This essay examines the multifaceted process of human learning by exploring the interplay of biological, environmental, and social factors that shape cognitive and moral development. It surveys the nature versus nurture debate as framed by developmental psychology, considers how cultural context influences emotional expression and behavioral norms, and traces formal and informal educational practices across different societies. Drawing on King and Kitchener's seven stages of reflective thinking, as well as humanist and constructivist learning theories, the paper argues that learning is simultaneously personal and social, behavioral and cognitive — a complex, lifelong process that no single framework can fully capture.
Human beings learn in many different ways. Numerous factors — biological, environmental, and social — come together to shape each individual person. Learning begins in infancy and continues for a lifetime. Armed with perhaps a few biologically programmed characteristics, the infant begins a journey of discovery that will shape the future adult's outlook and understanding. Theologians, philosophers, scientists, and thinkers of all stripes have long pondered the question of humankind's essential morality or immorality. Many of these arguments, in fact, hit at the heart of the dilemma (Cohen, 2003, p. 152). Codes of ethical conduct, such as those favored by many world religions, imply that human beings must be "perfected" — that they are not "born good." On the other hand, there are faiths that believe implicitly in the original goodness, or sinfulness, of human beings.
Still, the question of whether human beings can be taught to behave in a moral manner speaks to the fundamentals of learning itself. The "ethical individual" can be defined only insofar as a given group or society defines "ethics." Social values are learned alongside other life skills — skills that include comprehending the way a society works, one's place in that society, and many individual competencies besides. The learning process encompasses the acquisition of knowledge in all its forms.
One of the most significant arguments regarding cognitive development is that of nature versus nurture. For generations, developmental psychologists and other social scientists have attempted to determine which plays a greater role in human learning — genetics or external environment. While "genes cannot be thought of as 'coding' psychological traits in any fixed or hard-wired fashion, as in a single 'gene' for reading or a single 'gene' for intelligence" (Daniels & Edwards, 2004, p. 192), biology does play a role in the perception and processing of information.
As Daniels and Edwards (2004) note, knowing whether a particular ability is present at or near birth does not help us understand its developmental source; rather, it is a starting point for investigating causes and consequences. The real question for cognitive developmental psychology is how genes and environment interact to produce development (p. 192). A multitude of environmental factors act on the growing child, and learning consists of making sense of these varied familial, cultural, and social influences.
A person's cultural, religious, and social background provides powerful stimuli that drive the developing human being to regard specific ideas as "right" and others as "wrong." As Reese and Franzen (1997) observe, "Cultures set a range of opportunities for development; they define the limits of what is desirable, 'normal,' individual variation, and what is 'abnormal' in that culture (although there is some cultural consensus that some forms of deviance and psychopathology are abnormal)" (pp. 4–5).
Recent studies of non-Western peoples have shown that many linkages between emotional and mental states on one hand, and psychoses or neuroses on the other, differ considerably from those observed in the West. Even in so seemingly simple a case as the expression of anger, there are significant differences from culture to culture: whereas Eskimos seldom display anger, other peoples employ elaborate and complex means of expressing it. Likewise, some cultures encourage displays of extreme sadness and sorrow — as among Iranians — while others discourage them, as among the Navajos (Manson, Bechtold, Novins, & Beals, 1997, p. 139). Within-group differences are also evident along these lines, most notably in terms of social class and gender, particularly regarding dysphoria and excessive worry — a pattern true among mainstream Americans as well as ethnic minorities such as American Indians and Alaska Natives (Manson et al., 1997, p. 139).
"Formal and informal education systems across human societies"
"King and Kitchener's seven-stage model of cognitive development"
"Individual-centered and teacher-directed theories of learning"
You’re 37% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.