Literature Review: Due October 25, 2005

 “Nature vs. Nurture”

 Who conducted this study?

This study was conducted by Dr. Fred French.  At the time of the publication of this research study, Dr. French was the Associate Chair for Graduate Education and the head of the Graduate Program School of Psychology at Mount Saint Vincent University.

 Why was this study conducted?

In the past, Dr. French has worked with a variety of teachers, school board staff and other colleagues in rural and urban settings dealing with the change process and the implications for school culture in creating more inclusive school communities.  Dr. French’s research deals with “…children’s thinking, particularly the impact of self-monitoring on learner strategies for children with mild learning difficulties, as well as with the inclusion of learners with exceptionalities.”  In this article, Dr. French explores the nature vs. nurture debate with emphasis on the implications for the teaching/learning process and the process of schooling. 

How was this study conducted?

Dr. French reviewed studies and reports from several researchers and well-known theorists including Bronfenbrenner and Vygotsky. 

French argues in this report that “…cognitive ability (intelligence) is central to the adaptive potential of the individual because it furnishes an enormous integrative capacity by which experiences of the past can be brought to bear adaptively on the problems of the present and the anticipation of the future.”  He further argues that family, community, and schooling are also important aspects that impact teaching and learning.  During childhood and the early adult years, these factors are extremely vital.

French believes that the “…issue should not be about nature vs. nurture, but about the potential for the relationship and interactions that exist between nurture and nature in shaping our development.”  He lists 4 factors he believes impact children’s intellectual abilities:  (1) genetic, (2) familial, (3) educational, and (4) non-familial. Genetic factors refer to the genetic makeup of the child.  Familial factors include the intellectual capacity and educational background of the child’s mother and father, as well as the quality of the home.  Non-familial factors include the quality of the community and other factors such as intellectual capacity of the child’s friends.  Educational factors include the quality of the school, teachers characteristics, school attendance, the level of achievement expectancy fostered in the school, and the nature of the learning environment to mention a few.

 He further notes Bronfenbrenner’s theory which argues for the importance of the relationships and activities a child has in his/her immediate environment as the driving force behind effective human development.  These relationships, called proximal processes, which include parent/child activities, group and solitary play, reading, learning new skills, and problem solving are the mechanisms by which genetic potential is actualized into behavior.  Hence the critical importance of the nature of the teaching/learning process, not as a stand-alone mechanism, but as one of a total approach to child rearing.

Participants

There were no participants in this study.

Important Findings/Results

The primary conclusion to be drawn from French’s report is that the issue of child development is “…not one of nature vs. nurture, but one of how nature and nurture work together to shape our development as individuals.”  This report provides hope for what can be accomplished given appropriate supports, intervention and the ability to seize opportunities to impact the initial and tentative parameters established by nature.

Significance of study

French notes that while this report provides many implications for the teaching/learning, there are three primary implications.  First, when children feel wanted and valued and when their learning environment is “meaningful, accepting, comfortable, orderly, and safe,” they become more receptive to learning.  The environment must be learner-centered.  Second, the material to be taught must be more than just content.  The material must be meaningful to the students.  Third, student assessment should focus on “…the learners’ use of knowledge and complex reasoning rather than on their recall of lower-level information.” 

What this study means to me and my current position as learner & instructor

This report seems to hint that children can be taught “how to learn” and that educators and school leaders are in a good position to impact children’s thinking and problem solving.  As a learner and instructor, I must be aware not only of how I learn best but also how my students learn best.  In addition, everyday I must also be aware of the many factors that affect my students’ learning.  These factors include physical, social, mental, and emotional changes. 

 Commentary on the case study research

The nature vs. nurture issue is very complex.  There is clearly a relationship between the way and how students learn and their environment.  We know that children born into poor families struggle (but not always).  We know that children of alcoholics become alcoholics (but not always).  We know that children of high school dropouts become dropouts themselves (but not always).   Whatever the argument, all of us can agree that both nature and nurture affect student learning.  French notes, “If we are to truly build on hope, if we are to truly focus on the inter-relationship between nature and nurture, and if we are to capitalize on the opportunities provided within the genetic parameters to impact the outcome, particularly in childhood, then we have little choice but to utilize what we know about best practices in the teaching/learning process.”

Reference

French, F. (2003).  Revisiting Nature vs. Nurture: Implications for the teaching/learning process.  Education Canada, 43(2),20-23.