Children Born in the COVID Era: When They Were Born, the World Was Closed — Changes Emerging in the "Lockdown Generation" at Age Four

Children born in the spring of 2020 began their lives without knowing the world's "normal."

It became difficult for grandparents and relatives to visit the newborns, and places where diverse people meet, such as baby groups, children's centers, infant classes, pools, and parks, were successively closed. The faces of adults seen outside were covered with masks, and opportunities to converse with people outside the family or read facial expressions were significantly reduced.

Babies born at that time will be turning 5 to 6 years old by 2026. As they transition from early childhood to school life, it has become gradually possible to examine what the "first year spent in a unique environment" has left on their subsequent development.

A study published by a research team in the UK provides a clue to this question.

However, we must not prematurely conclude that "lockdowns have diminished children's abilities." What the research captured was the correlation observed between specific environments and developmental characteristics. It does not mean the children's future is determined, nor does it imply that all the children studied have problems.

What is important is to understand what tends to become difficult and to deliver support quickly to the children who need it.

Tracking 205 "lockdown-born children" until age 4

The study focused on 205 children born between March 23 and June 23, 2020, when the first national lockdown began in England.

This research was conducted as part of the BICYCLE study, which stands for "Born In COVID Year – Core Lockdown Effects." When the children turned 4, their language abilities, non-verbal reasoning, motor skills, and executive functions were examined.

For language abilities and non-verbal reasoning, children were directly assessed using standardized tasks. Of the 205 children, 25 were assessed in person, and 180 were assessed online. The same procedures were adopted online, with multiple sessions lasting 45 to 60 minutes each.

On the other hand, executive functions and motor skills were mainly evaluated through questionnaires given to parents or caregivers who observe the children daily.

The research team focused not merely on how much knowledge the children had but on their ability to regulate their attention, emotions, and behavior in daily life.

"Support needs for executive functions" in about one-third

The most notable area in the study was what is called executive functions.

Executive functions are a collective term for multiple abilities needed to think toward goals and adjust behavior. For example, they include the following skills:

Continuing to focus on play or tasks. Remembering what adults have said. Waiting for one's turn. Not immediately reaching out for something that catches one's attention. Thinking of another way when failing. Calming down when excited or angry. Switching actions when situations change.

While these may seem obvious to adults, they are advanced abilities still developing for 4-year-olds.

In this survey, the level of executive functions reported by caregivers tended to be lower than the standards set before the pandemic. Compared to the level predicted from non-verbal reasoning, the executive functions exhibited in daily life were weaker.

About one-third of the children studied were evaluated as being in a range where some support for executive functions was needed.

Specifically, this may manifest as difficulty continuing tasks to the end, trouble remembering multiple instructions, being easily distracted by surrounding stimuli, difficulty switching behavior after being cautioned, and taking time to calm down when emotions run high.

It is important to note that these characteristics do not immediately imply developmental disorders or medical issues. At age 4, individual differences are significant, and evaluations can change based on the day's condition, environment, and the behavior expected at home or in nursery settings.

What the research indicated was not a diagnosis but a trend showing a higher proportion of children potentially needing support when viewed as a whole group.

Differences observed in "understanding" and "expressing" language

Regarding language abilities, the results were more complex.

Overall language scores were age-appropriate, with some even above average. At least, the simple result that "language development was entirely delayed because they were born during lockdown" was not observed.

In particular, receptive language, which involves understanding others' words, was relatively good.

Researchers suggest that during the lockdown, parents may have spent more time talking to their babies at home. Even in situations where going out was not possible, there were opportunities for families to read picture books, talk about things around them, and respond to the baby's reactions.

Close communication with family may have supported the ability to listen to and understand words.

On the other hand, expressive language, which involves putting one's thoughts and demands into words, was weaker compared to the level predicted from the children's non-verbal reasoning.

Understanding and expressing language are similar yet different.

Parents who are always with the child can understand whether the child wants water or a toy just by pointing. Life can function even if the child does not use enough words.

However, gestures alone cannot convey messages to adults or peers they meet for the first time. They must put their wishes into words and change their expressions while observing the other person's reactions.

Interactions with people who speak and react differently from family members, such as grandparents, relatives, caregivers, neighbors, and other children's parents, provide children with the "need to use language."

During the lockdown, that diverse interaction was lost. While opportunities to understand language remained within the family, there may have been fewer chances to practice conveying messages to unfamiliar people.

Motor skills are generally age-appropriate

In this survey, gross and fine motor skills were generally within the expected range compared to pre-pandemic age standards.

Gross motor skills involve whole-body movements such as running, jumping, climbing stairs, and throwing a ball. Fine motor skills refer to the ability to perform detailed movements with hands and fingers, such as building blocks, drawing, and handling buttons.

Given the closure of parks and facilities for infants, it was thought that there might be significant delays in motor skills. However, at age 4, no clear decline was observed for the group as a whole.

Nonetheless, this does not mean "there was no impact from the pandemic."

In the past, a study in New York examined 6-month-old infants born during the pandemic and found that their gross motor, fine motor, and personal-social scores were lower than those of a small pre-pandemic control group.

Differences observed in infancy may have diminished due to subsequent growth or changes in living environments. Additionally, due to differences in research methods, target regions, and the socio-economic status of families, the two studies cannot be directly compared.

Child development is not linear. Even if there is a small delay at a certain stage, they may catch up, and conversely, difficulties may only become apparent after starting group life.

Is "social isolation" the cause?

The research team suggests that the limited diversity of people and environments encountered during early childhood may have affected executive functions and expressive language.

However, this study alone cannot definitively attribute the cause to the lockdown.

Firstly, there was no control group directly comparing children born during the same period with similar conditions to those born before the pandemic. The comparisons used were developmental standards created in the past or levels predicted from non-verbal reasoning.

Additionally, the evaluation of executive functions primarily relied on reports from parents or caregivers. It cannot be ruled out that parents who experienced long-term childcare burdens or economic anxiety may have evaluated their children's behavior more harshly.

The research participants do not fully represent all of England either. About three-quarters of the participating families had parents with university degrees, indicating a higher proportion of highly educated individuals than the general population. Because the educational environment at home was relatively rich, the actual results for society as a whole might differ.

Furthermore, the factors affecting children were not limited to the inability to meet others.

Parental anxiety and loneliness, the simultaneous progression of remote work and childcare, worsening household finances, reduced access to childcare services and infant health checkups, fear of infection, family illnesses, and increased screen time were all changes happening simultaneously.

To separate which factors had what degree of impact, it will be necessary to compare children born before, during, and after the lockdown using the same methods over a long period.

Debate on SNS over "isolation or infection"

When the research results were reported, various reactions were received on overseas SNS and forums.

In the Reddit community dealing with scientific news, the discussion was largely divided into two.

On one hand, there were posts emphasizing that "the study is examining the reduction in social interaction due to lockdown, not the direct effects of virus infection." The opinion was that the impact of reduced contact with people outside the family should not be underestimated, as infants observe voices, expressions, gestures, and interactions between people more than adults think.

In contrast, there was also a reaction that "without adequately considering the infection history of the child or the mother during pregnancy, it cannot be concluded that the effects are due to social isolation." This pointed out the need to distinguish between the potential impact of the infection itself on neurodevelopment and the impact of lifestyle restrictions.

Additionally, there was a question of "if the time spent at home increased, wouldn't children have spent more time with their parents?"

In response, it was argued that parents working from home had to focus on meetings and work, even if they were physically in the same room. The time spent near the child is not the same as the time spent paying attention to and responding to the child.

There were also cautious voices about measuring the executive functions of 4-year-olds through questionnaires to parents. The question was how much the characteristics observed at this age can predict future abilities, given the significant changes in behavior during early childhood.

On LinkedIn, there were reactions, especially among users involved in healthcare and education, that the study serves as material to reconsider the role of social communication in human development.

From parents who had children born at the start of the lockdown, there were posts confirming that difficulties with concentration, behavior adjustment, and group life are being discussed in school settings. However, this is an individual experience and must be distinguished from the national trends verified by research.

These discussions on SNS indicate that the reception of research is still easily linked to positions regarding the pandemic.

Claims that "regulations harmed children" and that "the impact of infectious diseases is being blamed on regulations" are in conflict, and discussions sometimes extend beyond the scope confirmed by research.

However, what the paper indicates is not a simple conclusion to judge the pros and cons of policies. It suggests the possibility that groups of children who spent their early childhood in a unique environment may have higher needs for support in areas such as attention and emotion regulation, requiring ongoing observation.

What is needed is not a "label" for the generation

The most important thing to avoid in response to the research results is to categorize children born in 2020 as a "generation lacking concentration" or a "generation with low social skills."

Executive functions are abilities that are repeatedly practiced within the family and education.

Games that involve taking turns, games that switch rules midway, activities that involve moving or stopping to music, simple role assignments, and helping with cooking or cleaning provide opportunities to use attention, memory, impulse control, and planning simultaneously.

To encourage language expression, it is important not only to anticipate and fulfill the child's needs but also to wait for them to put things into words by asking, "What do you want?" "Which one will you choose?" "Why do you think so?"

When reading picture books, instead of just reading the text aloud, discussing what the characters are feeling and what they think will happen next allows for practicing both language and emotion regulation.

In kindergartens and schools, it is important not only to increase learning tasks but also to ensure experiences of adjusting one's behavior within a group through small group play, dialogue, collaborative work, and physical activities.

If difficulties are severe, it should not be left solely to the efforts of parents. It is necessary to connect with caregivers, teachers, pediatricians, speech therapists, and psychologists to consider common support methods at home and in educational settings.

Not a "conclusion" yet, but a starting point for long-term tracking

Children born in 2020 are now just at the entrance to school education.

In the future, there will be more situations where they need to listen to instructions during class, proceed with multiple tasks in order, share roles with friends, and switch their feelings even after failure. Some difficulties will become apparent for the first time, while some abilities may rapidly develop through group life experiences.

This study did not prove that "the environment of the first year determines life."

Rather, it suggested the possibility that social interactions in early childhood, which are usually less visible, are important elements in nurturing abilities such as attention, emotion, language, and problem-solving.

What children need is not a debate over past policies among adults. It is to carefully identify what situations they are currently struggling with and provide necessary play, dialogue, education, and professional support.

Even if they were born in an era when the world was closed, it does not mean their development was closed off.

The research serves as both a warning and a clue to the areas where support can be specifically provided.

Source URL

WELT: Introduction of research results on executive functions, language, and motor skills of children born during lockdown at age 4.
https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article6a55f34a86a2f0846eaaffa4/kinder-geboren-im-corona-lockdown-was-das-fuer-die-entwicklung-bedeutet.html

Archives of Disease in Childhood: Original paper of the BICYCLE study. Source for checking the survey method, evaluation items, and research constraints of 205 people.
https://adc.bmj.com