Examining the “Whole Child” to Generate Usable Knowledge

Abstract

Despite the promise of scientific knowledge contributing to issues facing vulnerable children, families, and communities, typical approaches to research have made applications challenging. While contemporary theories of human development offer appropriate complexity, research has mostly failed to address dynamic developmental processes. Research typically fragments or splits the human organism into “investigatable” units—biology, behavior, culture, genetics, relationships, innate modules of mind, etc.—resulting in the inevitable loss of the person as an integrated, embodied center of agency. This is problematic for generating knowledge that is usable because in educational practice the unit of analysis and application is the whole person. We discuss the problems inherent to generating usable knowledge when theory and research methodology are so deeply incongruent. In an illustrative example, we adopt a “person‐in‐context” perspective to demonstrate how research has led to the mischaracterization of maltreated children as immature, disorganized, and dysregulated. Using this “person‐in‐context” perspective in research can facilitate generating usable knowledge.

The Art and Science of Teaching: A Continuing Education Certificate Program

“…In another session, teaching and assessment were discussed as complementary, and in terms of universal design (Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Ayoub, & Gravel, 2009), with an emphasis on differentiation, grouping, and learning styles. Students were encouraged to revise their syllabi and lesson to include group activities and cognitive choices that acknowledge different learning styles.…”

Examining Systems of Influence and Breaking Methodological Barriers to Create Usable Knowledge

“…Historically, and necessarily, research in developmental neurobiology and development more broadly have tended to oversimplify concepts of the factors at play in development, favoring linear progressions and one‐to‐one causal attributions (e.g., Freud, ; Kohlberg, ; Piaget, ). This, however, is problematic when trying to apply research knowledge to the problems of educational practice because education necessarily deals with the whole person in all of her complexity in the actual ecology of her life (Rappolt‐Schlichtmann et al, ). The first set of articles highlighted in this special section attempted to break boundaries in this regard as the authors (1) tackled research questions centered on authentic issues facing vulnerable children, families, and communities; (2) attempted to make causal linkages between hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis activity and learning outcomes among preterm infants, and maternal participation in a novel cognitively based home visitation program; and (3) dealt with integrating the study of hormonal indicators of both the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and the sympathetic nervous system, a more complex view of human stress system functioning.…”

“…And, sometimes biology can inform decision making in ways that are not otherwise transparent. Research on hormones in development and learning is one point of view on the “person‐in‐context,” and, as the articles in this issue point out, understanding the role of hormones in these processes can help parents and educators to make more informed choices with regard to prevention and intervention (Rappolt‐Schlichtmann, Ayoub, & Gravel, ).…”

Inter- and Transdisciplinary Work: Connecting Research on Hormones With Problems of Educational Practice

“…The productive generation of usable knowledge from basic sciences research to inform the problems of educational practice has been hampered by deep philosophical, methodological, and epistemological differences between the biological sciences and education (Rappolt‐Schlichtmann, Ayoub, & Gravel, 2009; Samuels, 2009). And, questions of the utility of neuroscience in education continue to persist; many have pointed to the proliferation of “neuro‐myths” and so‐called “brain‐based” education as exemplars of the perils inherent in promoting the interaction of neuroscience to education (Bruer, 1997; Goswami, 2006; Samuels, 2009).…”

“…In turn, questions in these disciplines are informed by efforts to apply, extend, and evaluate basic knowledge and best practice within. The interaction of diverse points of view and collaboration across research and practice is the foundation on which knowledge that has practical value must be built (Fischer et al, 2010; Rappolt‐Schlichtmann et al, 2009). When this crosstalk and crosscollaboration works best, how we educate our children is informed by advances in basic science in much the same way as in medicine—where research questions are grounded in the core problems of practice and studied in authentic contexts.…”