Two girls play with blocks at Bing Nursery School at Stanford University. (Courtesy of Bing Nursery School)
Two girls play with blocks at Bing Nursery School at Stanford University. (Courtesy of Bing Nursery School)

By Eric Westervelt, NPR

Our “Tools of the Trade” series is taking a look at some of the iconic objects that form a vital part of our educational lives. For an upcoming piece, I’m reporting on how young children learn through that most basic of preschool education tools: simple wooden blocks.

Dr. Dimitri Christakis has done done extensive research on blocks and play and lectured on media and children. He is the Director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. He’s also a pediatrician at Seattle Children’s Hospital and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

And so we talked about the way young children learn and how their minds develop. He’s not against digital education tools. But he says they have to be the right kind and age-appropriate. He is raising alarms that Americans are over-charging their infant’s developing brains.

In a broad sense your research seems to point to the fact that over-stimulation in children’s brain is having a negative effect when it comes to fast paced media. Is that accurate?

Right. Our brains evolved over millennia to process things that happen in real time. And by definition, anything that happens in the real world happens in real time. It wasn’t really until the advent of modern media that we were able to speed things up and make them happen at a pace that is surreal. And even early media didn’t do that. That’s a relatively new phenomenon. In the case of infants there was no infant television viewing prior to about 10 years ago. And we’ve seen an explosion since then. Today, 90 percent of children watch TV on a regular basis before the age of 2. In spite of the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics advises strongly against that.

And they do that, in a sense, and displace activities they previously did. In research we’ve done, the typical preschool child in the United States watches about four and a half hours of television a day and they’re only awake for about 12 hours a day. So somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of their time is spent in front of a screen, [raising] the question of, What are they not doing that they would otherwise be doing? What activities are being displaced? And much of those activities are traditional means of interacting with the environment and with adults. And blocks are a classic example of that.

Four and a half hours a day! That’s from research you guys have done, or others have?

No, it’s from research we’ve done. It combines screen time at home and screen time in day care. Most of the studies to date have asked parents about how much their children watch at home. And of course, most children in the United States are cared for during the day outside of their home. So, you’re missing all of that time. In fact, in the average home-based day care, children watch an additional two hours a day.

That seems alarming. And the idea that for an infant, lots of television and all the digital media options really are only a phenomenon of the last 10, 12 years?

That’s right.

Can you compare children’s television as it first started out versus what it is today? Are we getting that much more fast-paced? Are we getting much more digitally distracted?

We are. The pacing of all programs, both adult and child, has sped up considerably. Part of the reason for that is that the more rapidly sequenced the scenes, the more distracting it is. It’s taxing to the brain to process things that happen so fast even though were capable of doing it. And there’s emerging science now in older children that watching such fast-paced programs diminishes what we call “executive function” immediately afterwards. It tires the mind out and makes it not function as well immediately after viewing it.

It makes the mind not function as well in what sense? In making decisions? Processing information?

Processing information. The evaluations that are done afterwards are of one’s executive function which is the measurement of high cortical functioning. Things like, remembering sequences of numbers which requires you to concentrate. We see that after watching fast-paced shows, at least immediately afterwards, children don’t function as well. We don’t see that with things like block play, reading or drawing. All of which happen in real time.

You did a randomized trial on building blocks and you linked it to language assessment. Tell us about that.

In that experiment we took 200 children, from a low-income environment, and we randomized them to two groups. One group got a set of large building blocks, that are intended for young children, at the beginning of study. And one got them at the end of the study six months later. In the group that got the blocks at the beginning we also gave parents a list of what we call “blocktivities.” So these were simple ways to play with your child with blocks. Stack the blocks, sort the blocks, divide them by color, etc. We had them keep daily diaries so we know how many kids played with blocks in a typical day.

Sixty-five of the children in the block group played with blocks on a typical day compared with 9 percent in the control group. And most importantly, at 6 months, we looked at their language development.

And what we found was that the control group, those that did not get the blocks, scored in the 42nd percentile — meaning they were slightly below average. Which is unfortunately not uncommon for a low-income population. But the group that got the blocks scored in the 52nd percentile. So slightly above average and significantly and clinically different from the control group.

So having blocks — and more importantly having activities that promote caregiver and child interaction — resulted in significant improvements in language over just a six-month period.

Is there something special about blocks? Or could it be any activity where the parent and child have to work together in simple, basic creation?

There is nothing special about blocks insofar as they provide an excellent platform for parents and children to engage with one another. But what is somewhat unique about blocks is that they’re a great venue! Children love them and like to play with them both with their parents and on their own. In fact, in our study of blocks, what we found is that children played with their fathers much more with blocks than with their mothers.

The interesting thing about blocks is that, in one way shape or form, they’ve probably existed for millennia. Long before anyone marketed such things, children probably built things with sticks and stones and some children do that now anyways.

Blocks have never, ever, marketed themselves as an educational toy. For most parents they’ve simply been something that was fun to do. And it’s interesting because in today’s climate there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of toys that make explicit claims that they are educational, that they will make your child smarter, or a young engineer or a poet. And the overwhelming majority of those products have no evidence whatsoever to make those assertions.

You’re making a call to go back to old school blocks and other creative play, but what about these digital tools? What do you say to skeptical, digitally savvy parents?

In medicine we have a saying which says, “First do no harm,” and I apply that to parenting as well. I’m a scientist as well as a parent and I really believe that there is such a thing as evidence-based parenting. There are some things that we know that are good, and there are many things we have no information on at all. And there we have to rely on our best judgment. In the case of over-stimulation of digital media, this bombarding of young brains, we do have both a theoretical and an empirical foundation now to say that it is not good for children. At the same time we have a very large body of literature that shows very clearly that traditional means of interacting with your child is exactly what they need for both the short term and the long term.

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit
  • Pingback: Logitech Harmony Ultimate Home Review - way2coolgagets()

  • prairie girl

    could early viewing of television/videos be the real reason behind the increase of autism?

    • erin

      i wouldn’t expect it has much of a role …. when i know of folks who have autistic children in real life, they include people who don’t/never did use television with their kids. and have very limited screen consumption. i do, however feel it could exacerbate the autism, in significant and measurable ways.

    • Linda

      No. Autism is genetic. What a foolish comment!

  • Young children learn by doing. The right way to teach
    young children is not to lecture or verbally instruct them. The teacher prepares the
    environment so that it provides stimulating, challenging materials and activities
    for kids. When I was a teacher of young children I would closely observes to
    see what children understand and pose additional challenges to push their
    thinking further. Pretend
    play is the primary force in early childhood—pretend play carries the greatest
    power to support development. I have noticed as a teacher that if
    children were allowed only to play, they would develop the range of skills,
    abilities, and competencies important for school and life success.

  • Pingback: Over-Stimulation! | Exploring Literacy()

  • Pingback: 4 hours per day | Adventures of a science communicator()

  • Cole

    I’m not surprised by this. When I was young blocks and simple toys were the only things I played with. There weren’t IPads yet and my parents barely let me watch TV (according to them). Why should a child need to be exposed to computers before the know what they are. When ever I see my cousins (3 and 4 y/o) and family gatherings the only thing that they are doing is sitting there and playing games on their parent’s phones. The other day I was in a restaurant and the kid in the booth next to me was sitting there with an IPad and headphones on! Why, just why.

  • AuNaturelMel

    This was a fascinating read, primarily because “stimulation” is so pushed on parents as regards their children. Melanie at mothersheeporganics

  • Pingback: Why Slowing Down Stimuli to Real Time Helps a Child’s Brain | PediaStaff Pediatric SLP, OT and PT Blog()

  • Makes my heart sing to see SIMPLICITY supported by research! And so great to get it out to an NPR readership, thanks, Eric. I am a big fan of Dr. Christakis’ work — so much that it inspired me to put up the following post at Mothering:

    Marcy Axness, PhD
    author, “Parenting for Peace: Raising the Next Generation of Peacemakers”

  • Pingback: Brava Art Press » When slowing down stimuli to real time helps a child’s brain()

  • Josepina Kreuk

    The article quotes:”Blocks have never, ever, marketed themselves as an educational toy”, But this German pedagogue certainly tried!

  • Guest

    < col Hiiiiiii Friends….'my friend's mom makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13904 just working on the internet for a few hours.

    try this site HERE’S MORE DETAIL


  • Shaune Scott

    The rapid movement of the camera in film and TV does have an impact on the way we process things. The more we watch constantly shifting images, the more our brain has to adapt. While adaptability is obviously important, the constant over-stimulation is not normal or healthy. The brain begins to crave constant movement. Compare early programming for children, i.e., Mickey Mouse Club, Romper Room, etc., to current shows. Even Sesame Street’s camera shots and scene changes are now much faster than they used to be. The late Ray Bradbury addressed this very issue in his interview with Del Rey Publishing about ten years ago. He worried about the power of television, with some good reason, I think.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor