Since I will not be back to Illinois until Tuesday, I thought I would upload my week 2 update. I hope you enjoy it!

Often, it appears that some people are born with a higher ability to learn quickly and easily while others often struggle to learn. Often, this ability is referred to as aptitude. This is just one side of the Nature versus Nurture debate that has been going back and forth for as long as humans were aware of their ability to learn.  As the book states in Chapter 6, “Some people will never be very smart, no matter how much intelligence we try to give them, because their natural stimulus-response mechanisms don’t work so well” (Kalantzis and Cope, 2012).   The authors continue to discuss that to separate innate intelligence from what is learned would be difficult.  The authors contend that all are equipped with a certain level of ability and it is the “Nurture” part that makes the individual intelligent.  Much like the innate ability is a blank canvas, paints and brushes and the some artists can make priceless masterpieces while others are challenged to make stick men.  In many ways, it can be easy to argue that this equal foundation is not the same for all.  Many struggle with this notion and have witnessed children raised in the worst isolated conditions, devoid of social or educational input, show savant tendencies.  A similar phenomenon has been seen in families with twin children.  Occasionally, one twin is remarkably bright where the other appears to barely make it academically.   No doubt that these two children have a very similar (if not exact) environment where Nurture would affect them so what would be the explanation of the variability between he two??  Perhaps the examples society is provided are anomalies an get more publication than those that are very similar.

In a recent research study, environment could be shown to have a dramatic influence on the ability of the learner. In a recent article of Pacific Standard magazine, research shows that “Intelligence is “formed through an interaction between genetic endowment and environment,” and that education “can be a fundamental factor in the environment’s influence.” (Jacobs, 2015).  The author continues as he states, “These researchers looked at 436 sets of siblings, all males, in which at least one member was reared by one or more biological parents, and the other by adoptive parents. They found the adopted siblings, on average, had an IQ 4.4 points higher than their brothers. Offspring placed in the best-educated homes had the highest scores, they write, whereas those placed in homes less educated than the family of origin actually performed worse than their non-adopted siblings.  So, far from being set at birth, IQ appears to be influenced by both one’s home environment, and the quantity and quality of schooling one receives. To fully develop, budding geniuses need fertile soil” (Jacabs, 2015).  The debate appears to continue and until there is a consensus that Nature or Nurture contributes to intelligence in a profound way, the debate will likely continue for some time.

Reference:

Burt, D. (2011).

Jacobs, T. (2015). More Evidence That Intelligence Is Malleable.  Pacific Standard Magazine Retrieved from http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/more-evidence-that-intelligence-is-malleable on June 28, 2015.

Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B (2012). New Learning: Elements       

            Of a Science Of Education. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.