There are many ways in which cultural differences impact cognitive development. One of the areas in which we see the impact relating to cultural differences is with the development of reasoning and problem solving skills as is discussed in Chapter 8 of our textbook. “Because our habits of mind are influenced by our cultural and historical circumstances, the decision-making strategies that we seek to promote in students reflect our own culture” (Brenner & Parks, 2001). We must be aware of this and ensure that we are taking the cultural backgrounds of the children we work with into consideration as we help them to develop the ability to reason and solve problems. In this discussion, you will examine the social and cultural impacts on cognitive development by taking a deeper look at the development of reasoning and problem solving skills. Before responding to this discussion, review the Week Four Instructor Guidance for additional information, resources, and support.Explain how cognitive characteristics help children learn how to reason, when these abilities to reason develop, and the role social skills play in the ability to reason. Use examples to support your thinking.Discuss the cognitive characteristics that help children learn how to develop problem solving skills including the role culture plays in the way a child reasons or solves problems.Describe how the development of reasoning and problem solving skills relates to Vygotsky’s social constructivist approach and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Use one additional scholarly source and examples to support your thinking.Examine the cultural considerations that need to be taken into account when planning strategies to develop reasoning and problem solving skills. Provide a specific example for both reasoning and problem solving that supports your examination.USE in-text citations and cite the chapter attached at the end.Farrar, M. J. & Montgomery, D. (2015). Cognitive development of children: Research and application [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu
08ch_farrar_development.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1
8
What
is Special
Education?
Problem
Solving
and
Reasoning
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Pre-Test
Fuse/Thinkstock
1. 1. You can use the terms disability and handicap interchangeably. T/F
Learning
Objectives
2. 2. The history
of special education began in Europe. T/F
3. the
3. end
Theoffirst
legislation
protected
students with disabilities was passed in the 1950s.
By
thisAmerican
chapter, you
should that
be able
to:
T/F
• Analyze the nature of problem solving and its emergence in infants and toddlers.
4. 4. All students with disabilities should be educated in special education classrooms. T/F
• Explain how analogical reasoning is used to solve problems in different contexts.
5. 5. Special education law is constantly reinterpreted. T/F
• Describe the nature of planning and factors that facilitate the development and use of the skill.
6. Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
• Relate divergent thinking to effective tool use in the context of problem solving.
• Analyze how children discover and use rules to solve problems.
• Outline the differences between intuitive and analytical processes of reasoning in children, including the
development of those processes.
• Summarize the foundations of scientific thinking and the evidence that those foundations are present in
young children.
Pretest Questions

Pretest Questions
1. By age 2, infants can anticipate the consequences of their problem-solving efforts and
adjust accordingly. T/F
2. Four- and 5-year-olds cannot explicitly detect analogies between one relationship and
another because they cannot think abstractly. T/F
3. Individual differences at age 4 in the executive functions predict differences in children’s
planning skills even into the grade school years. T/F
4. Sometimes knowing too much about an object’s function is counterproductive, such as
when it interferes with one’s ability to see how the object might serve in a novel way.
T/F
5. Asking children to explain why they tried to solve a task the way they did is a
counterproductive distraction that negatively impacts their ability to eventually find a
solution. T/F
6. Instructing children to “pretend” or “make believe” improves their ability to reason
logically. T/F
7. When grade school children are free to investigate on their own in learning how to
conduct scientific experiments, they experience greater and longer lasting gains than
when they receive explicit instruction. T/F
Maria is a sixth-grade student who has just arrived home from school. Her mom, Mrs. Garcia,
asks Maria about her day. Maria had quite a busy day and shares her experiences. Maria says
her history teacher asked her to write an essay about what would have happened to the civil
rights movement in the United States if Martin Luther King Jr. had not been assassinated. Then
in math class, her teacher worked out a few example problems on the board and gave her a math
worksheet to complete during class. Maria tells her mom all about how she collaborated with
her biology partner to record and evaluate data on an experiment examining the effect of acid
rain on plant growth. Finally, Maria tells her mother that the chain on her bike came loose during her ride home. She did not have any tools, so she improvised a solution, drawing on a similar
situation she experienced last month.
These scenarios, which are part of a fairly typical school day for a busy student, highlight the
importance of reasoning and problem solving. Her mother is impressed with Maria, since the
history class assignment required her to reason about consequences that follow from a hypothetical premise. Her mother thinks that in math class, Maria used effective problem-solving
skills that required her to detect relationships between the example problems and the new problems on the worksheet. Garcia tells Maria that she did a great job in her biology class, since the
assignment required her to think scientifically about what she can and cannot conclude from
her evidence.
Finally, Garcia points out that repairing the loose chain required all of the skills previously mentioned. During her day, Maria engaged in (a) the type of careful analysis found in scientific
thinking, (b) problem solving as she generated a solution, and (c) reasoning. Maria smiles and is
proud of her accomplishments. She then starts to wonder how best to construct a rational argument to convince her parents that she needs a new bicycle!
Introduction
Questions to Think About
1. Maria’s essay assignment requires her to imagine events that differ from what actually happened. How is the assignment similar and different from designing a scientific experiment?
2. Maria’s math teacher presented examples before assigning students problems to
solve on their own. Do you think children would learn more if they relied less on
examples and instead simply worked out the problems on their own, using trial and
error to discover solutions? Why or why not?
3. In science class, if Maria’s predicted outcome was not supported by the data, how
would you help her to systematically figure out if the unexpected result was due to
a design flaw in the experiment? What reasoning skills would you nurture to help
Maria think through the problematic results of the study?
Introduction
The topic of this chapter is one that underlies a significant portion of our lives. When we
reflect for a moment, we can see that numerous everyday activities draw on sophisticated reasoning and problem-solving skills. Whether we are following a recipe, maneuvering through
traffic, figuring out bus or subway schedules, or navigating the Internet to find a reasonable
hotel price, we are engaging in a series of decisions that require reasoning and deliberation.
We compare and contrast information, consider possible consequences (both intended and
unintended), and engage in trial-and-error efforts to arrive at the best outcome.
The wide-ranging impacts of reasoning and problem-solving skills are, of course, not restricted
to adulthood. As we saw in the case study, reasoning and problem-solving skills influence
children’s schoolwork in a variety of subjects. Those skills are also necessary for everyday
challenges like fixing a bicycle or constructing a convincing argument for a new bicycle. In
sum, the focus of this chapter—the development of reasoning and problem-solving skills—
involves a topic that is central to our lives.
Core Themes, Reasoning, and Problem Solving
In this chapter, we will look at the development of reasoning and problem solving in the context of the four overarching themes of the book. The themes broadly apply because they frame
our understanding of how children approach and solve problems in a wide range of contexts.
Nature and nurture. Early competency in infancy suggests innate capabilities (nature) in
areas of reasoning and problem solving. However, we will encounter evidence that suggests
that experiences like practice and instruction advance the development of problem-solving
skills and scientific thinking, which indicates an important role for nurture as well.
Continuity and discontinuity. This chapter’s discussion of Piaget’s theory and IP theory highlights the continuity–discontinuity theme. We will examine whether children’s reasoning
develops in distinct stages (discontinuity) or instead varies in sophistication depending on
the task (continuity).
Problem Solving
Section 8.1
Domain general and domain specific. We will see that children acquire general principles, such
as inferring cause and effect or drawing a logical conclusion, that apply across domains. In this
sense, the abilities we discuss are domain general (Markman & Gentner, 2001). However, we will
also see how children’s reasoning depends on the specific content and context of the problem
they are solving. In this sense, the processes are domain specific (Markman & Gentner, 2001).
Performance and competence. Recall that the performance–competence theme involves the
challenge of sensitively measuring children’s knowledge without over- or underestimating their
competence (knowledge). A sensitive measurement minimizes performance demands that may
be taxing to children. Performance demands involve the length of time of the testing, the complexity of the instructions, and so forth. As we describe performance demands that impact the
quality of children’s reasoning, we will be illustrating the performance–competence theme.
8.1 Problem Solving
Adults do not always realize that, just like them, infants and children are confronted with
obstacles on a daily basis. Simple goals like figuring out how to reach a toy or drink from a
sippy cup require cognitive processes to find a solution. Effective problem solving is a skill
that broadly impacts children’s lives. Given the number and range of possible problems children face on any given day, it is helpful to ask if there are cognitive processes that are common
to problem solving in general. If so, those abilities would be especially important to target in
instruction because they would have a broad and domain-general impact on development.
In this section, we define the fundamental components of problem solving and describe its
early emergence in infancy. In the next few sections, we examine the development of three
cognitive processes—analogical reasoning, planning, and tool use—that generally underlie
effective problem solving.
Problem solving is often viewed from an IP theory perspective. Recall that IP theory places an
emphasis on detailed observations that allow us to see up close the process of developmental
change. In that context, we take an extended look at children’s attempts to solve a classic physics problem concerning the qualities of density and volume. Detailed observations can provide
general insights into how instruction can effectively promote the discovery of solutions.
In the News: Common Core Standards
The Common Core state standards are academic standards adopted by many states. The standards are intended to ensure that all students possess sufficient knowledge and skill to succeed
after high school. The introduction of Common Core has engaged proponents and critics in a
debate over reasonable and effective goals for children’s learning. Follow the link to the Common Core standards website below. How many times are problem-solving skills referenced?

Read the Standards

Critical-Thinking Question
Why do you think problem-solving skills are given such prominence within the new standards?
Problem Solving
Section 8.1
Problem solving consists of (a) identifying a goal, (b) developing and enacting a solution,
and (c) monitoring the attempted solution’s effects and making corrections as necessary
(Friedman & Scholnick, 1997; Keen, 2011). To illustrate some foundational features of problem solving, we consider a problem typically faced in the infant or toddler stage of childhood:
how to eat with a spoon. We see each component of problem solving in this effort. Success
first involves identifying the goal—getting food in the mouth. The second step is to develop
a solution. This involves identifying that the spoon is a useful tool for attaining the goal and
then trying to eat with it. The third step is monitoring the success of the attempted solution
and making modifications when necessary.
How effectively do infants and toddlers solve the problem of feeding themselves with a spoon?
Three different age groups (9-, 14-, and 19-month-olds) were studied to investigate this question (McCarty, Clifton, & Collard, 1999). Each child was seated in front of a bowl of applesauce
and a small spoon. The children typically grabbed the spoon with one of three grips (see
Figure 8.1).
Figure 8.1: Infants’ and toddlers’ grip of a spoon in a problem-solving task
Infants and toddlers were presented with a spoon that was next to either their dominant or
nondominant hand. When the spoon was placed next to their nonpreferred hand, developmental
differences in problem solving emerged.
Source: Adapted from Keen, R. (2011). The development of problem solving in young children: A critical cognitive skill. Annual
Review of Psychology, 62, 1–21. Modified from McCarty, M. E., Clifton, R. K., & Collard, R. R. (1999). Problem solving in infancy:
The emergence of an action plan. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 1091–1101.
Developmental differences in problem solving emerged when the handle of the spoon pointed
toward the infant or toddler’s nonpreferred hand. To appreciate the problem this arrangement poses, place a spoon (or some other object as a stand-in) with its handle pointing toward
your nondominant hand. Infants reach for the spoon over the top rather than underneath it. If
using your dominant hand, you will see that the easiest maneuver when reaching over the top
is simply grabbing the bowl of the spoon (bowl-end grip, see Figure 8.1). The 19-month-olds
often avoided this outcome by reaching for the spoon with their nonpreferred hand, which
allowed them to use the more effective radial grip.
Analogical Reasoning
Section 8.2
The younger infants tended to pick up the spoon with their dominant hand by using a bowlend or ulnar grasp grip. They were not, evidently, monitoring their attempted solution and
did not make corrections until after the spoon handle (and no food) was in their mouths. The
14-month-olds were more likely to anticipate the handle would end up in their mouths and
made corrections. For example, after gripping the spoon they would place it back on the table
and turn it around until it was successfully reoriented so that they could get the bowl of the
spoon into their mouths (Keen, 2011).
These differences reveal a lot about the early development of problem solving (Keen, 2011).
The oldest children were capable of formulating a plan before acting. The children in the second oldest age group were not as plan oriented but were able to closely monitor their action
and correct their ineffective grip. The youngest infants were not particularly plan oriented or
careful in their monitoring. Sometimes they adjusted and manipulated the spoon only after
their failure to get food into their mouth. We see a series of successful intermediate steps
before the problem is most effectively solved.
Notice that the outlines of this developmental progression reflect some of the qualities
Piaget described in his theory of infant cognitive development (see Chapter 2). Infants display means–end understanding during the sensorimotor period in Piaget’s theory (8 to 12
months). In solving the problem of feeding oneself, means–end understanding was demonstrated as 9-month-olds used the spoon as a tool to achieve their goal.
Later, in sensorimotor development, the mastery of object permanence involves solving problems mentally by keeping track of hidden objects in order to find them. Older infants and toddlers became increasingly sophisticated in their ability to mentally devise plans and solutions
to the problem of eating with a spoon. The oldest age group figured out the problem of reaching for the spoon with their dominant hand and mentally devised a solution before acting.
In the next sections, we will see how the skills evident in learning to eat with a spoon (planning and tool use) continue to develop. We will also see that older children have something in
common with infants when problem solving. Specifically, learning to eat with a spoon is a
trial-and-error process. Generally speaking, children’s
Question to Consider
errors during problem solving should not surprise us.
Nor should they necessarily discourage children from
Can you think of other everyday problems
making further attempts. Errors provide feedback that
children can use to make progress. From infants’ examthat infants and toddlers try to solve?
ple, we can see the value of allowing children to actively
What developmental differences between
engage with a problem and attempt to solve it. Progress
a 12- and 18-month-old might arise when
can emerge through active attempts and failures along
solving those problems?
the way.
8.2 Analogical Reasoning
Once a problem’s solution is discovered, the knowledge can be transferred to new situations.
This is a key component of learning. This is evident, for instance, when teachers and parents
instruct with examples and expect children to extrapolate what they learned to new situations
and related problems. As they approach their first birthday, infants appear capable of learning
from examples. That is, they are capable of observing how an adult solves a problem—such
Analogical Reasoning
Section 8.2
as obtaining an out-of-reach toy by pulling a string—and then applying what they saw to new,
related problems that involve getting an object on their own (Chen, Sanchez, & Campbell, 1997).
Generalizing a solution to a new problem is a form of analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning involves detecting a relationship between two entities and then extending that relationship to other pairings (Goswami, 2013). For instance, the relationship between hammer
and nail is analogous to saw and wood because both pairings share the underlying relational
structure of tool-to-use.
Analogies are crucial for transferring knowledge one already possesses to new situations and
encounters. For instance, once 3-year-olds are taught that the solution for one problem involves
stacking bales of hay to reach the top of a tractor, they transfer this knowledge to another
problem in which the solution involves stacking telephone books to reach a jar (Brown, Kane,
& Long, 1989). For older children, thinking analogically is helpful when learning how to read
(Goswami, 1993). If a beginning reader learns the vowel a is silent when it directly follows the
vowel o (for example, soap), knowing that the second vowel is silent transfers when the child
encounters other words with two consecutive vowels (for example, leap and treat).
The cognitive capacity to solve analogy problems with familiar entities (like dogs and birds),
even when incorrect options serve as distractors, is evident around ages 4 to 5 (Goswami &
Brown, 1990). For instance, when told “Bird is to nest as dog is to
?,” 4- and 5-year-olds
chose doghouse to complete the analogy even though they were given other options like bone
that were associated with dogs (see Figure 8.2). As we saw in Chapter 5, young children possess a relatively sophisticated store of knowledge about, and interest in, living things. Their
early familiarity with animals likely contributes to their success at detecting such relationships (Vosniadou, 1989).
Figure 8.2: Analogical reasoning in preschoolers
A test of analogical reasoning for 4- and 5-year-olds.
Source: Adapted from Goswami, U., & Brown, A. L. (1990). Higher-order structure and relational reasoning: Contrasting analogical
and thematic relations. Cognition, 36(3), 207–226.
Planning
Section 8.3
Rather than following a stage-like development, children’s ability to solve analogies is highly
variable across tasks. In particular, children’s analogical reasoning depends on their general
knowledge of information relevant to the relationships they are trying to infer (Goswami,
2013). A child unfamiliar with world geography will find it difficult to infer that Europe is the
correct answer in the analogical relationship Andes: South America :: Alps: ? As children’s general knowledge base increases, their analogical reasoning improves (Goswami, 1991. Thus,
although the capacity for analogical reasoning may be present in early childhood, subsequent
detection of analogies is dependent on learning.
Development of the EFs also influences analogical reasoning. For instance, analogical reasoning can be complicated when two objects look similar but are otherwise unrelated. If given
the analogy tree: apple :: vine: ?, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment