Family Influences (Development)

It is manifest that numerous contextual determinants exert an influence upon the trajectory of development, a salient proportion of which are discernible within the familial milieu. Whilst intuition dictates that families wield a considerable sway over the cognitive and affective maturation of offspring, certain detractors posit that the significance of the familial role has been unduly magnified (Harris, 1998). Notwithstanding, empirical investigations are progressively substantiating the contention that families do indeed effect a discernible difference, frequently one of considerable magnitude (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Pre-eminent amongst these influences upon development and erudition are the socio-economic standing, the domestic environment, parental engagement, and the pervasiveness of electronic media.

Definition

Socioeconomic status (SES) hath been defined in sundry manners, with definitions typically comprising social standing (position, rank) and economic indicators (wealth, education). Many a researcher hath considered three prime indicators in determining SES: parental income, education, and occupation (Sirin, 2005). Increasingly, investigators are stressing the notion of capital (resources, assets) (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Capital includeth such indices as financial or material resources (e.g., income and assets), human or nonmaterial resources (e.g., education), and social resources (e.g., those obtained through social networks and connections) (Putnam, 2000). Each of these would seem to potentially affect children’s development and learning.

However SES is defined, it is of import to remember that it is a descriptive variable, not an explanatory one (Schunk et al., 2008). To declare that children lag in development because they are from indigent families doth not explain why they lag in development. Rather, the factors that typically accompany indigent families may be responsible for the developmental difficulties. Conversely, not all children from indigent families lag in development. There exist countless tales of successful adults who were raised in impoverished conditions. It therefore is more meaningful to speak of a relation between SES and development and then seek out the responsible factors.

SES and Development

There existeth much correlational evidence showing that poverty and low parental education relate to poorer development and learning (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). What is less clear is which aspects of SES are responsible for this relation.

Undoubtedly family resources are critical. Families with less education, money, and social connections cannot provide many resources that help to stimulate children’s cognitive development. Compared with wealthier families, poorer families cannot furnish their children with computers, books, games, travel, and cultural experiences. Regardless of their perspective, developmental theorists agree that the richness of experiences is central to cognitive development. On this count, then, it is little wonder that SES relateth to cognitive development.

Another factor is socialisation. Schools and classrooms possess a middle-class orientation, and there exist accepted rules and procedures that children must follow to succeed (e.g., pay attention, perform thy work, study, and work cooperatively with others). Socialisation influences in lower-SES homes may not match or prepare students for these conditions (Schunk et al., 2008). To the extent that this occurs, lower-SES children may have more discipline and behaviour problems in school and not learn as well.

SES also relateth to school attendance and years of schooling (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). SES is related positively to school achievement (Sirin, 2005), and is, unhappily, one of the best predictors of school dropout. Lower SES children may not understand the benefits of schooling (Meece, 2002); they may not realise that more education leadeth to better jobs, more income, and a better lifestyle than they have experienced. They may be drawn by immediate short-term benefits of leaving school (e.g., money from working full-time) and not be swayed by potential long-term assets. In their home environments, they may not have positive role models displaying the benefits of schooling or parental encouragement to remain in school.

The relation of SES to cognitive development seemeth complex, with some factors contributing directly and others serving a moderating influence (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Its predictive value also may vary by group. For example, SES is a stronger predictor of academic achievement for White students than for minority students (Sirin, 2005). SES hath been implicated as a factor contributing to the achievement gap between White and minority children. Gaps exist when children enter kindergarten. The White–Hispanic American gap narroweth in kindergarten and first grade (perhaps because of Hispanic American children’s increasing English language proficiency) and then stayeth steady through fifth grade; however, the White–African American gap continueth to widen through fifth grade (Reardon & Galindo, 2009).

Whilst the effects of material, human, and social capital seem clear, the influence of other factors may be indirect. For example, large families are not inherently beneficial or harmful to cognitive development and achievement. But in deprived conditions they may be harmful as already scarce resources are spread amongst more children.

The literature suggesteth that early educational interventions for children from low-SES families are critical to ensuring that they are prepared for schooling. One of the best known early intervention efforts is Project Head Start, a federally funded program for preschool children (3- to 5-year-olds) from low income families across the United States. Head Start programs provide preschool children with intensive educational experiences, as well as social, medical, and nutritional services. Most programs also include a parent education and involvement component (Washington & Bailey, 1995).

Early evaluations of Head Start indicated that programs were able to produce shortterm gains in IQ scores. Compared to comparable groups of children who had not attended Head Start, they also performed better on cognitive measures in kindergarten and first grade (Lazar, Darlington, Murray, Royce, & Snipper, 1982). Although Head Start children lost this advantage by ages 10 and 17, other measures of program effectiveness indicated that participants were less likely to be retained, to receive special education, and to drop out of high school than nonparticipants (Lazar et al., 1982). Providing Head Start teachers with training and professional development on practices to enhance children’s literacy and socioemotional skills can lead to gains in children’s social problem-solving skills (Bierman et al., 2008).

Home and family factors can affect outcomes for Head Start participants. Robinson, Lanzi, Weinburg, Ramey, and Ramey (2002) identified at the end of third grade the top achieving 3% of 5,400 children in the National Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Project. Compared with the remaining children, these children came from families that had more resources (capital). These families also endorsed more positive parenting attitudes, more strongly supported and encouraged their children’s academic progress, and volunteered more often in their children’s schools. Teachers reported these children as more motivated to succeed academically. Although there were not strong differences in children’s ratings of motivational variables, fewer children in the top 3% group rated school negatively compared with the remaining children. Thus, among low-income groups as well as the general population, greater parental support and better home resources are associated with achievement and motivational benefits for children.

Encouraged by the success of Head Start, many states today are running prekindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year-olds under the auspices of public schools to reduce the number of children failing in the early grades (Clifford, Early, & Hill, 1999). Most programs are half day and vary with regard to teacher–student ratios, socioeconomic and ethnic diversity, quality, and curricula. Early evaluations of these programs are promising. Children enrolled in prekindergarten programs tend to improve on standardised measures of language and mathematics skills (FPG Child Development Institute, 2005). The long-term benefits of these programs are not yet known.

One highly effective preschool program for low income children was the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Initiated in 1962, this program predated Head Start. In this two-year program, 3- and 4-year-old children received a half-day cognitively oriented program based on Piaget’s principles (Oden, Schweinhart, & Weikart, 2000). Teachers also made weekly 90-minute home visits to each mother and child to review classroom activities and to discuss similar activities in the home. Longitudinal data collected over 25 years revealed that the High/Scope program improved children’s school achievement, reduced their years in special education, reduced the likelihood of grade retention, and increased the years of school completed (Oden et al., 2000; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997).

Unhappily, the effects of such early interventions do not always persist over time as children progress in school, but there are promising results. Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal, and Ramey (2001) evaluated the Abecedarian Project, a full-time educational child-care project for children from low-income families. These researchers found that the benefits of the intervention persisted through the last evaluation when many of the children had attained age 21. Given the longitudinal nature of this project (it began when the participants were infants), it is difficult to determine when and how it better prepared them to work in school environments. SES is an active area of developmental research, and we are sure to learn more as researchers attempt to unravel these complexities.

The opulence of domestic environments doth exhibit considerable variance, and 'tis generally (albeit not invariably) commensurate with Socioeconomic Status. Certain abodes furnish experiences replete with economic capital (to wit, computers, games, and books), human capital (parents assisting children with their home-work, projects, and studies), and social capital (parents, through social connections, engaging children in activities and teams). Other habitations are deficient in one or more of these selfsame respects.

The consequences of the domestic environment upon cognitive development appear most pronounced during infancy and early childhood (Meece, 2002). Children's social networks expand as they advance in years, most notably as a result of schooling and participation in sundry activities; the sway of peers waxeth increasingly potent with development.

There exists a plethora of evidence suggesting that the quality of early home learning is positively correlated with the unfolding of intelligence (Schunk et al., 2008). Pertinent domestic factors encompass the mother's responsiveness, disciplinary approach, and the child's engagement; the organisation prevalent within the home; the availability of stimulating materials; and the opportunities afforded for interaction. Parents who cultivate a warm and responsive domestic atmosphere tend to encourage their children's explorations, stimulating their curiosity and play, thereby accelerating intellectual development (Meece, 2002). Hoff (2003) ascertained that children from higher Socioeconomic Strata exhibited greater vocabulary growth compared to those from the middle Socioeconomic Strata, a disparity largely attributable to the characteristics of the mothers' discourse.

The escalating influence of peers was evinced in longitudinal research undertaken by Steinberg, Brown, and Dornbusch (1996). Over a decennial period, these researchers surveyed upwards of 20,000 adolescents from high schools in diverse locales and interviewed numerous pedagogues and parents. These authors discovered that the sway of peers burgeoned throughout childhood, culminating around grades 8 and 9, subsequently waning somewhat during the high school years. A critical period of influence transpires roughly between the ages of 12 and 16. It is noteworthy that this epoch coincides with a decline in parental involvement in children's activities. With parental engagement diminishing and peer involvement augmenting, early adolescents become particularly susceptible to peer pressures.

These authors further tracked students over a triennial period, from their matriculation into high school until their senior year. Unsurprisingly, those students who belonged to more academically inclined coteries achieved greater success in their scholastic pursuits compared with those in less academically oriented circles. Those who entered high school within the former cohort but subsequently diverged therefrom also manifested diminished academic performance.

Albeit parents lack absolute dominion over the coteries with which their children associate, they may exert indirect influence by guiding them in appropriate directions. For example, parents who exhort their children to partake in activities wherein the offspring of other like-minded parents participate are steering them towards salutary peer influence, irrespective of their choice of friends. Parents who proffer their domicile as a welcoming haven for friends further chaperone their children along propitious paths.

Harris (1998) did indeed depreciate the influence of parents upon their progeny past infancy, concluding that peers exert a far greater effect; howbeit, there exists substantial evidence that parental influence doth persist strongly well past infancy (Vandell, 2000). This section shall consider the role of parental involvement in children's pursuits, which constitute a key determinant in influencing cognitive development (Meece, 2002). Such involvement transpires both within and without the domestic sphere, such as at school and during extracurricular activities.

Research doth demonstrate that parental involvement in schools exerts a salutary impact upon children, teachers, and the school itself (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Doan Holbein, 2005; Hill & Craft, 2003; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002). These effects may, however, vary by group, inasmuch as parent involvement effects appear more pronounced among White students than among minority students (Lee & Bowen, 2006).

One effect of parental involvement, as hath been noted above, is that parents can be influential in setting their children upon particular trajectories by involving them in groups and activities (Steinberg et al., 1996). For instance, parents who desire their children to be academically inclined are likely to involve them in activities that emphasise academic pursuits.

Fan and Chen (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of research concerning the relation of parental involvement to children's academic attainments. The results did reveal that parents' expectations for their children's academic successes bore a positive relation to their actual cognitive achievements. The relation was most pronounced when academic attainment was assessed globally (e.g., GPA) rather than by subject-specific indicators (e.g., grade in a particular class). There exists also evidence that parental involvement effects on children's achievement are greatest when there obtaineth a high level of parental involvement in the neighbourhood (Collins et al., 2000).

Parental involvement is a critical determinant in influencing children's self-regulation, which is central to the development of cognitive functioning. Research by Stright, Neitzel, Sears, and Hoke-Sinex (2001) found that the type of instruction parents provide and how they provide it relate to children's subsequent self-regulation in school. Children of parents who provided understandable metacognitive information displayed greater classroom monitoring, participation, and metacognitive discourse. Children's seeking and attending to classroom instruction were also related to whether parents' instruction was given in an understandable manner. These authors did suggest that parental instruction helpeth to create the proper conditions for their children to develop self-regulatory competence.

Positive effects of parental involvement have been obtained in research with ethnic minority children and those from impoverished environments (Hill & Craft, 2003; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Masten et al., 1999). Certain forms of parents' involvement that make a difference are contacting the school anent their children, attending school functions, communicating strong educational values to their children, conveying the value of effort, expecting children to perform well in school, and monitoring or assisting children with homework and projects. Miliotis, Sesma, and Masten (1999) found that after families left homeless shelters, high parental involvement in children's education was one of the best predictors of children's school success.

Researchers have investigated the role of parenting styles on children's development. Baumrind (1989) did distinguish three styles: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive. Authoritative parents furnish children with warmth and support. They hold high demands (e.g., expectations for achievement), but support these through good communication, explanations, and encouragement of independence. Authoritarian parents are strict and assert power. They are neither warm nor responsive. Permissive parents are moderately responsive but are lax in demands (e.g., expectations) and tolerant of misbehaviour. Not surprisingly, much research doth show a positive relation between authoritative parenting and student achievement (Spera, 2005).

One of the strongest advocates of community and parental involvement in education is James Comer. Comer and his colleagues did commence the School Development Program in two schools, and it hath now spread to more than 500.

Principles of the School Development Program (SDP)

• Children's behaviours are determined by their interactions with the physical, social, and psychological environments.
• Children need positive interactions with adults to develop adequately.
• Child-centred planning and collaboration among adults facilitate positive interactions.
• Planning for child development should be done collaboratively by professional and community members.

The SDP (or Comer Program) is based on the principles shewn in Inclusion 'Principles of the School Development Program (SDP)' (Comer, 2001; Comer & Haynes, 1999; Emmons, Comer, & Haynes, 1996). Children need positive interactions with adults inasmuch as these help to form their behaviours. Planning for child development should be a collaborative effort between professionals and community members.

Three guiding principles of SDP are consensus, collaboration, and no-fault (Schunk et al., 2008). Decisions are arrived at by consensus to discourage taking sides for critical votes. Collaboration doth mean working as part of a team. No-fault doth imply that everyone is responsible for change.

School staff and community members are grouped into teams. The School Planning and Management Team doth include the building principal, teachers, parents, and support staff. This team doth plan and coordinate activities. The Parent Team doth involve parents in all school activities. The Student and Staff Support Team is responsible for schoolwide prevention issues and individual student cases.

At the core of the SDP is a comprehensive school plan with such components as curriculum, instruction, assessment, social and academic climate, and information sharing. This plan doth provide structured activities addressing academics, social climate, staff development, and public relations. The School Planning and Management Team doth establish priorities and coordinate school improvement.

Comer and his colleagues do report impressive effects on children's cognitive achievement due to implementation of the SDP (Haynes, Emmons, Gebreyesus, & Ben-Avie, 1996). Comer schools often shew gains in student achievement and outperform school district averages in reading, mathematical, and language skills. Cook, Murphy, and Hunt (2000) did evaluate the Comer SDP in 10 inner-city Chicago schools over four years. Using students in grades 5 through 8, these authors found that by the last years, Comer program students shewed greater gains in reading and mathematics compared with control students. Cook et al. (1999) found that Comer schools do not always implement all of the program's elements, which can limit gains for children. Regardless of whether schools adopt the Comer program, it doth contain many points that should aid in children's cognitive development.

The introduction of electronic media commenced in the mid-twentieth century, concurrent with the widespread adoption of televisions in domestic households. In recent years, the potential influence of electronic media has burgeoned, owing to the proliferation of television programming (viz., cable channels), audio and video players, radios, video game consoles, computers (e.g., applications, the Internet), and portable devices (e.g., cellular telephones, iPods). The temporal investment of children in electronic media on a diurnal basis may, at times, appear considerable. In the year of our Lord 2005, children aged six years and younger devoted, on average, upwards of 2.25 hours per diem to such engagements (Roberts & Foehr, 2008). During the annum 2004, children aged eight to eighteen years reported an average of nearly eight hours of daily exposure to electronic media, which absorbed approximately six hours of their time (i.e., about 25% of the time they were using more than one media source at once—multitasking; Roberts & Foehr, 2008).

Researchers have diligently investigated the potential correlations between exposure to electronic media and the cognitive development, learning, and scholastic achievement of children. A preponderance of research has scrutinised the association between television viewing habits in children and metrics of cognitive development and academic performance, with findings indicating either no discernible relationship or a negative correlation between the duration children spend watching television and their academic attainment (Schmidt & Vandewater, 2008). In instances where negative associations are identified, they are typically of a tenuous nature. The relationship may not adhere to linearity. In comparison to an absence of television viewing, a moderate level of engagement (1–10 hours) per week evinces a positive association with achievement, whereas more protracted viewing manifests a negative correlation.

The correlation between television viewing and scholastic achievement presents interpretative difficulties, given the correlational nature of the data, which precludes the determination of causality. Divers causal explications are plausible. It is conceivable that extensive television viewing diminishes academic achievement by diverting children from study and the completion of assigned tasks. Conversely, it is equally plausible that children grappling with academic challenges exhibit diminished motivation for scholarly pursuits, thereby inclining them more towards television. The nexus between television viewing and achievement may be mediated by a third variable, such as socio-economic status (SES). Substantiating this conjecture, children from lower socio-economic strata tend to engage in more extensive television viewing and demonstrate comparatively lower academic performance (Kirkorian, Wartella, & Anderson, 2008).

The examination of the correlation between the temporal investment in television viewing and academic achievement necessitates consideration of the content of the programming to which children are exposed. Television programming exhibits heterogeneity, encompassing educational, entertaining, and violent content. A prevailing observation gleaned from research is that engagement with educational programming correlates positively with achievement, whereas exposure to entertainment programming is negatively associated (Kirkorian et al., 2008). This variance is contingent upon the quantum of television viewing, as moderate viewers are more disposed to engage with educational programming, whilst heavier viewers partake more extensively in entertainment content. Correlational research has evinced a positive correlation between exposure to 'Sesame Street' and school readiness (Kirkorian et al., 2008). Ennemoser and Schneider (2007) ascertained a negative association between the duration of entertainment television watched by children at the age of six and reading proficiency at the age of nine, having accounted for intelligence, socio-economic status, and prior reading aptitude. Conversely, engagement with educational television was positively correlated with reading achievement.

The findings concerning the association between interactive media (e.g., video games, the Internet) and scholastic achievement are equivocal. Certain investigations have yielded a positive correlation between computer utilisation and academic attainment, whilst observing a negative association between video game engagement and achievement (Kirkorian et al., 2008). The observation elucidated in respect of television may extend to other media forms; ergo, educational content may exhibit a positive correlation with achievement, and entertaining content a negative one.

With regard to metrics of cognitive development, research has delineated a video deficit amongst infants and toddlers, whereby their acquisition of knowledge is more efficacious through real-world experiences than through video media. This deficit attenuates by approximately three years of age, subsequent to which children are capable of learning comparably well from video experiences (Kirkorian et al., 2008). It may be posited that young children exhibit reduced attentiveness to dialogue and fail to comprehensively integrate content portrayed across disparate scenes, which may undergo rapid transitions. This does not necessarily connote a negative association between viewing and the development of attentional faculties. Again, the salient variable is likely the content of the programming. Educational programmes have been demonstrated to facilitate the development of attentional skills, in contradistinction to entertainment programmes (Kerkorian et al., 2008).

Certain investigations have explored the correlations between electronic media and the development of spatial reasoning abilities. The preponderance of such research has concentrated on video games. There exists some evidence suggesting that video games may confer short-term advantages in spatial reasoning and problem-solving acumen (Schmidt & Vandewater, 2008). However, the persistence of these benefits hinges upon the ability of students to generalise such skills to learning contexts beyond the realm of gameplay. To date, empirical evidence does not unequivocally support the transference of these skills (Schmidt & Vandewater, 2008).

Parents and other adults wield considerable influence over children's learning and cognitive development through electronic media. Adults are capable of regulating the media with which children interact and the duration of such interactions. Such regulation may ensure that children do not devote an excessive amount of time to media engagement, but rather adhere to a moderate level (1–10 hours per week; Schmidt & Vandewater, 2008). Furthermore, parental co-viewing appears to be a pivotal variable. Adults who engage with media concurrently with their children (e.g., participate in television viewing) may amplify the benefits derived from electronic media by elucidating salient aspects of the programme and establishing connections with prior learning. Certain investigations have substantiated the benefits of co-viewing on children's learning and the development of attentional faculties (Kirkorian et al., 2008).

In summation, the utilisation of electronic media demonstrably correlates with children's learning, academic achievement, and cognitive development. Ascertaining causal relationships presents challenges, given the correlational nature of the data and the presence of potential mediating variables. The content of the media is of paramount importance. Moderate exposure to televised educational content is associated with benefits for children, whereas entertainment content is not, and analogous outcomes may be anticipated for other media forms (Kirkorian et al., 2008). The presence of co-viewing adults may further augment the educational benefits. Whilst games may confer certain advantages in spatial and problem-solving proficiencies, empirical evidence does not substantiate the transference of these skills to academic learning environments. Although electronic media may serve as a valuable instrument for learning, their efficacy is contingent upon their design, incorporating sound instructional principles, akin to any other pedagogical methodology.