Child Development
4 Ocak 2014 Cumartesi
Education: The Only Way Out Of Poverty
According to the United Nations, about 21,000 people die
every day of hunger or hunger-related causes [1]. One can ask how can it happen
although there is enough food for everyone in our world? The answer is clear: in
the world ruled with capitalism, while the riches grow richer, poor become
poorer. It is a vicious cycle that poverty makes is harder to get an education,
and thereby lack of a quality education makes more likely an individual become
poor.
[3] The Effects of Poverty on Childhood
Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events.
Joan Luby, Andy Belden, Kelly Botteron, Natasha Marrus,MichaelP. Harms, Casey Babb, Tomoyuki Nishino, Deanna Barch.
JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(12):1135-1142.
In many countries education is considered as the only way
out of poverty. However, families with low income and from rural areas have low
access to education. In the short documentary of “South Africa: What would you
risk to get an education?” from “Why Poverty” by Nadine Cloete, Kelina, aged
12, travelling a road full of dangers to go to school and get education. While
some children get to the school with their parents by car, a child can get
killed or raped on the way to the school in South Africa. Furthermore, nearly ¾
of the people who live in rural areas even don’t have drinkable water, food or
health care. Many families in poverty must choose between food and electricity.
People live in such conditions prioritize their basic needs before education
and we can’t blame this effort.
There is a common 21st century belief that: “Studying not
only broadens our knowledge, but also gives us a good job and a better quality
of life”. In the documentary of “Education, Education: What does an education
get you?” from “Why Poverty?” by Weijun Chen, families would sell their cows,
pigs and even their houses in order to provide a good education and therefore a
better life for their children. Students with the highest marks are invited to
top universities with low fees, while the rest of the students must pay higher
fees, often borrowing money or soliciting neighborhood support, and don’t find
jobs at the end of their course of education that pay them a wage above the
poverty level.
Likewise in the short documentary, many children encounter
in problems that they need to give priority before getting a good education.
School is not a main focus for children who face with the problems of food and
safety. Simple comparisons between children in poor families and children in
non-poor families using national datasets indicate that poor children are more
likely to do worse on indices of school achievement than non-poor children are.
Poor children are twice as likely as non-poor children to have repeated a
grade, to have been expelled or suspended from school, or to have dropped out
of high school. They are also 1.4 times as likely to be identified as having a
learning disability in elementary or high school than their non-poor
counterparts [2]. Furthermore another study published in JAMA Pediatrics, have shown that children who
were living in poverty and whose parents lacked nurturing skills were likely to
have less gray (associated with intelligence) and white (linked to the brain’s
ability to transmit signals between cells and structures) matter in their
brains. Also MRI scans showed that two key brain structures were smaller in
poor children, compared with wealthier children, which are, amygdala - a
structure linked to emotional health - and the hippocampus - an area of the
brain linked to memory and learning [3].
Children born in low socio-economic-status families are
starting to life with lower chances even from birth. Is that the way in which
it should work? Children from wealthier families will get a good education
anyways and children from poor families barely will bridge the gap with the
other kids even they are the top students. Every child has the right to grow up
in a safe environment and access education. As Nelson Mandela said: “Education
is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” education
will be the answer to many problems raised by globalization. It is here that education
will break this vicious cycle through becoming a human right.
References:
[1] Hunger and World Poverty, Retrieved from
[2] Gale
Encyclopedia of Education: Overview of Poverty and Education
[3] The Effects of Poverty on Childhood
Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events.
Joan Luby, Andy Belden, Kelly Botteron, Natasha Marrus,MichaelP. Harms, Casey Babb, Tomoyuki Nishino, Deanna Barch.
JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(12):1135-1142.
Pink Boys
By the age of 2 most children are aware of their own gender
and by the age of 3 or 4 children have a notion of their expected sex roles
(Campbell, Shirley, & Caygill, 2002) [2]. Around the ages 3 or 4, children
start to prefer gender typical toys and same-sex playmates. Even from infancy
parents raise their children in a gender-stereotyped environment. If their
child is a boy they prefer to decorate the room with blue furniture and if it
is a girl they decorate the room with pink furniture. Pink is the only color
that is divided along gender lines. Though, what is the reason for this
distinction? Why we create gender-stereotyped roles for women and men?
The picture of a boy who is wearing a pink dress and holding
a whip is made in 1840s. At that time pink was a color for boys. In 19th
century England, small boys often wore pink ribbons or decorations; boys were
simply considered small men, and while men in England wore red uniforms, boys
wore pink [1]. So, what happened then? Which event had contributed to the
notion of pink is for girls? In 1930s and 1940s in Nazi Germany, people who are
accused with homosexuality forced to wear a pink triangle. It was a shame to be
a homosexual and it perceived as a mental illness. However, there is nothing
wrong about being a “pink boy”. It is just a natural variation of human being. Reasons
for gender a-typicality have been studied in many researches and usually two
reasons have suggested as a cause to the gender non-conformity: hormonal or genetic
and environmental factors.
The largest study was a 2006 Dutch survey of twins, 14,000
at age 7 and 8,500 at age 10. The study concluded that genes account for 70
percent of gender-atypical behavior in both sexes. However, what is inherited still
remains unclear [3]. When we look back through history, we can see the
development of perception of gender a-typicality. By the mid-20th century,
doctors were trying corrective therapies, such as using hormonal medicines to
block pubertal development. However, therapeutic approach made people perceive
atypical gender as a mental illness that needed to be cured. In fact, it is
crucial for people to understand that gender identity isn’t something that we
can impose to our kids and expect them to show the gender-stereotyped roles. Instead,
we have to admit that, it is who they are and they are not individuals who
trapped in the wrong body. They don’t need any therapy and becoming a
transgender just because of the social pressure and to avoid from bullies. If they are happy with their body and also
the way they feel themselves, then it is pointless to make them feel as a person
who they are not.
There is an on-going assumption that women are nurturing and
emotional while men are aggressive and dominant. Gender stereotypes are all over
the media, advertisements and even in cartoons and fairy tales. Social media
puts much more pressure on to the gender roles and creates certain images for
women and men. Feminine traits are generally devalued across cultures and while
masculine girls gain more status by moving to the boy space, feminine boys mostly
humiliated and bullied by their society.
Although there is still a lack of acceptance for the
individuals who are gender atypical, perceptions of some people have started to
change in a good manner. Gender identity must be perceived as, “much less a
matter of choice and much more a matter of biology” (Coolidge et al., 2002) [4]. We have to remember
that gender a-typicality is part of core identity and not an inappropriate
behavior that people should get rid of.
References:
[1] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Pink 19th
Century, Retrieved from
[2] Campbell, A. Shirley, & Caygill L., 2002, Sex-typed
preferences in three domains: Do two-year-olds need cognitive variables?,
British Journal of Psychology, 92, 203-217
[3] Ruth Padawer, What’s so bad about a boy who wants to
wear a dress?, The New York Times
[4] Coolidge, F.L., Theda, L.L., and Young, S.E. (2002). The
Heritability of Gender Identity Disorder in a Child and Adolescent Sample. Behavior
Genetics 32, 251-257.
2 Ocak 2014 Perşembe
Beyond Diathesis Stress: Vulnerability or Plasticity?
Why one person become depressed, while the other does not,
even when they exposed to the same stressors? [1]. Furthermore, why one person
who has a genetic predisposition for OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) and
get through a normal life and never actually develops it, while the other may
suffer from some events and end up with OCD. Those situations can be explained
by diathesis-stress model. The common explanation for the phenomena is: in
order to develop some illness or disorders, you need to have an inherited risk
factor, but also environmental risk factor. That means, non-biological or
genetic traits (diathesis), interacts with environmental influences (stressors)
to produce disorders such as, depression, anxiety or schizophrenia [2].
Individuals vary in their responses to environmental
factors. Some individuals, due to their biological, temperamental and/or
behavioral characteristics are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of
negative experiences whereas others are relatively resilient with respect to
them (an adaptation of Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn’s, 2007). Thus,
it can be understand that, both nature and nurture can have a significant
effect on the emergence of the illness or the disorder. These traits make
individuals more susceptible to environmental influences.
Afterwards the prevailing ideas of diathesis-stress model,
some researchers such as, Jay Belsky and Michael Pluess, indicated that
vulnerability might be more accurately though as plasticity and they come up
with the hypothesis of “differential susceptibility”. It has been branched from
diathesis-stress model and constructed upon it. Plasticity generally means,
being susceptible to positive environmental factors as well as negative
environmental factors and stressors. A person could have a biological
vulnerability that when combined with a stressor could lead to psychopathology
(diathesis – stress model); but that same person with a biological
vulnerability, if exposed to a particularly positive environment, could have
better outcomes than a person without the vulnerability [3]. Being more
sensitive to favorable environmental factors helps individuals more likely to
develop beneficial psychological characteristics.
Many researches have shown that, parenting, child-care
quality, life events, rural- versus-urban residence, and even birth season are
related to the differential susceptibility theory [3]. Children who have
difficult temperament, insecure attachment, childhood adversity, childhood
maltreatment or abuse are much more likely to show externalizing and
internalizing problems, such as, depression, nonsocial activity, anxiety and
criminal behaviors. Therefore, intervention programs are essential for
vulnerable individuals, in order to make them benefit more from the positive
outcomes of the favorable circumstances. Protective factors can mitigate or
provide a buffer against the effects of major stressors by providing an
individual with developmentally adaptive outlets to deal with stress [4].
Examples of protective factors include a positive parent-child attachment
relationship, a supportive peer network, and individual social and emotional
competence [4].
Development is shaped by both biology and experience
coactively to promote specific abilities over others. Therefore,
diathesis-stress model is a plausible theory, specifically for studying the
development of psychopathology. However, although a number of studies have
supported the idea of differential susceptibility, it has still some patterns
that are not clear as much as the diathesis-stress model. Many researchers
wonder, whether it comes mostly from nature or nurture. Though, it is
optimistic to think that individuals who are vulnerable to adverse effects of
environment are also more sensitive to the positive circumstances.
References:
[1] Sigelman, C. K. & Rider, E. A. (2009). Developmental
psychopathology. Life-span human development (6th ed.) (pp.
468-495). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
[2] Prevention Action, Diathesis-stress
models Retrieved from http://www.preventionaction.org/reference/diathesis-stress-models
[3] Belsky, J. & Pluess, M. (2009). "Beyond diathesis stress:
Differential susceptibility to environmental influences." Psychological
Bulletin 2009, (Vol:135, No:6) 885-908.
[4] Administration for Children and Families
(2012). Preventing child maltreatment and promoting well-being: A network
for action. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/guide2012/guide.pdf#page=9
30 Aralık 2013 Pazartesi
Moral Development
How can we understand one’s morality?
Moreover, how can we name a behavior or belief as a good or bad? Both Piaget and Kohlberg viewed moral development as a
result of deliberate attempt to increase the coordination and integration of
one’s orientation to the world (Kohlberg, L. 1963)[1]. However, Kohlberg
additionally further developed Piaget’s notions. While, Piaget indicated that
children aged 2 to 7 years, who are in the Preoperational Period, have
difficulty in seeing points of view other than their own, Kohlberg showed that
children aged between 2-7 are able to think through social systems perspective.
Kohlberg outlined three broad
levels and six more specific stages of moral development. When he was trying to
outline this developmental process, he applied a cross-sectional study and
investigated an ethical dilemma. He sought answers to a story concerned a man
named Heinz. His wife was dying of a disease that
could be cured if he could get a certain medicine. When he asked the
pharmacist, he was told that he could get the medicine, but only at a very high
price - one that Heinz could not possibly afford. So the next evening,
Heinz broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife's life.
Was Heinz right or wrong to steal the drug? By
studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions
Kohlberg hoped to discover the ways in which moral reasoning changed as people
grew. The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were
followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984)[2].
As a result, he found out individuals generally proceeds from
a pre-conventional stage (selfish desires and avoiding punishment, to a conventional
stage (social systems perspective) and finally to a post conventional stage
(ethical principles, sense of justice, notion of most good to most number of
people). Although, his findings were supported by many other researches, it has
also been criticized for many reasons.
First of all, we have to consider the case of researching
answers to ethical dilemmas. As long as, decisions may vary with the situation
and our position in that situation, we would not be able to respond correctly
to the questions of ethical problems since they are not authentic situations.
It is possible to respond to the Heinz Dilemma through the lens of justice, if
we are not experiencing the situation. However, it is highly probable to try
everything we can do in order to save the one we love, if we are experiencing
the situation. Then, how can we blame someone as displaying bad behavior or
immature morality, if he/she just trying to save a human life. Or think about
one having an abortion. Can we blame an individual, if it is not possible for
her to raise her child because of life conditions, such as, welfare and
economical situations?
Others have
argued that Kohlberg's stages are culturally biased and it is based on Western
philosophical traditions. This criticism may have merit. One wonders how well
Kohlberg's stages apply to the great Eastern philosophies. One also wonders if
his stages do justice to moral development in many traditional village cultures.
Researchers find that villagers stop at stage 3, but perhaps they continue to
develop moralities in directions that Kohlberg's stages fail to capture (W.C.
Crain. 1985)[3].
Another
criticism is that Kohlberg's theory is sex-biased. As a contrary to Kohlberg’s
findings that women score lower than men, Gilligan has tried to show that women
have their own insights of ethics in the form of care and responsibility rather
than conventionally expected beliefs. In fact, women also continue to develop
their thinking beyond stage 3, however, morality centers on interpersonal
relationships and ethics of care instead of rights and rules for them.
Thus, it is
true that there is a common progress in moral development; still we cannot
think these stages as upgrading system. Further, we cannot discriminate one’s
acts as right and wrong in such an ethical dilemmas like the Heinz’s Story.
Therefore, we have to remember that we cannot judge one’s morality from a
narrow perspective; we also have to consider social and personal aspects of
morality.
References:
[1] Kohlberg,
L. (1963).Kohlberg’s study helped researcher’s understand how and why children
behave and act in certain ways when dealt with social dilemmas. The development
of children's orientations toward a moral order: I. Sequence in the development
of moral thought. Vita Humana, 6, 11-33.
[2] Kohlberg,
L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral
development: Moral stages, their nature and validity.
[3] W.C.
Crain. (1985). Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136.,
Chapter Seven, Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
14 Aralık 2013 Cumartesi
Bilingualism Matters
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics,
more than one in 5 school-aged children (21%) speak a language other than
English at home. It has been estimated that half of the world’s population is
bilingual. Bilingualism happens due to many different reasons. These reasons
can be: immigration, education, intermarriage or other reasons. Many researches
have been conducted towards finding the effects of being bilingual. Some
researches indicated that being bilingual has some negative effects on
children, whereas the other researches have shown that being bilingual has some
many positive effects on individual’s mental abilities.
There is a one wrong belief that children who raised
bilingual will always mix their languages. However, children can quickly learn
what to use where it is needed. If bilingual children interact in both
bilingual and monolingual situations, then they learn to mix languages at
certain times only (François Grosjean). If we give aside the fears of parents’ thoughts
of children will be confused because of being bilingual, we can start to see
the importance of it.
Researches have shown that bilingualism is beneficial for
children’s development. If a child exposed to different languages, than the
child becomes more aware of different cultures, aspects and points of views.
Also, bilinguals tend to be better than monolinguals at ‘multitasking’,
focusing attention and are more capable to learn a new language.
Many researchers conducted experiments about the
relationship between bilinguals and the risk of dementia and some researches
have shown significant results. In the article of ‘Bilingualism: Consequences
for Mind and Brain’ it is stated that, bilingualism has a somewhat muted effect
in adulthood but a larger role in older age, protecting against cognitive
decline. In adolescence period, bilinguals can have some difficulties about
verbal skills and vocabulary. Overall, at all ages they demonstrate better
executive control than monolinguals. Better
executive control leads to becoming better in high-level thinking, multitasking
and ability to sustaining attention. As a result, better cognitive performance
throughout the lifespan. Therefore, as a contrary to the formers beliefs,
bilingualism gives children more than two languages.
Besides, all the benefits of being bilingual, it shouldn’t
be considered wrong. Nowadays, some parents are just obsessed with the
achievement of their kids. Children spend much more time with their nonnative
speaking caretakers than spending time with their parents. It is for sure that
learning a new language in early ages is very crucial and has many positive
effects on children. However, we also have to think the consequences of some
extreme situations. A child who is raised by a caretaker will not be able to
set attachment with his/her parents and therefore will have a tendency to develop
reckless, avoidant and ambivalent behavior. For this reasons, parenting has a
great impact on every aspect of child development. Bilingualism matters, but
not forgetting the importance of moderate environmental effects and secure
attachment matters more in order to raise well-developed children.
References:
[1] American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, The
Advantages of Being Bilingual
[2] François Grosjean’s new book, Bilingual: Life and
Reality, Harvard University, 2010
[3] Bilingualism: Consequences for Mind and Brain, Ellen
Bialystok, Fergus I.M. Craik and Gigi Luk
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)