Is it nature or nurture? beliefs about child development held by college students in psychology courses.
Research on conceptual change indicates the benefits of addressing students' prior understandings of topics of instruction. This article addresses the beliefs that college students in educational psychology and introductory psychology courses had about basic issues in child development. In response to open-ended questions, 150 students articulated distinct views about the social-emotional, physical, and cognitive domains. In their ratings, most students showed a preference for multidimensional explanations of development but adapted their responses to particular developmental domains and skills. Some evidence indicated that previous instruction in child development and the experience of raising children were associated with multifaceted beliefs. Implications are offered for future research and instruction.**********
College students enter educational psychology and related courses with distinct beliefs about children. For example, some students believe that children worldwide undergo common changes, perhaps due to shared maturational processes, whereas others assume that developmental sequences vary dramatically among individual children, depending on unique child-rearing experiences. Such beliefs play a role in students' interpretations of academic concepts about children (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2008). In this article, we examine college students' beliefs, focusing on their ideas about basic developmental issues--factors that contribute to psychological and physical growth, the universality of developmental sequences, and forms of developmental change.
Preliminary evidence indicates that some college students, including some prospective teachers, have a few convictions about child development that are refuted by research and incompatible with sound educational practices. For example, a few aspiring and practicing teachers view children's personalities and intellectual abilities as fixed and resistant to change, assume children from diverse backgrounds see the world exactly as the teachers do, and believe that didactic instruction is consistently the most effective method of teaching children (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Daniels & Shumow, 2003; Holt & Reynolds, 1992; Kilgore & Ross, 1993; McIntyre, Jeffries, Turner, & Gilbrane, 2009; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001). In many cases, teachers hold these beliefs despite having been exposed to alternative concepts in child development (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development & National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2007).
Of course, exposure to concepts in child development does not inevitably yield new insights about children. Students need to undergo conceptual change, the process of revamping or augmenting existing ideas to accommodate exposure to new information (Carey, 1985; Mortimer, 1995; Murphy, 2007; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). Worthwhile instructional strategies include those that foster active participation, present concrete and engaging activities, create disequilibrium in thinking, challenge non-productive ideas, and support self-reflection (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2008; McIntyre et al., 2009; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001). These tactics may be particularly powerful when instructors become aware of students' typical preconceived ideas ahead of time and then challenge these misconceptions during lectures, discussions, and assignments. Yet it is not always possible to gain in-depth insights into students' perspectives prior to presenting information on relevant topics. Thus, instructors of psychology may benefit from access to data on students' commonly held beliefs about teaching, learning, and child development (Deemer, 2009; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001).
This investigation contributes to this instructional need by examining college students' beliefs about child development, a basic topic in educational and introductory psychology courses. Three central themes in child development were of concern to us: the manner in which nature and nurture combine in developmental change, the presence of both individual patterns and widespread trends, and the existence of dramatic reorganizations and minor incremental progressions (Fisher & Immordino-Yang, 2006; Kagan, 2008). Ideas about core dimensions are important to examine because of their relevance to interpretations of children, as when a teacher assumes that a struggling child is completely unable to learn due to inherited learning problems or alternatively believes that any skill can be acquired at a tender age (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2010).
In our investigation, we were particularly interested in students' endorsement of multidimensional explanations of children's development, a mainstay of modern developmental thought (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Fisher & ImmordinoYang, 2006; Lerner, 2002). For instance, the changes children undergo in their thinking, relationships with others, motor skills, and so forth are routinely portrayed by contemporary developmental and educational psychologists as blends of natural inheritance, opportunities in particular environments, and learning from ongoing activity--not as the outcomes of a single source (Quinn, 2008; Thelen & Smith, 2006). Similarly, today's psychologists tend not to take extreme positions on questions of universality and diversity and instead recognize both common trends and individual differences in children's psychological growth (Kagitcibasi, 2007; Rogoff, 2003). And finally, developmental and educational psychologists regularly identify a series of minor changes as well as major overhauls in children's manner of thinking, feeling, and behaving (Campos, Witherington, Anderson, Frankel, Uchiyama, & Barbu-Roth, 2008; Flavell, 1994; Kagan, 2008). We focused on whether college students readily accept such integrative models.
To examine students' beliefs, we developed new questionnaires that incorporated two formats, open-ended questions and fixed-response ratings. Investigators examining the beliefs of college students often use a combination of open-ended questions and fixed-response ratings because of the complementary strengths of these two methods (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001; Chang & Demyan, 2007; Meyer, Shanahan, & Laugksch, 2005). Open-ended questions permit respondents to articulate their views in their own words, without the constraint and influence of researchers' distinctions. Fixed-response items allow for efficient completion by respondents and rapid aggregation by researchers.
We developed a basic template of questions and then adapted content to fit three developmental domains: social-emotional, physical, and cognitive development. The creation of three forms of the questionnaire allowed us to examine the effects that domains have on students' beliefs. It is not known whether or not students' beliefs exist in coherent, inter-connected networks that apply across distinct aspects of child development (cf. Rokeach, 1972). From our own experiences as instructors, we expected that students would express different beliefs about the various domains, for example, emphasizing biological factors in physical development and environmental factors in social-emotional development.
Participating students were enrolled in one of two psychology courses. Students in an educational psychology course were preparing to become teachers. Students in an introductory psychology course were pursuing a variety of majors and in many cases were completing the psychology course in fulfillment of the university's core curriculum requirements. Having these two groups in our sample allowed us to identify any unique beliefs that prospective teachers might have about children compared to a more variable group of college students. We also collected information about background variables. We expected that having children would be associated with having multifaceted beliefs. The responsibilities of raising children may have an appreciable impact on adults' beliefs about children (De Mol & Buysse, 2008; Taylor & Hill-Davies, 2004). Care of children may instill an appreciation for the numerous and interrelated factors that influence children's growth, including children's natural dispositions, malleability, and initiative. In addition, we expected that age of students might be associated with increasingly complex views of children. As students grow older and gain more and more experiences with children, they may find themselves occasionally puzzled by children's behavior and, to make sense of these experiences, they may construct progressively elaborate explanations of development. Although exposure to concepts in child development does not always result in meaningful conceptual change, we did expect that taking numerous courses in developmental psychology, child development, and related topics would be associated with multifaceted views of child development (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development & National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2007). Because our various expectations were tentative, we used two-tailed tests of significance in our statistical tests.
Students completed questionnaires at the beginning of the semester before instructors introduced students to substantive content in child development and psychology. We had hoped to elicit beliefs that were not affected by recent instruction so that our responses would reflect the kinds of spontaneous filters students might use while exposed to academic concepts in child development in class.
Method
Sample
Forty-one participating students were enrolled in an educational psychology course for prospective elementary teachers. One hundred and nine participating students were enrolled in an introductory psychology course. Courses were delivered at the University of Northern Colorado, a comprehensive baccalaureate and specialized research university with approximately 12,000 students and a statutory mission in teacher education. Slightly less than one-third of undergraduates at the University are first-generation students.
The majority of students (73.3%) in our sample were women. Students ranged in age from 18 to 52 years (M = 21.0 years, SD = 4.8 years). Most of the students (93.2%) had never been married, and 5.4% were currently married. The majority of students (89.7%) identified themselves as being White, 2.7% as Asian, 0.7% each as Black or American Indian, and 6.2% indicated that they identified with another racial group. In a separate question about ethnicity, 9.1% of the students reported a Hispanic heritage.
Questionnaires
One of three forms of the questionnaire was randomly distributed to each participating student. Fifty-two students completed the version focusing on physical development, 49 completed the version on social-emotional development, and 49 completed the version on cognitive development. Students completed the questionnaires in approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
Open-ended questions about each of the three developmental dimensions (nature and nurture, universality and diversity, and qualitative and quantitative change) were placed before comparable fixed-response questions. This order allowed students to express their spontaneous ideas before reading and possibly being influenced by distinctions embedded in fixed-response items. The first section of the questionnaire focused on basic influences on development (notably, nature, nurture, and children's own contributions). A vignette described a child's skills and limitations in the target domain and was followed by a question about how the child in the vignette might have developed this particular pattern of abilities. Vignettes are considered valuable ways to elicit adults' viewpoints because they present tangible stimuli for interpretation that indirectly tap participants' beliefs (Joram, 2007). To illustrate, the vignette for cognitive development portrayed a child who grasps many classroom lessons but uses rudimentary learning strategies:
A 7-year-old child has reasonably good learning strategies. The child understands most of the ideas in classroom lessons. When reading, the child's mind sometimes wanders, and the child does not re-read missed material and is not bothered by gaps in understanding. When learning history and geography, the child uses rehearsal (saying something over and over again) as the main strategy and does not use more advanced strategies, such as organizing or elaborating information.
After reading the vignette and answering the open-ended questions, students reviewed four specific skills and selected one factor as being the strongest influence on development: biological processes in children, support from other people and the environment, experience and choices of children, or a combination of these factors. The particular skills varied by domain (social-emotional skills included emotional abilities, self-concept, relationships with others, and moral abilities; physical skills included basic motor skills, patterns of physical growth, states of health, and selfcare of physical needs; and cognitive skills included basic cognitive processes, learning strategies, knowledge of the world, and academic abilities). Each of the four skills within the domain, in turn, was illustrated with more specific characteristics. For example, "basic cognitive processes" were defined as "growing abilities to sustain attention, detect similarities and differences in perceptual stimuli, and store information in memory and recall it later when needed."
In the second section, students answered open-ended questions about how children tend to be similar in some respects and different from one another in other ways in their growth in the domain. After answering these open-ended questions, students rated the four particular abilities in terms of commonalities among children (i.e., they selected children being more alike than different, more different than alike, or about equally alike and different). In the final section, students answered openended questions about particular changes that reflected gradual increases in proficiency and other changes that reflected reorganizations in carrying out skills; students subsequently rated the four abilities for types of change (i.e., they selected from the child's efforts to make small improvements, the child's efforts to reorganize abilities into new skills, or the child's efforts to both make small improvements and reorganize skills into new patterns).
Coding of Responses to Open-Ended Questions
We developed a preliminary coding scheme for responses to the open-ended questions based initially on distinctions in the close-ended items and subsequently expanded after reading students' verbal responses. Using the final coding scheme, two of the authors read all students' responses and coded each response as either mentioning or not mentioning a particular theme. Differences between coders were resolved through discussion.
Explanations of the child's patterns of skills. Students were asked to describe their ideas about how the child in the vignette might have developed the particular pattern of skills and limitations. Students mentioning Nature wrote about biological processes, genetic instructions, and medical conditions (e.g., "The part of the brain that controls large muscles developed before the part that controls fine-motor control," Cohen's (1960) Kappa=.83). Students mentioning Nurture indicated that some aspect of the child's environment facilitated or deterred developmental progress (e.g., "The child learned this way of learning from her parents," Kappa=.84). Students mentioning Children's Contributions stated that the children themselves actively pursued their own goals and expressed their own needs (e.g., "The child learned these skills by himself and did what seemed logical to him" Kappa=.83).
Similarities and differences among individual children's development. Students were asked to separately describe similarities and differences among children in their growth in the domain. Several themes were present in descriptions of similarities. Students who specified that there were Stages described children as progressing through the same age-related progressions of increasingly advanced skills (e.g., "Children tend to develop the same skills at a particular age level; most develop at similar rates," Kappa=.76). Students who referred to Biology described such common physiological factors as maturation, development of body parts, and shared human genes (e.g., "Children undergo common maturational changes," Kappa=.81). Students mentioning Families wrote that family and home life contribute to common features in children (e.g., "Most families raise children to be decent people," Kappa=.89). Students referring to Schools stated that teachers and schools create similarities in children (e.g., "Most influences for similarity come from school," Kappa=.94). Students who referred to Peers explained how children have similar experiences and influence one another (e.g., "Children share experiences with one another," Kappa=.88). Some students referred to the Global Environment, suggesting the role of such broad environmental factors as culture, ethnicity, and general life circumstances (e.g., "Children who grow up in healthy environments are similar to one another, and those who grow up in unhealthy environments are similar to one another," Kappa= .84). Finally, some students articulated Children's Contributions, including implementing similar learning strategies (e.g., "They have their own ideas and need to express themselves as individuals" Kappa=.88).
Another set of categories addressed students' descriptions of differences. Students who described Rates stated that children grow according to varied timetables (e.g., "Children tend to develop at different rates," Kappa=.81). Students who mentioned Biology wrote that variations in physical and genetic factors cause children to develop differently (e.g., "Children differ in their genes," Kappa=.86). Students who referred to Families stated that variations in family and home life lead children to become increasingly unique in their abilities (e.g., "Children's individuality comes from their parents and the environment they are raised in," Kappa=.96). Students mentioning Schools referred to variations in teaching or the school environment (e.g., "Not every child has the same education," Kappa=.85). Students who mentioned Peers stated that other children contributed to children's individuality (e.g., "Children are affected differently depending on what their friends are like," Kappa=.77). Some students cited general features of the Global Environment (e.g., "Children are raised in different environments," Kappa=.89). Students referring to Children's Contributions wrote that children pursue interests, make choices, and interpret events in ways that increase their individuality (e.g., "Children differ in their active ways of making sense of their experiences," Kappa=.91).
Gradual increases and reorganizations in children's proficiencies. Students were asked to give examples of developments in the domain that are gradual increases in proficiency in the domain and other changes that are reorganizations in the way that children carry out their skills. Students' responses were examined for whether or not they referred to a gradual, incremental feature of developmental progress, such as in a linear progression of skills or regular practice of the skill contributing to advancement in the domain (i.e., a Quantitative Change, e.g., "One improvement builds on previous learning," Kappa= .89). Students' descriptions of reorganizations were also examined for whether or not they described a change as being a transformation in the underlying essence of a skill, characteristic, or behavior (i.e., a Qualitative Change, e.g., "Children learn information such as historical events and then reorganize it into a system that makes sense for them," Kappa=.83).
Results
Similar analytical strategies were used with responses to open-ended and fixed-response questions. In the two sets of analyses, we initially examined the most frequent responses and noted any variations in patterns by developmental domain (i.e., the social-emotional, physical, and cognitive areas). Next, we created composites of the degree to which students used multidimensional explanations of development and determined, in the case of fixed responses, whether these preferences varied by students' age, having children, and having previously taken coursework in child development.
Students' Responses to Open-Ended Questions
The 127 students who offered responses to all of the open-ended questions comprised the sample for the first sets of analyses. Nearly equivalent numbers of students answered the entire set of questions in each of the three domains: 42 for social-emotional development, 43 for physical development, and 42 for cognitive development.
Nature, nurture, and children's contributions. The majority of students assigned to each of the three domains described the effects of nurture (Table 1). Other comments varied by domain. Many students considering physical development referred to nature, whereas few of those considering social-emotional or cognitive development wrote about this factor. Children's own contributions were mentioned by over three-quarters of students explaining cognitive development, by more than half attending to social-emotional development, and by less than one-fifth examining physical development. Over 4 in 10 students cited two or more factors when accounting for social-emotional and cognitive development, and slightly less than 3 in 10 referred to two or more factors when accounting for physical development.
Similarity and differences among individual children. Students tended to mention a range of factors that contributed to developmental similarities among children (Table 2). The majority of students responding to each of the three domains mentioned more than a single reason for similarities. There were also some striking domain-specific patterns. For example, less than a quarter of students believed that biological factors contributed to similarities in children's social-emotional development, whereas more than half stated that biological factors were responsible for similarities in children's physical development. Similarly, over twice as many students mentioned stage-like progressions in physical changes than in social-emotional changes. Also noteworthy was a trend for students to emphasize environmental factors and children's own contributions in social-emotional and cognitive development more than in physical development.
Many students also explained differences among children by citing two or more factors (Table 3). Students also adjusted their responses according to domain. Over half of respondents considering children's social-emotional development believed that families and the surrounding context contributed to individual differences. The broad environment was also cited by more than half of students considering children's cognitive development; over four out of 10 stated that the children themselves contributed to their individual patterns of intellectual growth. Students considering children's physical development most frequently mentioned biological factors and variations in rates of growth.
Incremental change and stages. In each of the three domains, students explained changes as being gradual and incremental more often than as being stage-like (Table 4). Compared to students explaining social-emotional and physical growth, students focusing on cognitive growth more often articulated specific qualitative changes. Students focusing on cognitive growth also appeared to describe development as being especially complex in form, that is, as reflecting both gradual improvements and dramatic reorganizations in functioning.
Multidimensional accounts of development. A multidimensional score was computed to represent the number of different categories students mentioned across all open-ended questions. That is, students received one point each for mentioning the three influences on development, seven contributions to similarities, seven reasons for differences among children, and two forms of change. The total score yielded a range from 3-12 (M = 6.34, SD =1.97). Illustrations of responses from students who offered simple composite responses (below the mean) and complex composite responses (above the mean) are included in Table 5. Students who viewed child development as simple tended to focus on one or two factors as explanations for children's abilities (e.g., maturation of the brain or unique position within the family), whereas students who viewed development as complex stated that a given child made progress and faced limitations due to multiple interacting factors.
Despite its initial intuitive appeal to us, the composite of complexity was not internally consistent (Cronbach's 1951 alpha = .075). An inspection of the correlation matrix among the dichotomous variables (mentioning or not mentioning the category) indicated a significant number of negative correlations. For example, the tendency to attribute similarities to the existence of stages was negatively associated with specifying a role for the general environment in these similarities (r = -.51, p < .001). Likewise, the tendency to see similarities as being based in biological factors correlated negatively with references to families (r = -.25,p < .01), schools (r = -.21, p < .05), and peers (r = -.34, p <.001) as reasons for these similarities. The weak reliability in the multidimensional composite, coupled with the existence of several negative relationships among categories, led us to conclude that it did not make sense to examine associations between a single composite of complexity in the open-ended responses and students' background variables.
Students' Ratings of Basic Developmental Issues
All students provided responses to the fixed-response ratings, allowing for a total sample of 150 respondents. The format of the questionnaire required respondents to offer separate ratings for particular abilities within the target domains. These individual ratings were initially subjected to an analysis of descriptive trends and subsequently to inferential tests of links between students' beliefs and their background characteristics.
Nature, nurture, and children's contributions. Students' perceptions of the most important factors in development suggested several patterns. Overall, students preferred the multidimensional explanations of development, but responses varied considerably by domain and individual skill (Table 6). Half or more of the students indicated that emotional skills, basic motor skills, health and well-being, basic cognitive progresses, and academic skills and concepts change developmentally due to a combination of factors. At least one in four students selected the integrative option for all of the remaining specific skills. Environmental factors were endorsed broadly across the three domains, with some variation in frequency associated with the individual skills within domains. Forty percent or more of students indicated that growth in relationships with others, self-care of physical needs, and reasoning skills and learning strategies are due primarily to environmental factors. Biological factors were generally not seen as the most important contributor to the specific skills, although over half of the students did report that patterns of physical growth, which included the order in which body parts develop and coordinate their movements, are caused by biological factors. The children's own experiences and choices were not typically viewed as most important factor by the majority of students either, however, more than one in five of the students did select this option as an explanation for self-concept, relationships with others, and knowledge of material and social worlds.
Similarities and differences among individual children. There was no clear consensus among students on whether aspects of children's development are typically similar, distinct, or reflecting both similarities and differences (Table 7). Some of the specific items did evoke strong responses from students. Over half of the students believed that children are more alike than different when it comes to basic motor skills, patterns of physical growth, and basic cognitive processes. Conversely, over half of the students believed that individual children are more different than alike in their emotional development, health and well-being, self-care of physical needs, reasoning skills and learning strategies, and academic skills and concepts. The strongest endorsement of the integrative choice, children being about equally similar and different, was for relationships with others, with approximately 4 in 10 students selecting this response.
Incremental change and stages. Students tended to view developmental changes as reflecting both many small improvements and dramatic reorganizations (Table 8). More than half of the students selected the integrative option for relationships with others, basic motor skills, health and well-being, and academic skills and concepts. At least a third of the students selected the integrative description of change for all other items. The other two characterizations of change, many small improvements and occasional reorganizations, each received moderate levels of endorsement by the students. Three out of 10 or more of the students reported that emotional development, self-concept, relationships with others, basic motor skills, patterns of physical growth, basic cognitive processes, and knowledge of material and social worlds reflected many small improvements. In comparison, three out of 10 or more students reported that self-care of physical needs, basic cognitive processes, reasoning skills and learning strategies, and knowledge of material and social worlds undergo occasional reorganizations.
Preferences for multidimensional accounts of child development. A total multidimensional endorsement score was computed by assigning students one point for each of the 12 close-ended items for which they selected the multidimensional option (that is, development being caused by a combination of nature, nurture, and children's experiences and choices; developmental skills being about equally alike and similar across children; and developmental changes reflecting both small improvements and reorganizations). The actual range was 0 to 12 (M = 4.79; SD = 2.32). The composite showed a modest degree of internal consistency among the items, with a Cronbach's (1951) alpha of .54.
Spearman correlations and t-tests for unequal variances were computed to determine whether the multidimensional endorsement score was associated with students' background variables. The multidimensional beliefs score was associated with age of students and numbers of college classes taken in development (r = .20, p < .05, and r =.43,p < .01, respectively). In addition, students who had children (M = 7.38, SD = 2.06) had stronger multidimensional beliefs than did students who did not have children (M = 4.64, SD = 2.26), t[7.97] = 3.623, p < .001. Students who were not planning to become teachers (M = 4.66, SD = 2.04) did not differ from prospective teachers (M = 4.91, SD = 2.64) in their multidimensional beliefs; t[124.55] = -0.72, p > .05).
Discussion
Many students expressed the view that children's development takes a variety of forms and draws from several distinct factors. In answering fixed-response questions in each of the three developmental domains, students by and large preferred integrative explanations of developmental change. In responses to open-ended questions as well, many students articulated two or more influences on development, causes for similarities and differences among children, and forms of developmental change. Nonetheless, this preference was far from universal. Not every student selected integrative accounts of development in ratings or mentioned more than one factor in responses to open-ended questions. Furthermore, it appears that students' endorsement of comprehensive models depended to some degree on the particular skill they were considering. For example, basic emotional, motor, and cognitive skills were seen by over half of the students as requiring a multidimensional description, whereas relationships with others and patterns of physical growth were seen by less than a third of students as requiring a complex explanatory model.
Students also seemed to have a few general ideas about global domains of development. For example, students tended to view physical development as drawing heavily on biological factors, which they saw as fueling common developmental changes and causing individual differences among children. In comparison, environmental factors were especially prominent in explanations of social-emotional development. Cognitive development was described as a changing system, reflecting the initiative of children, natural abilities, and nurture from the environment. Cognitive development was also seen as exhibiting both incremental progressions and qualitative transformations.
Together, these results converge on the tentative conclusion that students do not typically enter educational and introductory psychology courses with all-purpose explanatory models of children's development. Instead, students seem to have circumscribed, albeit interrelated, beliefs about specific abilities in children. Apparently, students are not prepared to think about all developmental abilities as changing due to the fusion of nature, nurture, and children's own initiative. Nor are students primed to look for ways in which children of a certain age are similar in some ways and different in others, or to expect multiply patterned forms of change. Instead, many students presumably possess fleeting insights into the complex systems of child development.
Some evidence indicated that clusters of beliefs were associated with coursework in child development, age of student, and the experience of having children. Taking coursework in child development was related to having an integrative perspective on children's growth in the fixed-response items. Possibly, previous instructors of child development and authors of developmental textbooks and articles had successfully persuaded students of the multifaceted qualities of child development. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether these associations represent causal effects, are artifacts of a demand characteristic, or can be better explained by some other factors. A similar question arises as to why parents and older students were more likely than non-parents and younger students to endorse complex views. Clearly, more research is necessary to validate and explain these associations.
At the same time, a serious limitation of our results is that we do not know how students' beliefs might be connected with their styles of interacting with children or, in the case of prospective teachers, their future educational practices. Other investigators have suggested that coursework in child development does not always lead to more effective educational practices by teachers (Early et al., 2006; Early et al., 2007). A question emerging from our research is whether college students who hold a commitment to multidimensional perspectives are able to consider multiple factors when interacting with children. For example, can a prospective teacher who understands the full spectrum of influences on children devise an educational strategy that successfully supports a child with a biologically-based intellectual disability? Additional research is necessary to examine this question.
We were surprised that prospective teachers and students taking introductory psychology courses did not differ in their beliefs about child development. The similarity of beliefs between aspiring teachers and other college students may indicate common cultural influences on views about how children grow and change. These cultural viewpoints may persist in the face of instruction that does not challenge them. For example, the views of teachers that we cited earlier--children's abilities are resistant to change, children from diverse backgrounds view the world as teachers do, and didactic instruction is inevitably the best method for children--may reflect common cultural ideas that are readily absorbed by adults from many walks of life.
Future investigations into college students' beliefs must proceed with careful attention to methodological issues. Our results indicate that rating scales might be an appropriate way to examine students' appreciation for the integrative nature of children's development. A single dimension, such as the origins of developmental change (e.g., the separate and interactive influences of nature, nurture, and children's initiative), might be the focus of ratings for a broad array of abilities. Other formats beside ratings, such as Q-sorts, might help to identify priorities and hierarchical structures in students' beliefs (Rimm-Kaufman, Storm, Sawyer, Pianta, & LaParo, 2006). Our results also suggest that open-ended questions may give insight into the dynamics among various beliefs. Although the vignettes seemed to work well in this investigation, other ways to elicit beliefs, including analyses of longer case studies and interpretations of children's activities in video recordings, might also be tried.
Our results have preliminary implications for college instructors teaching concepts in child development as part of educational psychology and related courses. In the context of other research on conceptual change, our findings indicate that students may be holding onto some simplistic views about some skills all the while appreciating the full complexity of factors affecting children's development in other skills. As other proponents of conceptual change have indicated, instructors must offer numerous, compelling lessons that effectively challenge overly simplistic and inaccurate mental frameworks (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2008; McIntyre et al., 2009; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001).
In addition, instructors can consider the ideas that students have about specific domains. Because students believed that children grow physically due to rather static maturational processes, instructors may have to persuade students that children's experiences in particular environments are part of the equation of physical development (e.g., research into dynamic systems of motor development and ecological systems approaches to physical development could be helpful; Kazak, 2006; Thelen & Smith, 2006). Conversely, students may be under-prepared to recognize nature in social-emotional functioning and may require repeated exposures to the powerful effects of genetic contributions (e.g., research into genetic contributions to temperament and high levels of aggressive behavior may be persuasive; Brendgen et al., 2008; Ganiban, Saudino, Ulbricht, Neiderhiser, & Reiss, 2008). Finally, students appear to be primed to view cognitive development as the complex fusing of basic developmental dimensions, perhaps allowing for analogies with other domains and skills. For example, instructors can remind students that qualitative and quantitative dynamics apply not only to cognitive development but also to social-emotional and physical growth.
The striking individual differences in our data also offer educational implications. Within a given group of students, the majority may have some appreciation that development results from complex interactions among the child's natural abilities, choices, and environmental challenges. In the same group, however, a few students may be firmly committed to a single explanation, such as genes or instruction being solely or primarily responsible for growth. Such diversity is a challenge to address, but it can also be an asset in fostering conceptual change. For example, debates and cooperative group activities that ask students to express their opinions and listen to distinctly different positions may be one important way to foster an appreciation of integrative models.
References
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673708). New York: Macmillan.
Brendgen, M., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W. M., Dionne, G., Tremblay, R. E., & P6russe, D. (2008). Linkages between children's and their friends' social and physical aggression: Evidence for a gene-environment interaction? Child Development, 79(1), 13-29.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds. in Chief) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793-828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 247-268.
Campos, J. J., Witherington, D., Anderson, D. I., Frankel, C. I., Uchiyama, I., & Barbu-Roth, M. (2008). Rediscovering development in infancy. Child Development, 79(6), 1625-1632.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chang, D. F., & Demyan, A. (2007). Teachers' stereotypes of Asian, Black, and White students. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 91-114.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37-46.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Daniels, D. H., & Shumow, L. (2003). Child development and classroom teaching: A review of the literature and implications for educating teachers. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 495-526.
Deemer, S. A. (2009). In our classrooms: Connecting theory and practice in educational psychology courses. Teaching Educational Psychology, 3(3), 1.
De Mol, J., & Buysse, A. (2008). Understandings of children's influence in parent-child relationships: A Q-methodological study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(2), 359-379.
Early, D. M., Bryant, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Clifford, R. M., Burchinal, M. R., Ritchie, S. et al. (2006). Are teachers' education, major, and credentials related to classroom quality and children's academic gains in pre-kindergarten? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 174-195.
Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Burchinal M., Alva, S., Bender, R. H., Bryant, D., et al. (2007). Teachers' education, classroom quality, and young children's academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development, 78, 558-580.
Fischer, K. W., & Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2006). Cognitive development and education: From dynamic general structure to specific learning and teaching. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Flavell, J. H. (1994). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. In R. D. Parke, P. A. Ornstein, J. J. Rieser, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), A century of developmental psychology (pp. 569-587). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ganiban, J. M., Saudino, K. J., Ulbricht, J., Neiderhiser, J. M., & Reiss, D. (2008). Stability and change in temperament during adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 222-236.
Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 325-349.
Joram, E. (2007). Clashing epistemologies: Aspiring teachers', practicing teachers, and professors' beliefs about knowledge and research in education. Teaching and Teacher Education. 23, 123-135.
Kagitcibasi C. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N J: Erlbaum.
Kagan, J. (2008). In defense of qualitative changes in development. Child Development, 79(6), 1606-1624.
Kazak, A. E. (2006). Pediatric psychosocial preventative health model (PPPHM): Research, practice, and collaboration in pediatric family systems medicine. Family, Systems, & Health, 24, 381-395.
Kilgore, K., & Ross, D. (1993). Following PROTEACH graduates: The fifth year of practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 279-287.
Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Fostering conceptual change about child development in prospective teachers and other college students. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 85-91.
McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Child development and education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N J: Merrill Pearson Education.
McIntyre, E., Jeffries, M., Turner, J., & Gilbrane, C. (2009, February). Disrupting teacher candidates' deficit beliefs about students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.
Meyer, J. H. F., Shanahan, M. P., & Laugksch, R. C. (2005). Students" conceptions of research. I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 225-244.
Mortimer, E. F. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science Education, 4, 267-285.
Murphy, P. K. (2007). The eye of the beholder: The interplay of social and cognitive components in change. Educational Psychologist, 42, 41-53,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development & National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2007, April). Child and adolescent development research and teacher education: Evidence-based pedagogy, policy, and practice. Washington, DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
Norusis, M. J. (2005). SPSS 14.0 Statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Patrick, H., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Conceptual change in teachers" intuitive conceptions of learning, motivation, and instruction: The role of motivational and epistemological beliefs. In B. Torff & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching the intuitive mind: Student and teacher learning (pp. 117-143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Quinn, P. C. (2008). In defense of core competencies, quantitative change, and continuity. Child Development, 79(6), 1633-1638.
Rimm-Kaufman. S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta, R. C., & LaParo, K. M. (2006). The Teacher Belief Q-Sort: A measure of teachers' priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching practices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 141-165.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory or organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, R., & Hill-Davies, C. (2004). Parents" and non-parents' beliefs about the cues to deception in children. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10(4), 455-464.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (2006). Dynamic systems theories. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds. in Chief) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed.,
TERESA M. McDEVITT
REBECCA D. JOBES
KATHRYN F. COCHRAN
EUGENE P. SHEEHAN
University of Northern Colorado
Table 1. Percentages of Students Articulating Particular Influences
on Development in Response to Open-Ended Questions
Domains of Development
Influences on Development Social-Emotional Development
(n=42)
Nature 4.8
Nurture 83.3
Children's Contributions 52.4
Combination of Factors 40.5
Domains of Development
Influences on Development Physical Development
(n=43)
Nature 46.5
Nurture 58.1
Children's Contributions 18.6
Combination of Factors 27.9
Domains of Development
Influences on Development Cognitive Development
(n=42)
Nature 9.5
Nurture 57.1
Children's Contributions 78.6
Combination of Factors 45.2
Note. Percentages do not equal 100% within columns because
individual students may have mentioned none of these or more than
one of these influences.
Table 2. Percentages of Students Articulating Particular Factors
Contributing to Similarities Among Children in Response to
Open-Ended Questions
Domains of Development
Factors Mentioned as Explanations for
Similarities Among Children Social-Emotional Development
(n=42)
Stages 23.8
Biology 21.4
Families 16.7
Schools 26.2
Peers 23.8
Global Environment 45.2
Children's Contributions 31.0
Combinations of Factors 66.7
Domains of Development
Factors Mentioned as Explanations for
Similarities Among Children Physical Development
(n=43)
Stages 67.4
Biology 60.5
Families 0.0
Schools 14.0
Peers 7.0
Global Environment 14.0
Children's Contributions 11.6
Combinations of Factors 69.8
Domains of Development
Factors Mentioned as Explanations for
Similarities Among Children Cognitive Development
(n=2)
Stages 45.2
Biology 35.7
Families 9.5
Schools 21.4
Peers 14.3
Global Environment 33.3
Children's Contributions 31.0
Combinations of Factors 59.6
Note. Percentages do not equal 100% within columns because
individual students may have mentioned none of these or more than
one of these influences.
Table 3. Percentages of Students Articulating Particular Factors
Contributing to Differences Among Children in Response to
Open-Ended Questions
Domains of Development
Factors Mentioned as Explanations for
Differences Among Children Social-Emotional Development
(n=42)
Rates 7.1
Biology 26.2
Families 54.8
Schools 2.4
Peers 9.5
Global Environment 54.8
Children's Contributions 38.1
Combinations of Factors 59.5
Domains of Development
Factors Mentioned as Explanations for
Differences Among Children Physical Development
(n=43)
Rates 44.2
Biology 48.8
Families 32.6
Schools 2.3
Peers 2.3
Global Environment 37.2
Children's Contributions 18.6
Combinations of Factors 65.1
Domains of Development
Factors Mentioned as Explanations for
Differences Among Children Cognitive Development
(n=42)
Rates 33.3
Biology 19.0
Families 31.0
Schools 16.7
Peers 4.8
Global Environment 54.8
Children's Contributions 45.2
Combinations of Factors 69.0
Note. Percentages do not equal 100% within columns because
individual students may have mentioned none of these or more than
one of these influences.
Table 4. Percentages of Students Describing Qualitative and
Quantitative Changes in Response to Open-Ended Questions
Domains of Development
Forms of Change Described Social-Emotional Development
(n=42)
Qualitative Change 31.0
Quantitative Change 69.0
Both Forms of Change 23.8
Domains of Development
Forms of Change Described Physical Development
(n=43)
Qualitative Change 48.8
Quantitative Change 76.7
Both Forms of Change 46.5
Domains of Development
Forms of Change Described Cognitive Development
(n=12)
Qualitative Change 59.5
Quantitative Change 71.4
Both Forms of Change 59.5
Note. Percentages do not equal 100% within columns because
individual students may have mentioned either or both of these
forms of change.
Table 5
Examples of Students Mentioning Few and Many Distinct Aspects of
Developmental Dimensions in Open-Ended Responses
Social-Emotional Development
Focus of Response Students Who Mentioned Few Different
Features of Development
Influences on Development Student 1
This child may have a few brothers or
sisters. So it is easy for them to
interact with others. I would say this
is the middle or youngest child. and
may be picked on by siblings. The
child will most likely pick on others
from time to time to stand out or get
attention. Also they might learn their
behavior from their home life.
Universality of Development Similarities: They can express the
same behavior and have the same
feeling.
Differences: They have different
biology make-up and different home
lives (e.g., different races or
parents).
Form of Change Gradual Increases: They can make
friends, and in little will be better
at getting along with their peers.
Interaction with peers of the same sex
will contribute the most.
Reorganizations: When children go to
school they have to follow rules.
These rules will stay with the child
but force them to act in different
ways.
Students Who Mentioned Numerous
Different Features of Development
Influences on Development Student 4
Parents' techniques of raising a child,
peer influence. and influence of the
environment surrounding the child.
The limitations could be caused by an
un-experienced and undeveloped
mind.
Universality of Development Similarities: Biologically if born
healthy they share the same
adaptation. It they are raised in a
healthy or unhealthy environment.
Differences: Some children are
different biologically, and are raised
differently by parents, peers, and
other outside influences.
Form of Change Gradual Increases: The more
proficient the better self-esteem.
Reorganizations: If they fail tasks, do
very well, receive compliments or
punishments.
Physical Development
Focus of Response Students Who Mentioned Few Different
Features of Development
Influences on Development Student 2
I think that somehow the part of his
brain that controls his larger muscles
was developed at an earlier stage than
normal. But the part of the brain that
controls hand-eye coordinated
muscles wasn't totally developed.
Universality of Development Similarities: They all eventually get
their skills at some point.
Differences: I think that every child is
different in some way. Some may
develop motor skills better/quicker.
some may grow taller faster and not
develop their motor skills as quickly,
and vice versa.
Form of Change Gradual Increases: Walking, running,
talking, playing sports
Reorganizations: Tying their shoe,
folding things, hand-eye coordinated
things
Students Who Mentioned Numerous
Different Features of Development
Influences on Development Student 5
It seems as if the child is stuck in the
motor development stage. More
general, basic skills are performed
first, and then once those are
mastered, the child can begin to focus
on more elaborate/detailed
movements. Maybe the environment
plays a role since the child doesn't
have a problem outdoors. This
suggests a learning problem may be
present that is inhibiting precise fine-
motor control.
Universality of Development Similarities: They go through stages
(i.e., learning language--babbling
stage, 2 words, full sentences), and
parts of the body grow and develop
as the child gets older.
Differences Children can progress
and grow slower or faster through the
stages, which would depend on
genetics and the environment. Early
on. it depends on whether you are a
boy or girl as well (i.e., boys usually
reach puberty and growth spurt later
than girls).
Form of Change Gradual Increases: Walking, talking,
taking care of themselves (learning to
be independent)
Reorganizations: Physical growth
(learning how to adapt to changes in
body, sharing, schoolwork)
Cognitive Development
Focus of Response Students Who Mentioned Few Different
Features of Development
Influences on Development Student 3
He has become set in his ways and is
unwilling to use new learning
strategies. Maybe this comes from a
desire to "keep up." He won't re-read
or try to organize/elaborate.
Universality of Development Similarities: It seems like speech,
intelligence, and physical ability
grow similarly.
Differences: Understanding and
social awareness are a big difference.
Form of Change Gradual Increases: Reading, writing,
speech
Reorganizations: Learning tasks:
tying shoes, making toast
Students Who Mentioned Numerous
Different Features of Development
Influences on Development Student 6
This child might have been taught in
an environment that puts more
emphasis on some areas as opposed
to others. Also, maybe they are not
motivated enough to go over their
answers and gain full comprehension
of everything they are learning.
Maybe this child is only doing things
well that he/she is interested in, and
as for the harder ones, has less
interest, and only does it because
he/she knows he/she needs to.
Universality of Development Similarities: Every child goes through
the same changes of motivation but
may be at different times. They act
the same when it conies to wanting to
play outside and be with friends.
They all learn from engaging with
one another whether they realize it or
not.
Differences: Not every child has the
same home life, group of friends,
education, or simply childhood.
Every child lives with a family that
has their own problems, and their
feelings and emotions are never the
same as anyone else's. Also, not all
of them mature at the same rate as
one another.
Form of Change Gradual Increases: Children have to
practice memorizing their numbers
and alphabet, and when they know
the alphabet, then they can transition
to writing words. The more they
practice, the better they will be.
Reorganizations: If a certain studying
strategy wasn't working but the child
knows the material, reorganizing
information into a new strategy may
help them understand and appreciate
knowledge that they already possess.
Table 6. Percentages of Students Selecting Particular Influences on
Development
Factors Identified as Most
Strongly Influencing
Development
Biological Support from
Processes in Other People
Children and the
Domains of Development Environment
Social-Emotional Development (n=49)
Emotional Development 4.1 30.6
Self-Concept 4.1 26.5
Relationships with Others 8.2 42.9
Moral Reasoning and Conduct 8.2 36.7
Physical Development (n=52)
Basic Motor Skills 15.4 7.7
Patterns of Physical Growth 69.2 3.8
States of Health and Well-Being 13.7 17.6
Self-Care of Physical Needs 0.0 51.9
Cognitive Development (n=49)
Basic Cognitive Processes 22.4 6.1
Reasoning Skills and Learning 8.2 40.8
Strategies
Knowledge of Material and Social 2.0 14.3
Worlds
Academic Skills and Concepts 6.1 32.7
Factors Identified as Most
Strongly Influencing
Development
Experiences A Combination
and Choices by of Factors
Domains of Development Children
Social-Emotional Development (n=49)
Emotional Development 6.1 59.2
Self-Concept 26.5 42.9
Relationships with Others 22.4 26.5
Moral Reasoning and Conduct 18.4 36.7
Physical Development (n=52)
Basic Motor Skills 1.9 75.0
Patterns of Physical Growth 3.8 23.1
States of Health and Well-Being 7.8 60.8
Self-Care of Physical Needs 9.6 38.5
Cognitive Development (n=49)
Basic Cognitive Processes 6.1 65.3
Reasoning Skills and Learning 10.2 40.8
Strategies
Knowledge of Material and Social 36.7 46.9
Worlds
Academic Skills and Concepts 6.1 55.1
Note. Numbers in cells are percentages of possible respondents
selecting a particular factor for each feature of development
(each participant selected one factor for each item within a
single domain, so percentages accumulate across rows to 100%
close to it with rounding error).
Table 7. Percentages of Students Indicating Similarities Differences
and Both in Children's Development
Conditions of Similarity
and Difference
Domains of Development More Alike Than Different
Social-Emotional Development (n=49)
Emotional Development 22.4
Self-Concept 34.7
Relationships with Others 24.5
Moral Reasoning and Conduct 28.6
Physical Development (n=52)
Basic Motor Skills 73.1
Patterns of Physical Growth 53.8
States of Health and Well-Being 13.5
Self-Care of Physical Needs 21.2
Cognitive Development (n=49)
Basic Cognitive Processes 55.1
Reasoning Skills and Learning Strategies 10.2
Knowledge of Material and Social Worlds 28.6
Academic Skills and Concepts 16.3
Conditions of Similarity
and Difference
Domains of Development More Different Than Alike
Social-Emotional Development (n=49)
Emotional Development 53.1
Self-Concept 36.7
Relationships with Others 34.7
Moral Reasoning and Conduct 34.7
Physical Development (n=52)
Basic Motor Skills 13.5
Patterns of Physical Growth 30.8
States of Health and Well-Being 51.9
Self-Care of Physical Needs 50.0
Cognitive Development (n=49)
Basic Cognitive Processes 20.4
Reasoning Skills and Learning Strategies 67.3
Knowledge of Material and Social Worlds 40.8
Academic Skills and Concepts 57.1
Conditions of Similarity
and Difference
Domains of Development About Equally Similar and
Different
Social-Emotional Development (n=49)
Emotional Development 24.5
Self-Concept 28.6
Relationships with Others 40.8
Moral Reasoning and Conduct 36.7
Physical Development (n=52)
Basic Motor Skills 13.5
Patterns of Physical Growth 15.4
States of Health and Well-Being 34.6
Self-Care of Physical Needs 28.8
Cognitive Development (n=49)
Basic Cognitive Processes 24.5
Reasoning Skills and Learning Strategies 22.4
Knowledge of Material and Social Worlds 30.6
Academic Skills and Concepts 26.5
Note. Numbers in cells are percentages of possible respondents
selecting a particular description of the similarity with which
children manifest skills in the domain. Each participant selected
one description of similarity for each item within a single domain,
so percentages accumulate across rows to 100% or close to it with
rounding error.
Table 8. Percentages of Students Classifying Developmental Changes
as Many Small Improvements, Occasional Reorganizations, or Both
Forms
Domains of Development Forms of Change
Many Small Improvements
Social-Emotional Development (n=49)
Emotional Development 32.7
Self-Concept 34.7
Relationships with Others 34.7
Moral Reasoning, and Conduct 26.5
Physical Development (n=52)
Basic Motor Skills 36.5
Patterns of Physical Growth 42.3
States of Health and Well-Being 17.3
Self-Care of Physical Needs 28.8
Cognitive Development (n=49)
Basic Cognitive Processes 34.7
Reasoning Skills and Learning Strategies 22.4
Knowledge of Material and Social Worlds 30.6
Academic Skills and Concepts 18.4
Domains of Development Forms of Change
Occasional Reorganizations
and Emergent Skills
Social-Emotional Development (n=49)
Emotional Development 28.6
Self-Concept 26.5
Relationships with Others 14.3
Moral Reasoning, and Conduct 26.5
Physical Development (n=52)
Basic Motor Skills 11.5
Patterns of Physical Growth 23.1
States of Health and Well-Being 23.1
Self-Care of Physical Needs 32.7
Cognitive Development (n=49)
Basic Cognitive Processes 30.6
Reasoning Skills and Learning Strategies 32.7
Knowledge of Material and Social Worlds 30.6
Academic Skills and Concepts 20.4
Domains of Development Forms of Change
Both Small Improvements
and Emergent Skills
Social-Emotional Development (n=49)
Emotional Development 38.8
Self-Concept 38.8
Relationships with Others 51.0
Moral Reasoning, and Conduct 46.9
Physical Development (n=52)
Basic Motor Skills 51.9
Patterns of Physical Growth 34.6
States of Health and Well-Being 59.6
Self-Care of Physical Needs 38.5
Cognitive Development (n=49)
Basic Cognitive Processes 34.7
Reasoning Skills and Learning Strategies 44.9
Knowledge of Material and Social Worlds 38.8
Academic Skills and Concepts 61.2
Note. Numbers in cells are percentages of possible respondents
selecting a particular description of the similarity with which
children manifest skills in the domain. Each participant selected
one description of similarity for each item within a single domain,
so percentages accumulate across rows to 100% or close to it with
rounding error.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | McDEVITT, Teresa M.; Jobes, Rebecca D.; Cochran, Kathryn F.; Sheehan, Eugene P. |
|---|---|
| Publication: | College Student Journal |
| Article Type: | Report |
| Geographic Code: | 1USA |
| Date: | Jun 1, 2010 |
| Words: | 9258 |
| Previous Article: | Student anti-intellectualism and college major. |
| Next Article: | Relationship between the self-directed search and the Edwards personal preference schedule using the N of 1 research design. |
| Topics: | |