Research Fact Sheets report primarily on research findings published in scientific journals. However, two books have recently been published of importance to issues of brain development in infancy and early childhood that warrant inclusion in the Research Fact Sheet series.
A view has been advanced in the behavioral and educational science literatures that by providing children during the first three years of life with an "enriched" educational and social environment, improved intelligence and better social performance will result. The biological evidence which is offered in support of this view is that during the first three years of life, the cells of the developing brain are aggressively making new connections (synapses) in response to stimuli in the environment; also, these cells are more receptive to stimuli at this early time than they are later in life. Therefore, it is suggested that enriching the input into the developing brain of all children during very early life gives it more opportunity to learn and be better prepared for the tasks of later life.
Dr. Alison Gopnick and her co-authors, all prominent development psychologists, support this view.1 They propose that learning things in the right sequence is of critical importance for the development of intelligence and social behavior. They believe that the first three years of life are crucial because what is learned during these early years provides the basis for future learning. The richer the early experience in a newly developing brain, the better prepared is brain cell organization for future learning. The authors support their position by evidence from the scientific literature that: during the first three years of life there is a large growth of new connections (synapses) in the developing brain, with a pruning of unused connections later in life -- presumably because they are not being used; the developing brain is more receptive and responsive to new experiences (is more "plastic"); and different areas of developing brain can become more connection "dense" following stimulation. Therefore, they conclude that increasing the stimulation of the developing brain will have positive results, which benefits the potential of all children.
Dr. John T. Bruer disagrees with the conclusions drawn from these data.2 He takes issue with "the myth of the first three years", proposing that the scientific evidence does not support it. For example: most of the studies have been done in animals in which a normal environment was compared to a deprived environment; a normal environment was not compared to an enriched environment. He points out that the reported differences in brain structure and performance were due to deprivation rather than to enrichment. Thus, he states that there is no evidence to support the proposal that enriching a normal environment will have a beneficial effect in animals. He further emphasizes that it is a broad leap to assume similar results in humans.
Dr. Mark H. Johnson, a British behavioral scientist, comments in a review of these books.3 He suggests that most developmental biologists and psychologists (both are experts on the developing brain) would agree that the state of available knowledge does not provide the basis for making social and educational policy at this time. Rigorous research still needs to be done before meaningful conclusions can be obtained. He emphasizes that techniques are now available for studying the workings of the human child's brain and can tell us a great deal more about human learning. Finally, he points out that it is unlikely that the usual environment is an ideal environment for maximal learning when the brain has previously been damaged (e.g. CP). He concludes that early diagnosis and an early program of special instruction may be of special value for the brain damaged child; but there is no evidence this is true in children without brain damage.
Comment:
We still do not know whether enriching the environment above usual during the first years of life is of significance to a child with a developmental disability due to brain injury or brain dysfunction; however, there is also no evidence it is harmful. We are still in the situation of intuitively feeling that an increase in the opportunity for physical activity, sensory stimulation and assistive learning will have important positive results in maximizing the opportunity of a child with an injured brain to learn and adapt better. As Dr. Johnson points out, we now have the research tools to gather the information necessary to be able to rely on facts rather than on intuition.
In summary, there continues to be controversy whether "enriching" the environment above "normal" adds anything of significance for the developing brain of a young child with no evidence of developmental brain injury. However, many experts believe it is probable that a selective enriched environment could be of importance to brain development for a young child who does have developmental brain injury. However, we really do not know. Modern research tools offer the possibility for answering the question. The need is for research, not for more debate.
__________________
1 Gopnick A. et al. Minds, Brains and How Children Learn. Morrow; New York 1999.
2 Bruer, JT. The Myth of the First Three Years; A New Understanding of Early Brain Development and Lifelong Learning. Free Press; New York 1999.
3 Johnson, M.H. Into the Minds of Babes. Science 5438: 247
UCP Research & Educational Foundation, April 2000