Development: Instructional Applications

Developmental theories and principles proffer a multiplicity of avenues for the consideration of developmental disparities within the ambit of instruction. In an earlier section of this chapter, we undertook an examination of developmentally apposite instruction and the instructional ramifications attendant upon Bruner’s theoretical framework. The present lesson shall encompass learning styles, Case’s instructional model, and the interactions subsisting between pedagogue and pupil.

Many a scholar, deeply engrossed in the characteristics of the learner, hath explored what are termed 'learning styles' (also known as cognitive or intellectual styles), which constitute stable individual variations in the perception, organisation, processing, and retention of information (Shipman & Shipman, 1985). These styles represent individuals' preferred manners of processing information and addressing tasks (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005); they are not, however, synonymous with abilities. Abilities pertain to the capacities to learn and execute skills; styles, on the other hand, are the habitual means of processing and utilising information.

Styles are inferred from consistent individual differences in the organisation and processing of information across diverse tasks (Messick, 1984). To the extent that styles exert influence upon cognition, affects, and behaviour, they serve to link cognitive, affective, and social functioning (Messick, 1994). Furthermore, stylistic differences are associated with variations in learning and receptivity to sundry forms of instruction (Messick, 1984).

This section shall address three styles—field dependence–independence, categorisation, and cognitive tempo—each possessing a substantial research base and bearing significant educational implications. It is to be noted that many other styles exist, including leveling or sharpening (blurring or accentuating differences among stimuli), risk taking or cautiousness (high or low willingness to take chances to achieve goals), and sensory modality preference (enactive or kinesthetic, iconic or visual, symbolic or auditory; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Tobias, 1994). A widely employed style inventory is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1988), which purports to identify individuals' preferred means of seeking out learning environments and attending to elements therein. Its four dimensions are extroversion–introversion, sensing–intuitive, thinking–feeling, and judging–perceiving. The reader is directed to Zhang and Sternberg (2005) for more exhaustive descriptions of other such styles.

Styles furnish invaluable insights into cognitive development. One may also relate styles to broader behavioural patterns to investigate personality development (e.g., Myers-Briggs). Educators investigate styles with the aim of devising complementary learning environments and instructing students in more adaptive styles to enhance both learning and motivation. Moreover, styles are pertinent to brain development and its functions.

Field Dependence–Independence

Field dependence–independence (also denominated psychological differentiation, global and analytical functioning) relateth to the extent to which one dependeth upon, or is distracted by, the context or perceptual field in which a stimulus or event doth occur (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). The construct was identified and principally researched by Witkin (1969; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977).

Diverse measures ascertain reliance upon perceptual context. One such is the Rod-and-Frame test, wherein the individual attempteth to align a tilted luminous rod in an upright position within a tilted luminous frame—inside a dark room devoid of other perceptual cues. Field independence originally was defined as the ability to align the rod upright using only an internal standard of uprightness. Other measures are the Embedded Figures test, wherein one attempteth to locate a simpler figure embedded within a more complex design, and the Body Adjustment test, wherein the individual sitteth in a tilted chair in a tilted room and attempteth to align the chair upright. Participants who can readily locate figures and align themselves upright are classified as field independent.

Young children primarily are field dependent, but an increase in field independence commenceth during preschool and extendeth into adolescence. Children’s individual preferences remain reasonably consistent over time. The data are less clear upon gender differences. Albeit some data suggest that older male students are more field independent than older female students, research upon children sheweth that girls are more field independent than boys. Whether these differences reflect cognitive style or some other construct that contributeth to test performance (e.g., activity–passivity) is not clear.

Witkin et al. (1977) noted that field dependent and independent learners do not differ in learning ability but may respond differently to learning environments and content. Inasmuch as field dependent persons may be more sensitive to and attend carefully to aspects of the social environment, they are better at learning material with social content; however, field independent learners can readily learn such content when it is brought to their attention. Field dependent learners seem sensitive to teacher praise and criticism. Field independent persons are more prone to impose structure when material lacketh organisation; field dependent learners consider material as it is. With poorly structured material, field dependent learners may be at a disadvantage. They utilise salient features of situations in learning, whereas field independent learners also consider less-salient cues. The latter students may be at an advantage with concept learning when relevant and irrelevant attributes are contrasted.

These differences suggesteth ways for instructors to alter instructional methods. If field dependent learners miss cues, instructors should highlight them to assist students in distinguishing relevant features of concepts. This may be especially important with children who are beginning readers as they focus upon letter features. Evidence indicateth that field dependent learners have more trouble during early stages of reading (Sunshine & DiVesta, 1976).

Categorisation Style

Categorisation style doth pertain to the criteria employed to perceive objects as possessing a similarity to one another (Sigel & Brodzinsky, 1977). The style is assessed by way of a grouping task, wherein one must needs group objects based upon perceived resemblance. This is not a straightforward undertaking, inasmuch as objects may be categorised in sundry manners. From a collection of depictions of beasts, one might elect a feline, a canine, and a rabbit, and offer as the rationale for their grouping that they be mammals, possess fur, are capable of locomotion, and suchlike. The categorisation style revealeth information concerning how the individual doth prefer to organise information.

Three archetypes of categorisation styles exist: relational, descriptive, and categorical (Kagan, Moss, & Sigel, 1960). A relational (contextual) style doth link items upon a theme or function (e.g., spatial, temporal); a descriptive (analytic) style doth involve grouping by similarity according to some detail or physical attribute; a categorical (inferential) style doth classifie objects as instances of a superordinate concept. In the aforementioned example, “mammals,” “fur,” and “locomotion” represent categorical, descriptive, and relational styles, respectively.

Preschoolers’ categorisations tend toward the descriptive; natheless, relational responses of the thematic ilk are also prevalent (Sigel & Brodzinsky, 1977). Researchers have noted a developmental trend toward a greater employment of descriptive and categorical classifications, coupled with a decline in relational responses.

Style and academic achievement are interrelated, albeit the direction of causation remaineth obscure (Shipman & Shipman, 1985). Reading, for instance, doth necessitate the perception of analytic relations (e.g., fine discriminations); however, the types of discriminations enacted are as vital as the faculty to perform such discriminations. Students are instructed in the former. Style and achievement may influence one another. Certain styles may conduce to superior achievement, and the resultant rewards, perceptions of progress, and self-efficacy may reinforce one’s continued employment of the style.

Cognitive Tempo

Cognitive (conceptual, response) tempo hath been extensively researched by Kagan (1966; Kagan, Pearson, & Welch, 1966). Kagan, whilst investigating categorisation, observed that some children responded with rapidity, whereas others were more thoughtful and tarried longer. Cognitive tempo referreth to the willingness “to pause and reflect upon the accuracy of hypotheses and solutions in a situation of response uncertainty” (Shipman & Shipman, 1985, p. 251).

Kagan developed the Matching Familiar Figures (MFF) test for use with children. The MFF is a 12-item match-to-standard test wherein a standard figure is shown with six possible matches, one of which is perfect. The dependent variables are time to the first response on each item and total errors across all items. Reflective children score above the median on time (longer) but below the median on errors (fewer), whereas impulsive children display the opposite pattern. Two other groups of children are fast-accurate (below the median on both measures) and slow-inaccurate (above the median on both measures).

Children become more reflective with development, particularly in the early school years (Sigel & Brodzinsky, 1977). Evidence doth suggest differing rates of development for boys and girls, with girls exhibiting greater reflectivity at an earlier age.

Differences in tempo are unrelated to intelligence scores but correlate with school achievement. Messer (1970) discovered that children not promoted to the next grade were more impulsive than peers who were promoted. Reflective children tend to perform better on moderately difficult perceptual and conceptual problem-solving tasks and make mature judgments on concept attainment and analogical reasoning tasks (Shipman & Shipman, 1985). Reflectivity beareth a positive relationship to prose reading, serial recall, and spatial perspective-taking (Sigel & Brodzinsky, 1977). Impulsive children often are less attentive and more disruptive than reflective children, oriented toward quick success, and demonstrate low performance standards and mastery motivation (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997).

Given the educational relevance of cognitive tempo, many have suggested training children to be less impulsive. Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971) discovered that self-instructional training decreased errors amongst impulsive children. Modelled demonstrations of reflective cognitive style, combined with student practice and feedback, seem important as a means of change.

Cognitive styles appear important for teaching and learning, and a fair amount of developmental research existeth that may help guide attempts by practitioners to apply findings to improve students’ adaptive functioning. For example, learners with a visual-spatial style are better able to process and learn from graphical displays (Vekiri, 2002). At the same time, drawing instructional conclusions from the literature can be difficult (Miller, 1987). The distinction between cognitive styles and abilities is tenuous and controversial (Tiedemann, 1989); field independence may be synonymous with aspects of intelligence (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). A continuing issue is whether styles are individual traits (relatively permanent) or states (alterable). If styles are ability driven, then attempts to alter styles may meet with less success than if styles are acquired and subject to change. Recent research hath investigated the organisation of styles within information processing frameworks and within the structure of human personality (Messick, 1994; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005).

Ideally the conditions of instruction will match learners’ styles; however, this match often doth not occur. Learners may need to adapt their styles and preferred modes of working to instructional conditions involving content and teaching methods. Self-regulation methods help learners adapt to changing instructional conditions.

Instructional conditions can be tailored to individual differences to provide equal learning opportunities for all students despite differences in aptitudes, styles, and so forth (Corno & Snow, 1986; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996). Teachers control many aspects of the instructional environment, which they can tailor to student differences. These aspects include organisational structure (whole-class, small-group, individual), regular and supplementary materials, use of technology, type of feedback, and type of material presented (tactile, auditory, visual). Teachers also make adaptations when they provide remedial instruction to students who have difficulty grasping new material.

Cognitive Tempo

Case (1978a, 1978b, 1981) propounded a structural stage model of development to explicate changes in cognitive information processing capabilities. Case's stages (approximate age ranges) and their defining characteristics are thus (Meece, 2002): sensory motor (birth to 1.5 years)—mental representations linked to physical movements; relational (1.5 to 5 years)—relations coordinated along one dimension (e.g., weight is heavy or light); dimensional (5 to 11 years)—relations coordinated along two dimensions (e.g., height and weight compared); abstract (11 to 18.5 years)—use of abstract reasoning.

Structural changes (i.e., movement to new stages) are linked with the development of cognitive strategies and memory processes. Cognitive development encompasses the acquisition of efficient strategies for processing information. Development engenders an augmentation in the size of WM. As strategies become more efficient (automatic), they consume less WM space, which liberates space for acquiring new strategies.

Case emphasised providing instruction to assist students in processing information more automatically. One first identifies the learning goal and the steps through which learners must proceed to attain the goal. During instruction, demands on WM are reduced by not presenting an excess of new material at once and by dissecting each complex step into simpler steps.

This process may be elucidated with missing addend problems of the form (Case, 1978b). The requisite steps are as follows:

• Read symbols from left to right.
• Note that the quantity to be found is one of the two addends.
• Decide that the known addend must be subtracted from the known total.
• Note and store value of the given addend.
• Note and store value of the total.
• Perform the subtraction. (p. 214)

Children commonly commit two types of strategy errors in solving the aforementioned problem: (a) They give either 4 or 7 as the answer, seemingly by first observing the symbols and reading one of them, then copying this symbol as the answer; and (b) they add the two given numbers to get 11 by performing the following strategy:

• Look at and store the first symbol.
• Count out that many (on fingers).
• Look at and store the second symbol.
• Count out that many.
• Count out the total number.
• Write this number as the answer.

To demonstrate to children that their strategies are incorrect, a teacher might employ faces. A full face is placed on one side of an equal sign and a half face on the other. Children perceive that these faces are not the same. Then a full face is portrayed on one side of the equal sign and two half faces on the other side, where one half face has markings on it and the other is blank. Children fill in the markings on the blank half to render it the same as the full face. Eventually numerical symbols are introduced to replace the faces.

Case (1978a) cited evidence demonstrating that the preceding method is more effective than either structured practice or traditional instruction. Case's model has been applied to the design of instruction and other areas such as assessment and early childhood education (Case, 1993). One drawback of the theory is the time required to diagnose, analyse, and plan. The model may be most useful for students requiring remedial assistance because they tend to utilise inefficient strategies and have WM limitations.

Through their interactions with pupils, pedagogues are enabled to tailor instruction to the developmental distinctions inherent in the young (Meece, 2002). The attention of younger children may be readily captured by displays of a novel and intriguing nature, whilst simultaneously minimising any extraneous distractions. It is of considerable benefit to furnish opportunities for physical movement, and to maintain the brevity of activities, thereby sustaining the concentration of the children. Furthermore, youthful scholars derive benefit from tangible objects and visual representations (e.g., manipulatives, pictures). It may be incumbent upon the pedagogue to elucidate the manner in which the knowledge being imparted correlates to that which the pupils already possess. The children ought to be encouraged to employ outlines and pictures in order to facilitate the organisation of information. Rendering learning meaningful (as Lucia commendably advocated in the prefatory scenario), such as by relating it to real-life experiences, serves to construct the children's mnemonic networks. Other salient aspects of interactions encompass feedback and the prevailing atmosphere within the classroom.

Feedback

Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) did commend that pedagogues furnish performance feedback (e.g., “Correct,” “Good”) and uphold the momentum of the lesson when pupils commit errors, by imparting corrective feedback, yet refraining from a complete re-explication of the process. Re-teaching is warranted in instances where a multitude of pupils do not apprehend the material. When conducting lessons, pedagogues ought to maintain brevity in interactions with younger pupils (30 seconds or fewer) when such interactions are purposed to guide them towards the correct answer by way of hints or simple queries. Protracted contacts occasion a lapse in the attention of other pupils.

Re-teaching and guiding pupils towards correct answers constitute efficacious methods of promoting learning (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). The posing of simpler questions and the provision of hints are advantageous when contacts can be maintained succinctly. Re-teaching proves beneficial when a considerable number of pupils commit errors during a lesson. Feedback apprising pupils that answers are correct serves as motivation, inasmuch as it denotes that the pupils are becoming increasingly competent and are capable of further learning (Schunk, 1995). Feedback indicative of an error may also cultivate self-efficacy if it is succeeded by corrective information on how to perform in a more proficient manner. Younger pupils derive benefit from frequent feedback.

Likewise, other interactions encompassing rewards, goals, contracts, and so forth must be linked to pupil progress. For instance, rewards associated with progress foster self-efficacy (Schunk, 1983e). In the case of children, progress is optimally indicated by short-term tasks. Rewards conferred merely for participation, irrespective of the level of performance, may in actuality convey negative efficacy information. Pupils may harbour doubts as to their capacity to perform in a more superior fashion.

Classroom Climate

Teachers, it is posited, play a crucial role in establishing a classroom climate which exerts a notable influence upon interactions. The emotional facets of teacher–student interactions are of considerable importance for the young scholars. A salutary classroom climate, characterised by teacherly warmth and sensitivity, is demonstrably associated with enhanced academic achievement and superior self-regulation amongst elementary students (Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008).

A classic study, conducted by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939), hath elucidated the efficacy of a democratic (collaborative) leadership style. The pedagogue engages cooperatively with the students, thus motivating them to diligent work upon their assigned tasks, posing pertinent questions, and encouraging the sharing of their intellectual notions. Albeit an authoritarian style (strict, with rigid rules and procedures) may elevate academic attainment, such classrooms are often characterised by elevated anxiety levels, and productivity suffers acutely in the absence of the instructor. A laissez-faire style, wherein the teacher affords scant classroom direction, oft results in profligate employment of time and aimless activities. Democratic leadership, conversely, fosters independence and initiative within the students, who continue to labour productively even in the pedagogue's absence.

Teacher–student interactions frequently encompass praise and criticism. A substantial body of literature exists concerning the effects of these variables upon student behaviour.

Praise transcends mere feedback concerning the accuracy of work or appropriateness of behaviour, inasmuch as it conveys positive teacherly affect and imparts information pertaining to the worth of students' behaviours (Brophy, 1981). Ergo, an instructor who articulates, “Correct, your work is so good,” furnishes both performance feedback (“Correct”) and praise (“Your work is so good”).

Brophy (1981) conducted a review of research pertaining to teacherly praise and discovered that it doth not invariably reinforce desirable behaviour (Chapter 3), given that instructors oft do not administer it contingent upon student responses. Rather, it may be infrequent, noncontingent, general, and highly dependent upon the instructors' perceptions of students' need for praise. Numerous studies further demonstrate that praise bears no strong relation to student achievement (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). The effects of praise, it would appear, are contingent upon developmental level, socio-economic status, and aptitude. In the early elementary grades, praise correlates weakly, albeit positively, with achievement amongst low SES and low-ability students, but weakly and negatively, or not at all, with achievement amongst high SES and high-ability students (Brophy, 1981).

Subsequent to the initial few grades in the school environment, praise constitutes a feeble reinforcer. Up to approximately the age of eight, children harbour a desire to please adults, which renders the effects of praise potent; yet this desire to please weakens with development. Praise may, moreover, exert unintended consequences. Inasmuch as it conveys information pertaining to instructors' beliefs, instructors who lavish praise upon students for success may inadvertently convey that they do not anticipate significant learning from the said students. Students may thus surmise that the instructor regards them as possessing limited aptitude, which may negatively impact motivation and learning (Weiner et al., 1983).

When linked to demonstrable progress in learning, praise substantiates students' beliefs that they are becoming increasingly competent and elevates self-efficacy and motivation for learning. Praise employed indiscriminately conveys no information concerning capabilities and exerts little effect upon behaviour (Schunk et al., 2008).

Criticism furnishes information concerning the undesirability of student behaviours. Criticism (“I’m disappointed in you”) is distinguished from performance feedback (“That’s wrong”). Intriguingly, research suggests that criticism is not necessarily deleterious (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). One might reasonably expect that criticism's effect upon achievement shall depend upon the extent to which it conveys that students are competent and capable of performing better with greater effort or superior application of strategies. Ergo, a statement such as, “I’m disappointed in you. I know you can do better if you work harder” may motivate students to learn inasmuch as it contains positive self-efficacy information. As with praise, other variables temper the effects of criticism. Some research suggests that criticism is dispensed more frequently to boys, African American students, students for whom instructors hold low expectations, and students of lower SES status (Brophy & Good, 1974).

As a motivational technique intended to aid learning, criticism is perhaps not a judicious choice, given its potential for variable effects. Younger children may misinterpret academic criticism to signify that the instructor does not hold them in affection or is unkind. Certain students respond favourably to criticism. In general, however, instructors are better advised to furnish positive feedback concerning means of improving performance than to criticise present performance.

Development doth signify alterations o'er time, pursuing an orderly fashion and enhancing survival. These alterations be progressive and transpire during the life's span. Development be intimately linked with learning, for at any juncture, the developmental level doth impose constraints upon learning.

The scientific study o' human development commenced in the late 1800s. Major societal changes occurred through technological advancements and influxes o' immigrants. Society did require teachers and schools to educate many students from diverse backgrounds. Drawing from psychology and philosophy, many educators banded together under the loosely organised Child Study Movement. Early efforts at child study generated research and did provide implications o' development for teachers and parents, but the broad agenda o' the Child Study Movement eventually was replaced by behaviourism and other theories.

Researchers hold many perspectives on development: biological, psychoanalytic, behavioural, cognitive, and contextual. Regardless o' perspective, certain issues exist that developmental theories address, including the role o' heredity, the stability o' developmental periods, the continuity o' processes, the role o' learner activity, and the locus o' developmental changes (structures or functions).

Structural theories include Chomsky's psycholinguistic theory, classical information processing theory, and Piaget's theory. These theories postulate that development doth involve alterations in cognitive structures. Information that is learned can help to alter the structures. Piaget's, Vygotsky's, and many other theories o' development reflect a constructivist perspective, for they postulate that knowledge is not acquired automatically, but rather that learners construct their own understandings.

Bruner's theory o' cognitive growth doth discuss the ways that learners represent knowledge: enactively, iconically, and symbolically. He advocated the spiral curriculum, wherein subject matter be periodically revisited with increasing cognitive development and student understanding.

Many developmental researchers study how information processing doth alter as a function o' experiences and schooling. Developmental changes be seen especially in the functions o' attention, encoding, retrieval, metacognition, and self-regulation. Cognitive developmental theory and research hold implications for designing developmentally appropriate instruction and for helping to ease transitions in schooling.

Family influences on development include socioeconomic status (SES), home environment, parental involvement, and electronic media. SES relates to school socialisation, attendance, and years o' schooling. Higher SES families possess greater capital and provide more and richer opportunities for children. Early interventions for low-SES families help prepare children for school. Home environment effects on cognitive development be most pronounced in infancy and early childhood. As children become older, their social networks expand, and peers become more important. Parents can launch children onto trajectories by involving them in groups and activities. Parents' expectations for children relate positively to their achievement. Comer's School Development Program doth involve parents and community members in school planning. Children learn from electronic media, and moderate exposure to educational media be associated with better cognitive development and achievement. Parents and caregivers who view media with children can help to promote children's learning.

With development, motivation doth become more differentiated and complex; children's understanding o' motivational processes (e.g., goals, social comparisons) and levels o' motivation doth alter; there be better correspondence between children's values, beliefs, and goals and their choices and performances; and long-term motivation becomes important. Children be motivated by short-term, specific goals and comparisons o' progress in performance. With development, breaking tasks into subgoals and self-evaluations o' progress become more motivating.

Developmental theories suggest that instruction be tailored to take differences into account. Students do differ in their preferred learning styles. Teachers can take stylistic differences into account by ensuring that information be conveyed in multiple ways and that student activities be varied. Case's model be a structural account o' alterations in information processing capabilities. The model doth emphasise helping students process information more automatically. After learners' initial knowledge be assessed, learning goals and task sequences be specified to move learners to greater proficiency. Teacher-student interactions should reflect developmental changes. Teachers who structure feedback and provide a positive classroom climate—which includeth effectively using praise and criticism—help motivate students and improve their learning.