Mind Development in Children in a Lower Socioeconomic Status - Research Paper Example

Theoretical Approach to the Study of Mind Development in Children in A Lower Socioeconomic Status Throughout history, there have been many studies performed regarding the different aspects of human beings. Studies that in turn, have enabled the formulation of theories that influence how others are able to understand the basic components of the human condition. One of the most central aspects, by far, for the human body, would be that of the spirit. The very entity that would, in turn, guide the individual as they move along in life. While the theory of the adult mind would be an observation warranting further discovery, the nature of the child’s mind, would provide an equally relevant measure of valuable material. From the nature of their present state of existence, children are in possession the opportunity of being able to view the world in a different manner than those who would have been far older than them, at the point in time where further study would be attempted. One of the primary reasons that would enable further awareness, in terms of how children are able to achieve the abilities that they possess, along with the point in time at which they do receive this heightened state, the unifying factor between both of these suggested questions, would be the presence of language. Through the wide ranging opportunities that children are exposed to and that resulting in differing instances available for communication development, the study of the theory of the mind, in terms of youth development, would be something that would yield beneficial information in the long run. As the future innovators and creators of items that would serve the future inhabitants of the Earth, it would be relevant to consider the factors that come in to play, as children seeking to engage and use their minds. The ability for a spectrum of the population, in this case youthful individuals, to have their socioeconomic status in life, whether poor, middle-class, or finally prosperous, influence their ability to communicate with others around them, would provide a greater awareness of the human mind and the ability for it to formulate the necessary brainwave patterns that translate into the thoughts and behaviors expressed. Through the study of Human Development, the interlinking role between the presence of nature and the ability to nurture and how they would form together and influence the greater discussion as to the evolution of the mind’s ability to communicate. From a biological standpoint, human beings are generally the same at the point in time when they are born, leading to the period in time, where they are about to leave this Earth. Cultural background would also serve to influence children, by means of its ability to illustrate for children, in terms of their own respective backgrounds. Different stages that, after they are compiled together, would work toward the better understanding of the human mind and the development of the theory behind its growth. While realizing the socioeconomic influence, as it would come to the development of the mind of a child, it would initially be important, to first consider the nature of the child’s mind on its own. For children, they often time begin at stage where they are in fact, not aware of their abilities in terms of being able to perceive others and more centrally, are unaware that they would possess such perceptions at all. In terms of the studies done on the subject matter, these studies would have been conceived and implemented on the most simplistic of levels. According to the work of John H. Flavell, a member of the Psychology Department at Stanford University in California, “Most theory-of-mind studies have investigated children’s knowledge about our most basic mental states—desires, percepts, beliefs, knowledge, thoughts, intentions, feelings, and so on,” (Flavell, 1999, para. 4). Fundamental aspects of the human condition and its ability to influence the mind as it observes, reacts and seeks to engage with other stimuli further. As for children from a lower economic status, there would be studies done that would address the issues present for their subgroup. Reiterating the sentiment of Flavell in his work on the minds of youth, “The specific forms of social cognitive reasoning preschoolers incorporate include information about the protagonist’s goals, desires, beliefs, and emotions,” (Curenton, 2010, para. 2). Ultimately, people’s thoughts that they possess, in the end, do in fact play a role with regard to the behavior patterns that they in turn exhibit to others. The question then becomes the opportunity for the children to be able to determine someone’s beliefs, through the introduction of their chosen behavior in correlation with it. While there would have been studies done that would have alluded to the connection between socio-economic status and mind development, “To date, there is no clear explanation as to why low-income and/or ethnic minority children perform more poorly than their middle-income peers on false belief tasks,” (Curenton, 2010, para. 7). With the lack of available answers, in terms of why children from such backgrounds would respond in lesser degrees than those around them would, it would still leave a puzzling question to be answered. While language would be an option, in terms of reaching an agreed upon conclusion, it would by far not be the only one. In terms of language, “Languages need to express a variety of meanings about belief with mental terms, but often the same term is used to convey more than one meaning,” (Akar, et.al., 2003, para. 6). Such a variance could, when present, provide an issue for the respective children involved in that, with the varied nature of meaning that many words would have, their cognitive abilities in return, would have to digest the words and infer for themselves what the word meant in the context for which it would have been given. For the study illustrated with this work, the participants would have been composed of individuals that would have been able to effectively perform throughout the course of the study. All of the children would have been exposed to the same sets of stimuli throughout the course of the tests that were run and at the end, the result gathered would in fact give the appearance of providing credence to the link between socioeconomic status and the development of the mind within children. In keeping with the role of language, the SES of children, however studied over the past, would still remain elusive in terms of the available information that would best illustrate the presence of diversity within the fold. As it stands, “The relation between language and socioeconomic status (SES) has always been a contentious issue because of the potential to view the language of low-SES individuals through a deficit model and view differences as deficiencies,” (Thompson, et.al., 2006, para. 2). The effects of such social status would remain present but the remaining consideration would be required to be given to the consideration of how the data would be reviewed by those composing the testing examples. Putting the information into further and a far more understandable framework: Opportunities for preschoolers to experience dyadic (adult-child) problem solving, both formal and informal, are important because this is a context in which children are directly exposed to conceptual challenges that can be mediated through talk that supports early meta- cognitive awareness—self-monitoring, planning, evaluation and so forth. (Thompson, et.al., 2006, para. 4) The example provided of the case involve children of pre-school age, would provide for the opportunity to yield more available information, as researchers would move forward in the study of theories surrounding the development of the mind’s processes and how things and individuals encountered, can influence that very development. How young children from differing backgrounds and social alliances, can find their development being impacted as a result of those social and cultural influences from both within the home, as well as from outside the home. In the end, “There is a growing awareness of how essential language exposure is to metacognitive development; but significant gaps remain in the knowledge about diversity among low-SES parents,” (Thompson, et.al., 2006). The relevance of this source’s statement would fall within the given benefit of language, as it comes to development of the type of thinking in question but in that same respect, there would remain a further need to bring about research, in terms of the impact that lower socio-economic students would have, as a result of any diversity that they would be facing in their own set of circumstances. The essential objective would be to retain the presence of mind that it would not be a question of intelligence in terms of these children but to keep in mind the level of variance, as it would to how the respective family groups, would interact with one another. Individual children would possess intelligence within them as they go about their daily lives but with the presence of a social block around them, or SES, the presence of such a label would find its way into the thought processing abilities of those children that would have resided within economic brackets within the world community that would have been less fortunate than others. As far as the studies that would have been performed in the beginning of the subject discussion, there would appear to be the presence of concern, as to how SES children would be seen as being at a level of difficulty, in viewing their ability to engage in the acts necessary in order to effectively communicate with others. How their status within the social structure would place their opportunities at a level(s) lower, in comparison to other children that would come from differing social group categories. Their intelligence would be present and accounted for. The circumstances for which they would have come from, would be the influence that would warrant further consideration and closer study. In cultures of lower economic class, the typical discussions would range around subjects of more basic survival and in return, such limited conversational backgrounds would be what these children would receive. Their minds would not be privy to the conversations of other students, those of whom would hail from higher social classes and as such, would be able to formulate longer and more detailed conversational experiences. Going one step further: Theory theorists argue that experience plays a formative role in children’s theory-of-mind development. They believe that experience provides young children with information that cannot be accounted for by their present theory of mind, information that will eventually cause them to revise and improve that theory (Flavell, 1999, para. 11). In terms of children, “In particular, theory of mind researchers are interested in how children come to acquire an understanding of mental representation; the ability to represent people, objects, actions, events, etc. in the mind,” (Lonergan, 2003, para. 2). After research that would have been completed for many years, the undeniable fact would remain that, in terms of the mind itself, it would possess a great detail of potential and power that would provide for the opportunity, when such an opportunity would have been encouraged through presented circumstance, to engage in activities on a far grander scale. To digest information and transform it into cognitive patterns of response that enables the subject to be able to recognize people, places, actions taken, or events that would have occurred. For the children involved in studies that would seek to engage them and inquire as to what their responses would be, the initial misstep in the process, would come with the desire to put the question, in the form of asking the children what they think their parent may wish to view something as, instead of structuring the question more within the realm of being child-oriented, as it would have been a child’s response being given. The study of mind development would provide for a wealth of potential in terms of research and the ability to understand, possibly better, the pathways which individual minds take, in terms of gathering together the information received and how that would result in the responses seen when directly exposed to outside and internal forces. The beliefs that children are able to have within them, some positive and some considered to be false-beliefs and the possible ways in which researchers would be able to further assess the information available, in the process of being able to better understand the advancement of the mind within the human body, which in this case, would be in the body of a human child. References Akar, Didar, Beck, Ivelisse M., Diesendruck, Gil, & Shatz, Marilyn. (2003) The Influence of Language and Socioeconomic Status on Children’s Understanding of False Belief. American Psychological Association, Inc. Vol. 39, No. 4, 717-729. Curenton, Stephanie M. (2010). The Association Between Narratives and Theory of Mind For Low-Income Preschoolers. Flavell, John H. (1999). Cognitive Development: Children’s Knowledge About the Mind. Stanford University Department of Psychology. Retrieved from http:// http://web.mac.com/jopfer/courses/846-Concepts_files/Flavell (1999) TOM.pdf. Lonegran, Heather A.H. (2003). Understanding of Affective False Beliefs, Perceptions of Parental Discipline, and Classroom Behavior in Children From Head Start. Early Education & Development. The Metropolitan State College of Denver. 14: 1, 29-46. Thompson, R.B., & Williams, Deanna. (2009). Diversity Among Low SES Families: An Exploration of Predictive Variables for Mothers’ Metacognitive Questions To Their Children. Psychology Press. University of Southern Maine. Read More