I wonder if we would really like to increase children's realistic thinking? Maybe there's something quite beautiful in the magical pre-operational thought of early childhood, and perhaps it helps us not merely learn - but develop - towards adulthood. Many who suggest a sensitive or critical period, are proposing Nativist models of development and language acquisition is probably the most well supported domain, as Sandy suggests. But does this mean other aspects of development follow the same pattern? I'm alluding to Piaget, as Dijana mentions. Your question reminds me of David Elkind's (1981) "The Hurried Child" and our world has just gotten so much more extreme in what grownups expect from children. Interesting points for discussion, Vural! ~ Kevin

Very interesting description of the ''absorbent mind'' phase (Maria Montessori's term) you may find in her works. (This is a period from 0 to six.) She found that there is, for example, the period of special interest in the real order, and all kids are going through it.

You also may look at Piaget's works - his theory of child's cognitive development shows 4 main stages in this developmental process and our teaching depends on it.

And there is Lev Vygotsky' s theory on socio-cultural development (it is one of the basis for so-called social constructivism). He researched mastering of concepts and found that preschool child can't operate with them (with concepts). His famous book is Thought and Language.

Hi Vural Taşkaya ,

It is very interesting question. Please see this attachment. Thank you.

I wonder if we would really like to increase children's realistic thinking? Maybe there's something quite beautiful in the magical pre-operational thought of early childhood, and perhaps it helps us not merely learn - but develop - towards adulthood. Many who suggest a sensitive or critical period, are proposing Nativist models of development and language acquisition is probably the most well supported domain, as Sandy suggests. But does this mean other aspects of development follow the same pattern? I'm alluding to Piaget, as Dijana mentions. Your question reminds me of David Elkind's (1981) "The Hurried Child" and our world has just gotten so much more extreme in what grownups expect from children. Interesting points for discussion, Vural! ~ Kevin

Agree with Kevin. There is something marvellous in child's thinking. Some of the authors call it a ''naive'' point of view, and it's without negative connotations. It's rich and opened towards the world.

As Kevin and Dijana pointed pre-logic thinking is an important part of cognitive development in early childhood. In Piaget theory all periods (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational) all important and necessary to reach formal operations. He writes about strategies supporting children becoming "logic" in their thinking - for example posing questions during experiments (experiments for children can also ba a play!) - you can find interesting videos on YouTube (look for "Piaget's experiments"). Also "teaching experiment" based on Wygotsky's concept of "zone of proximal development" bring us similar strategies. They also add supporting children and doing something with them - "what children can do today with adult support, the will be able to do themselves tomorrow".

But for the other hand... I see a big danger in upbringing approach in parent focused on "rational" and "intellectual" development of their child. I work with cildren from 6 to 36 monts and their parents. Some of them don't understand that for 1 yrs.o. baby shaking a rattle or throwing items from a different height are part of cognitive development. They prefer teach them intellectual things (words, classification etc.) rather than support them to understand how daily things go. We are working in "project-approach" (based on Lilian Katz method) with children between 18 a 36 months and it brings really good effects for children development - emotional, social, intellectual. It is based on exploration of areas of daily life (vegetables, toys, light, water etc.) - children have an opportunity to experiment with many items and phenomenon connected with that area.

What's more - "anticipating idealism" is normative in adolescence. Discussing with teenager should lead to more "realistic" thinking about themself and life but this idealism gives them power to dream, making goals and plans and engage in activities focused on them. It is important to become "realist" but this is rather characteristic for late adolescence.

To sum up - in my opinion if we want to support "rational" or "realistic" thinking and wholeness development in childhood it is important to ensure children possibility of playing and making "daily experiments".

~Kamil

Dear Vural, Kamil & other posters,

Like Kevin and Kamil, and as a developmental psychologist, I wonder wthether there is much to be gained from increasing young children' realistic thinhing. As Piaget cogently showed, young children's thinking is animistic in its very nature, that is, young children tend to attribute "anima" (a Latin work), or mind, even to clouds, winds, and the like. When my daugher was a 4-year-old she often asked me: " Dad, when do clouds stop moving and go to bed to sleep?". I never killed this, say, natural curiosity of my children by saying them that clouds do not sleep. There is a time for them to know this.

Those who are acquainted with the monumental theory of Piage's cognitive development know quite well that one of the main goals of his theory was to argue and show that children are not, say, adults in miniature, or a kind of homunculus. That is, young children's way of thinking or logic is quite different from that of adolescents and adults. So, young children's fantasy and animistic thinking is more to be respected than replaced, say, by an adolescent or adult way of thinking.

Accordingly, to want, say, to install realistic thinking in infants and even preoperational children, reminds me more of endoctrination than truly understanding. So, there should be no hurry to make of young children adults in miniature. It is as if we wanted to teach the concept of proportionality to 4-5-year olds. It would be a waste of time. To understand the proportionality concept is only at the reach of formal thinkers In Piagetian terms.

So, let us children be children when they are children. Labor child is just a sad reality all over the world that is a result of thinking of children as adolescents and even adults. Children's animistic tendency is so marvelous that it would be a pitty to kill it by teaching them realistic thinking. Pyschologist John Flavell work was able to show us there thare is a pervasive tendency in young chldren to confound reality and appearance.

Kind regards,

Orlando