Early formal schooling: Are we promoting achievement or anxiety?

The resurgence of interest in early childhood education has been accompanied by an active debate about the most developmentally beneficial approach to preschool instruction. Some experts and the major early childhood organizations in this country advocate a child-centered or developmentally appropriate approach, whereas other experts advocate a teacher-directed, didactic approach. Until recently, the empirical evidence available to inform this controversy has been woefully thin. This article reviews the social and theoretical parameters of this debate about preschool instruction, articulates the core dimensions that have been portrayed as distinguishing child- from teacher-directed curricula, and examines the available research that can inform the debate. Our conclusions support those who encourage the adoption of child-centered curricula. Didactic approaches appear to undermine young children's motivation in and enjoyment of school in the short term and to have either neutral or negative ramifications for long-term achievement, despite some evidence of short-term gains.     

Taking a naïve other's perspective to debias the hindsight bias: Did it backfire?

Hindsight bias is a phenomenon that occurs when outcome knowledge interferes with the ability to accurately recall judgments made in a previous, naïve state. Also known as the “knew it all along” bias, we aimed to diminish the bias by having individuals take the perspective of a naïve other, as a way of encouraging acceptance that they had, in fact, not known it all along. Adult participants were given blurry-to-clear images incrementally until they were able to identify the object and were then re-presented with the same sequence of images and asked to make a judgment about when they had identified the item correctly the first time. They were also asked to judge when they thought a naïve peer (Experiments 1 and 2), or a naïve child (Experiment 2) could identify the objects. Results showed a robust hindsight bias in all perspectives, and sporadic success at eliminating the bias. When taking the perspective of a naïve peer, there were failures and successes; when taking the perspective of a naïve child, there was an ultra-debiasing, or a reverse hindsight bias. However, did the manipulation backfire? We conclude that while the manipulation of thinking like a naïve child may have eliminated the bias, participants seemed to use an “adults know best” rule rather than accepting past naivete for themselves.