Society and its influence in child development - Essay Example

? Society and its influence in child development The society has been found to bear a number of significant impacts in child development, especially in certain aspects that affect the overall wellbeing of the child and society. With this in mind, society influences moral development in that children copy, role play and imitate that which they find adults and other members of society doing. Studies have shown that modelling of behaviour by children from other members of the society act as the largest influence of how morals are acquired directly from the society. In order to support this information on moral development based on modelling, research on children in violent areas and other countries that are ridden with violence shows that more children who children in violent areas have a tendency to take matters in their hands to clear the situations in which they find themselves (Affouneh, 2007, Pasupathi and Wainry, 2007). Moral development involves acceptance of circumstances and doing that which is socially and cognitively acceptable based on common sense (Lovett and Jordan, 2010). However, coming from conflict-ridden societies shows that the society affects the moral development of children by how they cope with different situations, especially with post-traumatic stress, which can serve to either reinforce or deter moral development (Garbarino and Kostenly, 1996; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 2000; Posada, 2008). With this in mind, further research indicates that excessive violence found in these societies leads to depressions, and anxiety, where even the child is unable to apply that which he/ she believes to be morally wrong (Turner and Chambers, 2006; Ofosky ,1999). This is because the society serves to demean the moral values of the child, as well as the situation in which they can be applied (Koh, 2012). In addition to the moral development of a child, the society also reinforces the issue of morality based on the ideals of the society in which the child is raised or lives (Sanger and Osgothorpe, 2009; Fromm, 1958). Further research on this concept shows support for how society affects moral development by focusing on mainland for evidence of communist societies and morality. As such, the idea of justice varies from society to society, which in communist regions means overall wellbeing of the entire society. In the said society, the idea of justice is different from that of other societies, where it has been found individual wellbeing is more important for capitalist societies, which just proves how society is influential in moral development. Kohlberg’s perspective of society and moral development further shows that this is even in the stages of moral development n a child (Thomas, 1997; Smetana, 1997). As such, the stage of social conformity shows that the child needs to follow social conventions of morality so that what he or she does is regarded as either right or wrong based on the standard of society. Henry Benedict’s book “Punishment, excuses and moral development” indicates that the society also prescribes punishment for immoral behaviour (Tam, 1996). It is this concept of punishment that sees the reinforcement of morality in a child, and removal of undesired behaviours, where they get to model all the behaviour of other senior members of society in an attempt to have socially acceptable behaviour and values and ideals of the society in which they live. Society and its various divisions, especially those that involve social classes serve to influence the development of a child on the moral aspect. Putting the matter into perspective reveals that children come from different socio-economic backgrounds, which is apparent even without mention (The influence of culture, n.d). However, to support how society in this perspective influences moral development is the fact that children look at their socio-economic status against that of other in order to determine how treat other members of society. This is shown by Dr Shaffer, where he mentions in his book that different rearing backgrounds provide different methods of inculcating morals to the children in question (Shaffer, 2009). As such, this proves that different children develop different moral ideals based on their socio-economic backgrounds, and how their respective societies perceive them morally (Narvaez and Gleason, 2007). The above is because the poor are perceived to be more moral than those with all the riches are, as the poor tend to be humble and down play their abilities as compared to the rich (Duncan ad Gunn, 1997; Black and Engle, n.d; The Connecticut Commission.., 2004; Society for Child Development, n.d). As a result, the society is sure, without fail a determinant of how society shapes the development of morality in a child, as children imitate the conduct of people in their own social class. Moreover, they shun those of social classes, especially if the child has not reached the autonomy stage of moral development as suggested by Kohlberg (Louw, 1998; Niles and Peck, 2008). This means that changes in society, which serves with its dynamisms, shapes morality of a child in that shifting a child from a conventionally generous environment to one of meanness demeans the ideals of the child (Marshall et al, 2011). As a result, the child ceases to practice the moral conduct once inculcated until the situation becomes ideal, but this only works for those who are yet to reach autonomy stage of moral development (Shumaker and Heckel, 2007:Sule ,2012). Cognitive Cognitive development of children in relation to society has different perspective from which to perceive the overall development of the child and how society plays its role. The first means in which society influences the cognition of a child is in its perception of its significant aspects of intelligence, which also qualify to be society’s definition of intelligence (SRCD, n.d). Unwinding this aspect reveals that different societies perceive intelligence on different levels of cognition, which even be borne witness to by the Bloom taxonomy of cognitive learning. Explaining this aspect using the different definitions of cognitive intelligence shows that societies that value linguistic ability oversee the development of the left hemisphere of a child over other talents and abilities, which means that children from such societies do not develop cognitively better in other aspects that involve the right hemisphere of the brain (Bjorklund, 2011). This definition of intelligence and cognitive ability puts cognitive development in check so that it develops as far as society sees fit or even beyond it, but based on the aspects that are thought or believed to be crucial to the society. Evidence to support this can be found in modern day society, where parents and professionals follow statistics on the professionals who will be in demand by the time their children are of age to work so that they can be prepared for their future. This is a positive aspect in cognitive development, as children get to realize their potential early and do not have to wait until later to discover their potential (“The cognitive and social…” n.d). The social influence on cognitive development is that children do not get a chance to choose that which they enjoy doing, which digs into their social and emotional development as will be seen later. As earlier mentioned, the bloom taxonomy of learning can also be applied in the development of cognitive ability to evidence the role of society in cognitive growth. The taxonomy indicates different levels of learning based on a hierarchy from the lowest to the highest, where the highest is evaluation and the lowest is knowledge, where the hierarchy depicts different mental levels of a society (Weil and Kincheloe, 2004). There are those in the society who are at different levels and exposing children to these people only develops the child to that level or prepares them to think and learn at the level of exposure. A translation of this further show that children can end up stuck at one level, also called fixation, if their exposure does not vary upwards based on the level of exposure and the level of cognition to which the child has (“The family from…” n.d). In addition, other studies have found that society and a child’s cognitive development are directly tied to emotional development, as well as moral development. According to Walz of Informer Design Newsletter, cognition serves as the intelligence part of a child, where what the child learns depends on what the child is exposed to. This is especially to the people and the environment; as a result, child cognitive development is because of what the child hears, sees or lives through so that when a child is taken to school. Therefore, it is up to the school to expose the child to life positive aspects or negative ones, depending on the moral and social standing of the institution, which do not have to be formal, but be informal (Johnson, 2003; Sylva, 1994, Wentzel, 1991, Rutter, 1985). Relating cognitive development to moral development means that a child needs to know that which is right, then understand it, before applying his or her ideals to life situations then analyse how the application of morals works (Regoli et al, 2011; Gradel, Ostrovsky and Parr,1992). This is all before coming to relating information to new situations, where the situations need unique responses, and evaluation is for judging how effective the entire process of learning has been. The above process indicates that it is society and how it exposes children is the determinant of cognitive development, and that cognitive development of a child based on societal influences affects other areas of development in a child such as morality and affective/ emotional development (Broeren and Muris, 2009; Hay, 2005). Therefore, society’s role in cognitive development can be confirmed through the different forms provided, and can be both negative and positive (Yan, 2004, December 1). Psychomotor Psychomotor development of a child involves the overall physical development and ability to manipulate objects and utilize them in their required manner and move in a desired way (Ecological influences on parenting and child development, n.d.). Psychomotor development, therefore, involves the overall physical growth of a child, as well as how they manipulate items using their hands and feet, which covers both gross motor skills and fine motor skills (Yan, 2004, December 1). The society plays a crucial in moulding how a child develops in that common societal practices involve assigning tasks t children, especially in the family and home set up, where children are expected to take charge of certain simple tasks (Elkind, 2009; Yoo, 2009, December 22). It is the tasks that children are assigned that bring about the desired manipulation skills, which begin from the gross motor skills and develop towards fine motor skills (Lejarraga et al, 2002). In relation to this, the hierarchy of psychomotor development indicates that children must first be able to move in rough imprecise movements prior to developing expertise in fine movements (Berry, 2003). The tasks that children are given lead to these rough movements and the development of manipulation skills depends on the tasks assigned, such that those requiring precision develop the fine motor skills, while the rest deal with gross motor movements (Yan, 2004, December 1). Additionally, the involvement in tasks poses as a challenge that the society presents to children so that they can either work harder to improve their movements and coordination, while children unable to improve their abilities are left frustrated leading to a form of impairment until attention is paid to the child (van et al, 2011). Research on different grounds of motivation and attention in society also shows that physical development is also dependent on society and its expectations of their children (Krettenauer, 2011). With this in mind, the economic activities and values of a society determine how a child develops physically in that the aesthetics of the child by having a well-built body and a mass of muscle could be the ideal of a given society. This is to mean that every member of society works towards having children have the socially accepted and expected physique lest it become a social failure (Martin and Fabes, 2008). Consequently, this also comes up on the part of nutrition, where it determines the nutrition of its people, and how it is dispensed to its people. With this in mind, the society directs expectations on the survival of children by providing for their basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothing (Mayes and Lewis, 2012). This means that without these provisions in the society and for the children, there would be no physical development for the said children as it is the items that determine the overall wellbeing of children prior to any development (Yoo, 2009, December 22). Moreover, the orientation of the society in its focus in relation to what it defines to be important as per economic activities, as mentioned earlier, where hunting societies are expected to have accuracy in their manipulations. From this perspective, society shapes children’s physical development by setting standards and expectations, as well as options and proving grounds through task assignment and meeting their basic needs (Han, 2010, January 1; Tremblay et al, 2012). As earlier mentioned in the economic perspective of physical development, there are aspects of society that affect their physical development adversely, if not checked, or even when laws are blatantly abused (Berry, 2003). This includes child labour, which cannot be ruled out in the modern, where it has become a plague wiping young children out of normal development by having them work on difficult tasks on their undeveloped bodies (Borman, 2002; Shukla and Ali, 2006). With this in mind, some societies ignore child labour leading them to have deformed bodies through hard work and carrying heavy items as was common during the agrarian revolution (Weir, 2013). Either this depending on individual differences affects children positively or adversely as in some who are strong, it develops tolerance and muscle, while in others it ruins their bodies leading to wasting. This is the adverse impact of the society on physical development by ruining the young lives (Borman, 2002), which is further related to other aspects of development such as cognition in that children do not go to school leading to low-level cognitive abilities (Dinesh, 1988). Corporal punishment is also not left out in the case of psychomotor development, but only as a negative aspect of physical development in children, where it serves to impair children (Han, 2010, January 1). Corporal punishment destroys nerve endings, although modern societies know better than punish their children through severe beatings, but that is yet to end as some societies, especially the extremely religious ones that edge on a fanatic following of religious laws punishes all in a similar such as cutting off limbs (Kortweg and Selby, 2012). This is found in Islam, while others do flogging which damages nerves impairing movement and coordination, and these are societal aspects that cannot be done away with impacting children’s’ lives adversely (Byrne, 2007). Learning Disabilities Learning disabilities as a significant learning problem in the academic area has received mixed reactions from the society. The society can influence learning disabilities either positively or negatively (Coles, 1999). The affected individuals and their families normally experience a hard time coping with the impacts of such diseases once established. One challenge is the attitude that the public and the society will have influences greatly how they will treat them (Michael, 2008). One way in which the society has positively influenced the children with this form of disability is recognizing them and their need for support in their daily life routines (Day & Hurwitz, 2011). The modern society as opposed to the traditional society views the situation as normal and takes such individuals as normal human beings. The society influences learning disability by trying to devise ways in which such individuals can improve their lives just like the people without such form of disability (Emerson, Hatton, Felce and Murphy, 2001). Depending on the level of this form of disability, the society can decide whether to live with them and nurse them or support them in their individual lives. This is because in the event that the disability is mild, he individuals may live on their own with just a little external support. According to Learning Disability Advisory Group (2001), the society has put in place non-governmental organizations, which help the members of the society with learning disabilities. Such groups have very healthy programs developed to help such people become productive members of the society as opposed to previously when they were considered a burden (Gates, 2003). In such settings and at their intellectual capabilities they will be able to learn and make their lives better. The negative influences are rare but their magnitude when they happen is vast and this is a scenario that is well dealt with by such groups in the society (Prasher and Janicki, 2002). Social The social development of a child borders almost entirely on the existence and conduct of any society and those with which children are in contact. With this in mind, the society acts as a unit of socialization, while the family is the smallest societal unit liable for transmission of culture and desirable character traits that involve relating with other members of society favourably (“The neighborhoods Influence…” n.d.). The social development of the child is diversely dependent on the society in that teachers and parents in that the moment spent with a child acts as the determinant of how a child perceives other members of the society, which works hand in hand in hand with emotional development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). It is because of the power of the society that children develop respect for other members of people and accept them as there are in relation to diversity, where children who are not socialized develop to be self-centred and cannot accept others (Berns and Berns, 2012). This is based on economic backgrounds and race, where children copy the conduct of model members of society where behaviours that are advocated are promoted, while the rest are blatantly shunned (Byrne, 2007). In a functional society, children are encouraged to play with one another where they are expected to share the resources of the society amongst themselves, as well as cooperate with one another in performing tasks (Gilman, Eugene and Michael, 2009). It is in this perspective that the society incorporates physical development and social development influencing the two on a massive scale. Consequently, the society provides time and other resources to children; where giving children these opportunities allows them to even learn polite speech with their elders, as well as with other children. In this case, children also gain vocabulary that they can use in appropriate situations and in manners that are socially acceptable (Byrne, 2007). A negative consequence of social influence on children’s social development is that denying children attention to them leads to impaired social development, where children do not learn about their cultural background and socially accepted norms (Sheerman, 2009). This aspect combines social development with morality so that society’s failure at socializing children leads to antisocial behaviour and even emotional problems as children seek to satisfy their needs in unconventional manners, as there is no one to talk to (Fischer, 2001). This occurs especially in cases where parents are always away at work and do not have enough time to spend with the children, which leaves to spend time with their peers and engage in activities that involve experimenting with dangerous events such as drugs (Prinstein and Dodge, 2008). Altogether, the society is one factor in the life of a child that cannot be left without paying attention to how a child’s life is molded as far as development is concerned. Consequently, the social, psychomotor, cognitive, and moral development is affected by the definitions that society places on the life of a child. This is prior to having the child grow in that the society is the nucleus of any child’s social life and life at large (Cognitive/Social Development n.d.). References Affouneh, S. (2007). How sustained conflict makes moral education impossible: some observations from Palestine. Journal Of Moral Education, 36(3), 343-356. Berns, R. & Berns, R. (2012). Child, Family, School, Community: Socialization and Support. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Berry, G. L. (2003). Developing Children And Multicultural Attitudes: The Systemic Psychosocial Influences Of Television Portrayals In A Multimedia Society. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(4), 360-366. Bjorklund, D. (2011). Children's Thinking: Cognitive Development and Individual Differences. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Black,M.M and,Engle,L.P.(n.d). The Effect of Poverty on Child Development and Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=psycd_fac Borman, K. M. (2002). The social life of children in a changing society. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Broeren S, Muris P. (2009).The Relation between Cognitive Development and Anxiety Phenomena in Children. Journal of Child and Family Studies. Vol 18, p702–709 Byrne, S. (2007). Growing up in a divided society: the influence of conflict on Belfast schoolchildren. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Cognitive/Social Development and Educational Interpreting - Interpreters and Children - Educational Interpreters - Classroom Interpreting. (n.d.). Home Page - Classroom Interpreting. Retrieved from http://www.classroominterpreting.org/interpreters/children/cognitive/index.asp Coles, G. (1999). Reading lessons: the debate over literacy. New York: Hill and Wang. Day, M., & Hurwitz, A. (2011). Children and their art: art education for elementary and middle schools (9th ed.; [Instructor's ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Dinesh, M. (1988). Economic activities of children: dimensions, causes, and consequences. Delhi: Daya Pub. House. Duncan, J.G and Gunn B.J. (1997).The Effects of Poverty on Children. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/07_02_03.pdf Ecological influences on parenting and child development. (n.d.). Oxford Journals | Social Sciences | British Journal of Social Work. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/703.abstract Elkind, D. (2009). The child and society: essays in applied child development. New York: Oxford University Press. Emerson E, Hatton C, Felce D and Murphy G (2001) Learning disabilities: the fundamental facts, London: Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities. Fischer, K. W. (2001). Cognitive development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fromm.E. (1958).The influence of social factors in child development. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1958/social.htm Garbarino.J, Kostenly .K. (1996). The Effects of Political Violence on Palestinian Children’s Behaviours Problems: A Risk Accumulation Model .Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1131684?uid=3738336&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102243934001 Gates B (2003) Learning disabilities: towards inclusion (4th edition), Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York: Guilford Press. Gilman, R., Eugene S.H and Michael J.F. (2009). Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. New York: Routledge. Gradel, A.Ostrovsky, M.Parr, G. (1992). Promoting Moral Development Through Social Interest In Children and Adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/Chapter%20one/9103690.pdf Han, H. S. (2010, January 1). Sociocultural Influence on Children's Social Competence: A Close Look at Kindergarten Teachers' Beliefs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 5, 67-80. Hay, F.D. (2005). Early Peer Relations and their Impact on Children’s Development. Retrieved from http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/HayANGxp-Peers.pdf Jacobson, L. (2008). Children and consumer culture in American society a historical handbook and guide. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Johnson, D.C. (2003). The Role of Child Development and Social Interaction in the Selection of Children's Literature to Promote Literacy Acquisition. Vol 5.No.2. Kluckhohn, C., & Murray, H. A. (2003). Personality in nature, society, and culture (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. Koh, C. (2012). Moral development and student motivation in moral education: A Singapore study. Australian Journal Of Education (ACER Press), 56(1), 83-101. Korteweg, A. & Selby, J. (2012). Debating Sharia: Islam, Gender Politics, and Family Law Arbitration. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Krettenauer, T. (2011). The Dual Moral Self: Moral Centrality and Internal Moral Motivation. Journal Of Genetic Psychology, 172(4), 309-328. Laura R. Peck and Michael D. Niles. (2008)"How Poverty and Segregation Impact Child Development: Evidence from the Chicago Longitudinal Study" Journal of Poverty (306-332. Learning Disability Advisory Group (2001) Fulfilling the promises: report of the Learning Disability Advisory Group, Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales. Lejarraga, H., Pascucci, M., Krupitzky, S., Kelmansky, D., Bianco, A., Martinez, E., & ... Cameron, N. (2002). Psychomotor development in Argentinean children aged 0–5 years. Paediatric & Perinatal Epidemiology, 16(1), 47-60. Louw, D. (1998). Human Development. South Africa: Pearson South Africa. Lovett, B. J., & Jordan, A. H. (2010). Levels of moralisation: a new conception of moral sensitivity. Journal Of Moral Education, 39(2), 175-189. Marshall, J. C., Caldwell, S. D., & Foster, J. (2011). Moral education the CHARACTER plus Way®. Journal Of Moral Education, 40(1), 51-72. Martin, C. & Fabes, R. (2008). Discovering child development. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Mayes, L. &Lewis, M. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Environment in Human Development. London: Cambridge University Press. Michael J (2008) Healthcare for all: report of the independent inquiry into access to healthcare for people with learning disabilities. Available from www.iahpld.org.uk (Internet). Ministry of foreign affairs of Japan (2000).The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children: Filling Knowledge Gaps. Retrieved from http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human/child/survey/annex2.html Narvaez, D., & Gleason, T. (2007). The Relation of Moral Judgment Development and Educational Experience to Recall of Moral Narratives and Expository Texts. Journal Of Genetic Psychology, 168(3), 251-276. Ofosky.J.D. (1999). The Future of Children, Domestic Violence and Children Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 33-49. Retrieved from http://www.housedems.ct.gov/dv/pubs/010510/impactofviolenceexposure.pdf Oladipo, S.E (2009). Moral Education of the Child: Whose Responsibility? P149-156. Retrieved from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-20-0-000-09-Web/JSS-20-2-000-09-Abst-PDF/JSS-20-02-149-09--656-Oladipo-S-E/JSS-20-02-149-09--656-Oladipo-S-E-Tt.pdf Pasupathi, M,Wainryb, C.(2007). The Psychological Impact of Political Violence on Children. Retrieved from http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/files/pasupathi69r6.pdf Posada, R., & Wainryb, C. (2008). Moral Development in a Violent Society: Colombian Children’s Judgments in the Context of Survival and Revenge. Child Development, 79(4), 882-898. Prasher VP and Janicki M (2002) Physical health of adults with intellectual disability, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Prinstein, M. & Dodge, K. (2008). Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press. Regoli, R. Hewitt, J & DeLisi, M. (2009). Delinquency in Society. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Rutter, M. (1985). Family and school influences on cognitive development. Journal of Child Psychology, Vol 26, p 683-704. Sanger, M., & Osguthorpe, R. (2009). Analysing the Child Development Project using the Moral Work of Teaching Framework. Journal Of Moral Education, 38(1), 17-34. School's influences on child development. (n.d.). Association of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from stmaryseminars.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/rsylva Shaffer, D. (2009). Social and personality development. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Sheerman B. (2009). Looked-after Children: Third Report of Session 2008-2009. London: Stationery Office. Shukla, C. & Ali, S. (2006). Child Labour: Socio-economic Dimensions. Mumbai: Sarup & Sons Publishers. Shumaker, D. & Heckel, R. (2007). Kids of Character: A Guide to Promoting Moral Development. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Smetana J.G. (1997). The Role of Parents in Moral Development: A Social Domain Analysis .Retrieved from http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/articles/smetana.html Society for Child Development. (n.d.). Society for Child Development. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://www.sfcdindia.org/ Society for Research in Child Development SRCD | for developmental scientists & professionals. (n.d.). Society for Research in Child Development SRCD | for developmental scientists & professionals. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://www.srcd.org/ Sule, A.K. (2012). Social Development in Children. Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/social-development-in-children.html Sylva, K. (1994).School Influences on Children's Development. Retrieved from http://stmaryseminars.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/rsylva.pdf Tam, H.B. (1996). Punishment, excuses and moral development. England: Avebury. The cognitive and social development of ... [Dent Update. 2005 Jan-Feb] - PubMed - NCBI. (n.d.). National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15739662 The Connecticut Commission On Children. (2004). Children And The Long-Term Effects Of Poverty. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/coc/pdfs/poverty/2004_poverty_report.pdf The family from a child development perspective. (n.d.). Old UN University Website. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se06.htm The influence of culture on early childhood. (n.d.). The changing face of the United States. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from main.zerotothree.org/site/DocServer/Culture book The neighborhoods Influence on child and adolescent development. (n.d.). CHICAGO JOURNALS. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2781682?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102029076653 Thomas, R. (1997). Moral Development Theories: Secular and Religious; a Comparative Study. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Tremblay, M. S., LeBlanc, A. G., Carson, V., Choquette, L., Connor Gorber, S., Dillman, C., & Timmons, B. W. (2012). Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines for the Early Years (aged 0-4 years). Applied Physiology, Nutrition & Metabolism, 37(2), 345-356. Turner, V. D., & Chambers, E. A. (2006). The social mediation of a moral dilemma: appropriating the moral tools of others. Journal Of Moral Education, 35(3), 353-368. van Gameren-Oosterom, H. M., Fekkes, M., Buitendijk, S. E., Mohangoo, A. D., Bruil, J., & Wouwe, J. (2011). Development, Problem Behavior, and Quality of Life in a Population Based Sample of Eight-Year-Old Children with Down Syndrome. Plos ONE, 6(7), 1-8. Walz A.L. Cognitive Development of Children. A Newsletter by Informe Design.Vol.1 Issue 8. Weil, D & Kincheloe, J. (2004). Critical thinking and learning: an encyclopedia for parents and teachers. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Weir, R. (2013). Workers in America: A Historical Encyclopedia. California: ABC-CLIO. Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence. Yan, J. H. (2004, December 1). Cultural Influence on Youth's Motivation of Participation in Physical Activity. Journal of Sport Behavior, 2, 23-112. Yoo, J. (2009, December 22). Peer Influence on Adolescent Boys' Appearance Management Behaviors. Adolescence, 10, 88-97. Read More