement. 

From 6 months… 

Can distinguish animate from inanimate things by the fact that they are self propelled. 

From 9 months... 

Can successfully distinguish the goal of a person from the means they use to reach that goal (The Principle of Rationality). 

From 12 months… 

Can respond to an object as an intentional agent, purely based on its interactive behaviour with another person. Can understand that the eye gaze of people reveals a relationship between the person and the object of their gaze. Can use this information about ‘gaze direction’ and positive emotional expression to predict that the person will reach for the said object (Phillips et al 2002). 

“Developmentally appropriate practices must guide decisions about whether and when to integrate technology and interactive media into early childhood programs. For infants and toddlers, responsive interactions between adults and children are essential to early brain development and to cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and linguistic development. 

NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center join the public health community in discouraging the use of screen media for children under the age of 2 in early childhood programs. 

Recognizing that there may be appropriate uses of technology for infants and toddlers in some contexts (for example, viewing digital photos, participating in Skype interactions with loved ones, co-viewing e-books, and engaging with some interactive apps), educators should limit the amount of screen time and, as with all other experiences and activities with infants and toddlers, ensure that any use of technology and media serves as a way to strengthen adult-child relationships. Early childhood educators always should use their knowledge of child development and effective practices to carefully and intentionally select and use technology and media if and when it serves healthy development, learning, creativity, interactions with others, and relationships. This is especially true for those working with infants and toddlers ” (NAEYC).

 “There are two magic words which indicate how the child enters into relation with it’s environment. They are: Imitation, and Example. The Greek philosopher Aristotle called man the most imitative of creatures. What goes on in his physical environment, this the child imitates, and in the process of imitation his physical organs are cast into the forms which then become permanent. ‘Physical environment’ must, however, be taken in the widest imaginable sense. It includes not only what goes on around the child in the material sense, but everything that takes place in the child's environment — everything that can be perceived by his senses, that can work from the surrounding physical space upon the inner powers of the child. This includes all the moral or immoral actions, all the wise or foolish actions, that the child sees.” — Rudolf Steiner’s ‘The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy’ 

It is important that we know that it is not technology that influences the child in this sense, rather it is what people do visibly before their eyes whether on television or not. “The effect of admonition in development is to mould the forms, not of the physical, but of the etheric body; even as the physical body is surrounded before physical birth by the physical envelope of the mother-body. All that has to evolve in the etheric body before the seventh year - ideas, habits, memory, and so forth. All this must develop ‘of its own accord,’ just as the eyes and ears develop within the mother-body without the influence of external light ...” — Jean Paul's ‘Levana’ or ‘Science of Education’

References

Frith, C., & Wolpert, D. (2007). The neuroscience of social interaction. Oxford: Royal Society.

Paul, J. (1891). Levana; or, The doctrine of education. London: G. Bell.

Steiner, R. (2017). Article: The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy. Wn.rsarchive.org. Retrieved 22 July 2017, from http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/GA034/English/RSP1965/EduChi_essay.html

Technology and Young Children | National Association for the Education of Young Children | NAEYC. (2017). Naeyc.org. Retrieved 23 July 2017, from http://www.naeyc.org/content/technology-and-young-children/infants-and-toddlers

[l-carroll-blog1]

Blog Post Five

In comparison to the uncertainty about mentalizing in other species, the development of a fluent mentalizing ability, the far-reaching consequences for social insight is undoubtedly a human accomplishment. We now know when this ability develops, when children first show evidence of mentalizing and evidence that mentalizing comes from an explicit mental state language - e.g ‘I think my brother is pretending to be a ghost’- and an implicit behavioural language: e.g the child consequently pulls the sheet off their covered sibling. It is difficult to determine an intentional stance in the first year of life due to the limitations set by the experience that is available babies, but there are also limits set by the state of maturation of the brain. Any presence of abnormalities in brain function that affect mentalization are are unable to be readily discovered at this time. In relation to emerging technologies in early education and learning, would an enhanced experience at this age be helpful or not? The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is a professional membership organization that works to promote high-quality early learning for all young children, birth through age 8, by connecting early childhood practice, policy, and research. Early childhood educators need to understand that technology and media-based materials can vary widely in quality, and they must be able to effectively identify products that help rather than hinder early learning. Electronic media is predominant in the lives of most young children and this means that they are spending an increasing amount of time engaged with screens of all kinds (Common Sense Media 2011). With guidance, these various technology tools can be harnessed for learning and development; without guidance, usage can be inappropriate and/or interfere with learning and development.

References

Frith, C., & Wolpert, D. (2007). The neuroscience of social interaction. Oxford: Royal Society.

Technology and Young Children | National Association for the Education of Young Children | NAEYC. (2017). Naeyc.org. Retrieved 23 July 2017, from http://www.naeyc.org/content/technology-and-young-children/infants-and-toddlers

[l-carroll-blog1]

Blog Post Four

From 12 months of age there are some achievements that represent vital milestones during the neurophysical development of mentalisation in infants and suggests an evident ‘dawning’ awareness of mental states such as intentions and desires. These are the most foundational tools for communication outside spoken language that arises from looking and pointing gestures. But the most impressive achievement from 12 months onwards reveals that the infant can respond to an object as an intentional agent, purely based on its interactive behaviour with another person. This allows even babies to predict the actions of a person or agent. At this age babies also develop another primitive ability: to understand that the eye gaze of people reveals a relationship between the said person and the object of their gaze. Babies use this information about ‘gaze direction’ and positive emotional expression to predict that the person will reach for the said object (Phillips et al 2002). This indicates an early ability to perceive that a person may have different goals and that these goals have different intentions.

References

Frith, C., & Wolpert, D. (2007). The neuroscience of social interaction. Oxford: Royal Society.

[l-carroll-blog1]

Blog Post Three

Evidence obtained from an experiment topically exploring infants abilities to reason about goals - the desires of others and themselves (Gergely et al 1995) Otherwise referred to as the principle of rationality. Infants from 9 months old develop the ability to expect, and therefore are surprised if a person or agent does not approach a goal in the most economical way. This demonstrates that they can separately distinguish the goal of a person from the means they use to reach that goal. Their ability to mentally reason rationally and instead jump over an invisible hurdle as a result, are important prerequisites of the newborn’s ability to understand and represent their own intentions. This capability is the first learning mechanism we develop where two means of a situation are rationally mentally compared and interpreted. In other words this is the first ‘calculation’ we experience. It is in that first experience that we inspire a wide range of neurophysical progress. The nature of the environment during this internal progression the infant must be stable to ensure a healthy metastasis of their neurophysical development and the cognitive development of their individual ‘Theories of mind’ that follow.

References

Frith, C., & Wolpert, D. (2007). The neuroscience of social interaction. Oxford: Royal Society.

[l-carroll-blog1]

Blog Post Two

From six months of age infants are surprised if an object moves on its own, but not if a person does (spelke et al 1995). This suggests that they can distinguish animate from inanimate things by the fact that they are self propelled. This need not be a biological being but a mechanical objects too. The importance is in that the object moves unpredictably of its own will. This reveals to the newborn an undeniable perception of intention in a person. This evidence is essential to our own intentional development in early education and learning, because it explicitly suggests that we must change our perception of the roles of emerging technologies in early education and learning in order for that child to reach their optimally desired capabilities as an outcome.

References

Frith, C., & Wolpert, D. (2007). The neuroscience of social interaction. Oxford: Royal Society.

[l-carroll-blog1]

Blog Post One

To understand emerging technologies in relation to the early learning, education and development of humans; we must have a sound knowledge of the foundational aspects of our physiological and neurological development via the neurophysiological development of mentalisation in infants. This is relative such as how comparative embryology and anatomy studies (Paleontology) give us greater understanding of the physical elements of the modern human body by observing the foundational physiology of our ancestors prevalent in ourselves today that proves that very ancestry. The neurophysiological development of mentalisation in infants and early childhood is essential to understanding the earliest and most important cognitive processes that form the mentalisation (‘Theory of mind’) or consciousness required in the social interaction and the engagement needed to enrich our desire to learn that we all  carry into adulthood. From three months of age it is clear infants only a week old smile more and vocalize more towards people than objects (Legerstee 1992). This evidence, already begins to strongly suggest a preference for social stimuli. Not only eye movements but other forms of biological motion seem to have a privileged status in attracting  infant’s attention at an extremely early age. They track objects with self propelled movement (Crichton and Lange Kueffner 1999).

They also show more interest in kinematic (the features or properties of motion in an object) patterns of point-light (a light source with the given intensity at the given position) displays of a person walking than of random movement (Bertenthal et al 1984).

References

Frith, C., & Wolpert, D. (2007). The neuroscience of social interaction. Oxford: Royal Society.