Shenk states that "developmental biologists...stress that all of human development is set up to be a response to problems and failures" (142). Due to this, Shenk argues that parents should not make things easier for their child but "present, monitor, and modulate challenges" (142). This idea of development as a response to problems is clearly supported by the example of "carton calculus" in which uneducated carton packers showed incredible mathematical prowess by "determin[ing] exactly which of many orders to fill in precisely which sequence so as to minimize bending over and walking" (49). However, Shenk later uses the example of John Mighton who created the "Junior Undiscovered Math Prodigies" math program to "break down math concepts into the most easily digestible form" for math students whom "get left behind at one point or another simply because they can't quite grasp one small concept" to prove that a student who initially fails can still have the potential to progress (152). This example clearly clashes with his previous point of allowing children to develop by overcoming challenges on their own without anyone intervening to make the challenge easier. Which method of development seems to be more effective? How do both ideas clearly support "dynamic development"and Gene x Environment despite being opposites of each other? Explain how both of these ideas could relate to associative learning, cognition, and problem solving discussed in Section 51.2 of Campbell and to the biological theme of evolution.
- Josh Choi (joshchoi95@yahoo.com)
The method of having a child become more independent through overcoming challenges on their own is more effective than having challenges become easier. Instead of being assisted constantly, if someone learns how to overcome challenges independently, then the quality of learning, especially cognition and problem solving, will be enhanced through personal experiences. The most complex forms of learning involve cognition, which is the process of learning through reasoning. Problem solving, the cognitive ability to devise a method to proceed in the face of obstacles, will be hindered if obstacles are simply made easier. The quality of the learning will not nearly be as effective if someone does not practice using their own methods. If parents "present, monitor, and modulate challenges" (142), then that will give room for their child to experience the full potential of the GxE development and still be within the safeguard of being monitored. But by experiencing failure independently, people would be able to undergo operant conditioning, which is trial and error learning. (Campbell 1128). By being exposed to the environment independently, a person would be able to learn on their own, solve problems their own way, and experience lessons at their own pace to be implemented in the constant struggle for survival and competition. Of course, “problem solving success varies with individual experience and abilities” and in some cases some people simply need more assistance than others (Campbell 1128). Under that circumstance would something like John Mighton’s “Junior Undiscovered Math Prodigies" math program be necessary to those students who need a more effective way to learn (152). But that student who is “initially failing” doesn’t have to resort to lowering the challenge, and they can instead overcome the challenge through their own means which would help them for future through experience. When someone gets used to having their challenges weakened, that can promote laziness, and laziness is another form of an experience that can develop over time (http://ezinearticles.com/?Laziness-is-an-Enemy-Within-You&id=1359458). Instead of promoting laziness, the method of promoting independence is more effective and practical in enriching the lessons learned through experiences with the environment without outside forces lowering real world challenges. Although people can learn by having challenges weakened, the dynamic development wouldn’t be as “dynamic” and the person can be inhibited from having a truly unique developmental path. Also, in the GxE model, the person would not be interacting with challenges naturally by themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of focusing on independence relates to evolution because natural selection will be promoted. Interacting with challenges without assistance not only increases the learning value, but also the real world implementations the lessons can be applied to. If someone is independent and used to handling challenges, then the chance of surviving or competing is far greater than someone who is used to solving challenges that were weakened. Someone who handles weakened challenges would always be dependent on outside sources instead of their own developed intelligence and skills.
(Kirk Chiu- krkpchiu@gmail.com)
Shenk argued that parents should “present, monitor, and modulate challenges” (142) for their children, so that the children will face challenges that will force them to use cognition, “the process of knowing represented by awareness, reasoning, recollection, and judgment” in the form of problem solving, the “cognitive activity of devising a method to proceed from one state to another in the face of real or apparent obstacles” (Campbell 1128). By leaving the children to these challenges independently, the children will learn critical thinking and develop problem solving skills that will be extremely crucial for development and adulthood. Through overcoming challenges independently, the child can learn his or her strengths and weaknesses, as well as understand his or her best mode of operation and learning. By not sheltering the child from challenges, the parents are preparing the child for the challenges he or she will face in the future, as well as encourage independence. As Kirk pointed out above, this de-emphasizes laziness, which can develop over time and hurt the child overall ((http://ezinearticles.com/?Laziness-is-an-Enemy-Within-You&id=1359458). If challenges are watered down, the child may not develop the necessary skills to succeed in the world. Also, if children are praised too much for overcoming an easy challenge, the children are being sheltered, as the children will just assume that challenges in the real world will be as easy as the challenges that are being presented to them at the moment.
ReplyDeleteShenk also advocates the “Junior Undiscovered Math Prodigies” to “break down math concepts into the most easily digestible form” for math students who “get left behind at one point or another simply because they can’t quite grasp one small concept” (152). Although the method above of simply leaving the challenge entirely to the challenge seems like a better idea, there needs to be a blend between these two ways of learning. This method of breaking down concepts for children may seem like it’s simply watering down challenges, as well as forcing a mode of operation on a child that does not really belong to him or her. However, at the same time, just as laziness can be established through easy challenges, discouragement can be fostered by challenges that are too hard for the child (http://www.aspeneducation.com/factsheetld.html). By expecting the child to solve the problem on his or her own, the child learns independence and new ways of thinking. However, if a child gets stuck on a certain problem or concept, and cannot get it no matter what, that child will now become discouraged. Humans have an innate need to be acknowledged and praised, and by not being able to learn that problem or concept, the child will start to shy away from the subject or field that the problem originated from. With programs such as the Junior Undiscovered Math Prodigies math program, children need to be prodded to get the right answer. The challenge must first be lowered so that the child will regain confidence. Then the challenges can get harder and harder, but should not get insurmountable. As well as encouraging to child to not give up, this method will open the child up to different ways of thinking. The way of thinking may not completely belong to the child. However, the child may incorporate certain points of the way of thinking into their own way, thus expanding their arsenal of problem solving abilities.
PART ONE
Annie Lee (xxannie.leexx@yahoo.com)
In this way, I think David Shenk is correct in recommending both methods. With the first method, children are given challenges that they must overcome independently, without actually watering down the challenge. With the incorporation of the second method, children are not discouraged and expand their skills. Animals also evolve by overcoming challenges. When animals take care of their young, they teach the skills to the offspring and then let the offspring try for themselves. The offspring will eventually acquire the skill through practice and guidance. However, if it’s too hard, the parent will offer some guidance and assistance and build up the challenges. Humans must also be careful to not discourage children and deprive them a chance to excel in that field.
DeletePART TWO
Annie Lee (xxannie.leexx@yahoo.com)
I believe that there is no absolute right or wrong way to encourage learning and development and that each case should be treated differently. For example, if, as Kirk asserted, parents only “let [their kids] learn to deal with frustration” on their own, then it is quite likely that many kids will simply give up, thus not benefitting learning at all without the proper motivation (142). However, in certain cases where kids have the self-motivation to push through the initial failures, such as Michael Jordan, then merely “present[ing], monitor[ing], and modulat[ing] [these] challenges” would prove more effective (142). Ultimately, systems such as the Junior Undiscovered Math Prodigies program can prove beneficial to kids’ cognitive abilities so long as they encourage “cognitive activity” and an increased “information-processing ability” without merely spoon-feeding knowledge (Campbell 1128). Furthermore, “emotional support” through failure has been seen to have “positive effects” on “problem solving” in kids (Leerkes http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=105&sid=71045666-3895-44e3-ab17-f11b53a57275%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=67196368).
ReplyDeleteRegardless of a parent’s method (either letting their child learn independently or providing solutions to their child upon encountering obstacles), Shenk’s argument of the relationship between genes and the environment is still supported. The potential for cognitive learning is either suppressed or promoted based on the parental response. If parents allow their children to labor through their own problems, then the children are more likely to have increased cognitive activity, whereas if parents provide solutions for their children, cognitive activity and problem solving will not be as prevalent. The cognitive abilities in children relate to evolution in that problem solving and increased cognition are selective advantages and the foundation for the process of intelligence. Even with the “good” genes, if the proper environment is not provided to develop problem solving skills then one’s intelligence will not reach its full potential. Teaching independence at an early age allows for the better chance of overcoming real life challenges later in life, ultimately enabling humans to compete with their peers in the future and survive and reproduce.
David Ribot (ribotdavid@gmail.com)