The Million Dollar Question

May 24, 2015

The million dollar question: nature or nurture? This phrase has been uttered so often it is firmly rooted in the American vernacular. At this point in the discussion, I believe most people recognize that human behavior cannot be explained with just one mode of thinking. We all are born with certain tendencies that are suppressed or elicited based on our experiences.

Two psychologists, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, proposed theories of development that put forth the nature and nurture viewpoints. While Piaget's theory emphasized a set path on which children travel as they acquire and develop cognitive skills, Vygotsky's work examined the context of behaviors that will manifest cognitive development.

So who's right? Simply put: both. I do not claim to be an authority on human development; however, as a teacher of 150+ teenagers annually, I have an deep bank of anecdotes that provide observational data supporting the notion that my students should be in the early stages of the formal operational stage where they will begin embarking on abstractions but many exhibit atypical intellectual behaviors. This makes sense. We are creatures who can be easily influenced and often are; peer pressure is an effective tactic. Therefore, we may be wired to develop certain skills at certain ages, but our experiences and environment more than likely contribute to the pace students take through Piaget's stages.

This is crucial for teachers to understand, embrace, and remember because our students come from varied backgrounds and have experienced diverse situations. Some may have limited experience and therefore struggle to apply concepts to new constructs. Others may be worldly in some areas but limited in others. Because of this, it is our responsibility to cultivate relationships with our students to better understand their individual capabilities. Sometimes assessments assist us with this task, but most often, it's in the getting-to-know-you stage that can truly help illuminate a student's cognitive ability.

For me, this is one reason I find grouping students by age to be an antiquated and short-sighted practice. One thing human beings are fundamentally not is robots! So, why must we insist that all 12 year-olds possess the same skill sets or are ready for certain tasks? Are we that banal and uncreative that we couldn't devise a more fluid system for grade placement and promotion and retention whereby students are grouped based on actual abilities? To be clear, I am not proposing tracking; there is a vast difference. However, I do believe that in order for our society to properly educate our youth in this vastly diverse nation, we must work to devise some varied solutions so we truly have no child left behind. I suppose herein lies the actual million dollar question.