Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context¹

Abstract

This article synthesizes foundational knowledge from multiple scientific disciplines regarding how humans develop in context. Major constructs that define human development are integrated into a developmental system framework, this includes-epigenetics, neural malleability and plasticity, integrated complex skill development and learning, human variability, relationships and attachment, self-regulation, science of learning, and dynamics of stress, adversity and resilience. Specific attention is given to relational patterns, attunement, cognitive flexibility, executive function, working memory, sociocultural context, constructive development, self-organization, dynamic skill development, neural integration, relational pattern making, and adverse childhood experiences. A companion article focuses on individual-context relations, including the role of human relationships as key drivers of development, how social and cultural contexts support and/or undermine individual development, and the dynamic, idiographic developmental pathways that result from mutually influential individual-context relations across the life span. An understanding of the holistic, self-constructive character of development and interconnectedness between individuals and their physical, social, and cultural contexts offers a transformational opportunity to study and influence the children's trajectories. Woven throughout is the convergence of the science of learning-constructive developmental web, foundational skills, mindsets (sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and growth mindset), prior knowledge and experience, motivational systems (intrinsic motivation, achievement motivation, and the Belief-Control-Expectancy Framework), metacognition, conditions for learning , cultural responsiveness and competence, and instructional and curricular design-and its importance in supporting in integrative framework for children's development. This scientific understanding of development opens pathways for new, creative approaches that have the potential to solve seemingly intractable learning and social problems. Recent decades have witnessed an explosion of knowledge about how children develop into whole individuals, how they become learners, and how contextual factors nourish or hinder their development. This knowledge comes from diverse fields, including neuroscience, developmental science, epigenetics, early childhood, psychology, adversity science, resilience science, the learning sciences, and the social sciences. To date, such knowledge has existed largely in separate fields of research, and has not been integrated such that its profound relevance to developmental processes becomes both visible and directly applicable to the settings in which children grow and learn. As a result, important knowledge remains underutilized, contributing to persistent disparities, challenges, and inadequacies in our education systems, other childserving systems, and the supports that we provide to families, practitioners, and communities. The ability to realize the fulles...

Toward Theoretical and Methodological Innovations in the Evidence Base for Family Policy: A Commentary

“…How might family research be conducted to address the issues of idiography and specificity discussed by Bornstein () and others (e.g., Cantor, Osher, Berg, Steyer, & Rose, ; Osher, Cantor, Berg, Steyer, & Rose, ; Rose, )? We believe that three facets of methodology are important to consider: designs, measures, and analyses.…”

Frontiers in Theory-Predicated Research in Youth Development: A Commentary

“…As a consequence, Cantor et al (2018) indicate that there is a great need to align and integrate discipline-specific knowledge from biology, neuroscience, psychology, and the social sciences to create (a) a holistic understanding of youth (i.e., one that emphasizes the inseparability of the biological, psychological, and social facets of a person); and, as well, (b) a contextuallysensitive perspective about youth (i.e., one that recognizes the specific family, community, cultural, and physical ecology settings of youth). Cantor et al explain that, together, holism and contextual sensitivity allow researchers and practitioners to best understand and promote healthy development and learning for diverse youth.…”

“…The power of the Cantor et al and the Osher et al articles is that they synthesize findings about major constructs involved in the study of human development within a dynamic, developmental systems framework. Cantor et al (2018) note that many of the theoretical models of individual behavior and development often ask narrow questions (i.e., ones relevant to only specific fields) and involve research that is reductionist and devoid of sensitivity to individual and cultural diversity and historical change (e.g., see Bronfenbrenner &Morris, 2006, andElder, Shanahan, &Jennings, 2015, for comparable critiques).…”

“…For instance, using dynamic systems concepts, Cantor et al (2018) integrate the literatures pertinent to epigenetics and to brain malleability to discuss topics central to the understanding of an individual's development. These topics include skill development and learning, selfregulation, cognitive flexibility, executive functioning, working memory, impacts of stress and adversity on healthy brain development, resilience, social relationships and attachment, and the impacts of the nested systems (i.e., the micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-, and chrono-systems) within the ecology of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 2005;Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).…”

“…The answer to this question is complex because it is typically the case that each participant enters a youth development program with a diverse history of challenges, diverse, needs, diverse skills, and diverse aspirations about the benefits of the program. The ideas presented in the articles by Cantor et al (2018) and Osher, et al (2018) provide youth development program leaders with a rationale for focusing on the specific pathways that led a specific young person to the program, the specific program and broader contextual resources that may be useful for a specific youth to prosper in the program, and therefore the diverse ways in which the program may positively impact the subsequent pathway travelled by a specific young person.…”