7.2 Cognitive Development in Middle to Late Childhood

Piaget’s Concrete Operational Stage

From ages 7 to 11, children are in what Piaget referred to as the Concrete Operational Stage of cognitive development (Crain, 2005). This involves mastering the use of logic in concrete ways. The word concrete refers to that which is tangible, that which can be seen, touched, or experienced directly. Children in the concrete operational stage are able to make use of logical principles in solving problems involving the physical world. For example, children can better understand the principles of cause and effect, size, and distance.

During this stage, children use logic to solve problems tied to their own direct experiences but have trouble solving hypothetical problems or considering more abstract problems. Children in this stage also use inductive reasoning, which is a logical process in which multiple premises believed to be true are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. For example, a child has one friend who is rude and another friend who is also rude, and the same is true for a third friend. The child may conclude that friends are rude. We will see that this way of thinking tends to change during adolescence and is typically replaced with deductive reasoning. We will now explore some of the major abilities that children exhibit during the concrete operational stage.

• Classification: As children’s experiences and vocabularies grow, they build schemata and are able to organize objects in many different ways. They also understand classification hierarchies and can arrange objects into a variety of classes and subclasses.
• Identity: One feature of concrete operational thought is the understanding that objects have qualities that do not change even if they are altered in some way. For instance, the mass of an object does not change by rearranging it. A piece of chalk is still chalk, even when it is broken in two.
• Reversibility: The child learns that some things that have been changed can be returned to their original state. Water can be frozen and then thawed to become liquid again, but eggs cannot be unscrambled. Arithmetic operations are reversible as well: 2 + 3 = 5 and 5 – 3 = 2. Many of these cognitive skills are incorporated into the school’s curriculum through mathematical problems and worksheets about which situations are reversible or irreversible.
• Conservation: Children in the concrete operational stage can now understand the concept of conservation, which means that changing one quality (height or water level) can be compensated for by changing another quality (width). Consequently, there is the same amount of water in each container, although one is taller and narrower, and the other is shorter and wider.
• Decentration: Children in this stage no longer focus on only one dimension of any object (such as the height of the glass) but instead consider changes in other dimensions, too (such as the width of the glass). This allows for conservation to occur.
• Seriation: Children in this stage can also demonstrate the methodical arrangement of items along a quantitative dimension, such as length or weight. For example, they can methodically arrange a series of different-sized sticks in order by length, while younger children approach a similar task in a haphazard way.

These new cognitive skills increase the child’s understanding of the physical world, however according to Piaget, they still cannot think in abstract ways. Additionally, they do not think in systematic scientific ways. For example, when asked which variables influence the period that a pendulum takes to complete its arc and given weights they can attach to strings in order to do experiments, most children younger than 12 perform biased experiments from which no conclusions can be drawn (Inhelder and Piaget, 1958).

Information Processing

Children differ in their memory abilities, and these differences predict their readiness for school and academic performance in school (Preßler et al., 2013). During middle and late childhood, children make strides in several areas of cognitive function, including the capacity of working memory, their ability to pay attention, and their use of memory strategies. Both changes in the brain and experiences foster these abilities.

Working Memory

The capacity of working memory expands during middle and late childhood, and research has suggested that both an increase in processing speed and the ability to inhibit irrelevant information from entering memory contribute to the greater efficiency of working memory during this age (de Ribaupierre, 2002). Changes in myelination and synaptic pruning in the cortex are likely behind the increase in processing speed and ability to filter out irrelevant stimuli (Kail et al., 2013).

Children with learning disabilities in math and reading often have difficulties with working memory (Alloway, 2009). They may struggle with following the directions of an assignment. When a task calls for multiple steps, children with poor working memory may miss steps because they may lose track of where they are in the task. Adults working with children who have learning variations may need to communicate by using more familiar vocabulary, using shorter sentences, repeating task instructions more frequently, and breaking more complex tasks into smaller, more manageable steps. Some studies have also shown that more intensive training in working memory strategies, such as chunking, aids in improving the capacity of working memory in children with poor working memory (Alloway et al., 2013).

Attention

The ability to inhibit irrelevant information improves during this age group, with there being a sharp improvement in selective attention from age six into adolescence (Vakil, et al., 2009). Children also tend to improve in their ability to shift their attention between tasks or different features of a task using selective attention (Carlson et al., 2013).  A younger child who is asked to sort objects into piles based on type of object, car versus animal, or color of object, red versus blue, may have difficulty if you switch from asking them to sort based on type to now having them sort based on color. This requires them to suppress the prior sorting rule. An older child typically has less difficulty making the switch, meaning there is greater flexibility in their attentional skills. These changes in attention and working memory contribute to children having more strategic approaches to challenging tasks.

Memory Strategies

Bjorklund (2005) describes a developmental progression in the acquisition and use of memory strategies.

Table 1.  Percent of children who did not use any memory strategies by age.

Age	Percentage
6	55
7	44
8	25
9	17
10	13

Such strategies are often lacking in younger children but increase in frequency as most children progress through elementary school. Examples of memory strategies include rehearsing information you wish to recall, visualizing and organizing information, creating rhymes, such as “i” before “e” except after “c,” or inventing acronyms, such as “ROYGBIV” to remember the colors of the rainbow. Schneider et al. (2009) reported a steady increase in the use of memory strategies from ages six to ten in their longitudinal study (see Table 1). Moreover, by age ten, many children were using two or more memory strategies to help them recall information. Schneider and colleagues found that there were considerable individual differences at each age in the use of strategies and that children who utilized more strategies had better memory performance than their same-aged peers.

Metacognition

Children in middle and late childhood also have a better understanding of how well they are performing a task, and the level of difficulty of a task. As they become more realistic about their abilities, they can adapt studying strategies to meet those needs. Young children spend as much time on an unimportant aspect of a problem as they do on the main point, while older children start to learn to prioritize and gauge what is significant and what is not. As a result, they develop metacognition. Metacognition refers to the knowledge we have about our own thinking and our ability to use this awareness to regulate our own cognitive processes (Bruning, et al., 2004). Metacognition involves an extra layer: thinking about how they think. They gain more tools and strategies (such as “I before e except after c” so they know that “receive” is correct but “receive” is not.)

Critical Thinking

According to Bruning et al. (2004) there is a debate in the U.S. education as to whether schools should teach students what to think or how to think. Critical thinking, or a detailed examination of beliefs, courses of action, and evidence, involves teaching children how to think. The purpose of critical thinking is to evaluate information in ways that help us make informed decisions. Critical thinking involves better understanding a problem through gathering, evaluating, and selecting information, and by considering many possible solutions. Ennis (1987) identified these skills useful in critical thinking: analyzing arguments, clarifying information, judging the credibility of a source, making value judgments, and deciding on an action. Metacognition is essential to critical thinking because it allows us to reflect on the information as we make decisions.

Language Development

Vocabulary

One of the reasons that children around this age can classify objects in so many ways is that they have acquired a vocabulary to do so. By fifth grade, a child’s vocabulary has grown to 40,000 words. It grows at a rate that exceeds that of those in early childhood. This language explosion, however, differs from that of preschoolers because it is facilitated by being able to quickly associate new words with those already known (fast-mapping) and because it is accompanied by a more sophisticated understanding of the meanings of a word.

A child in middle childhood is also able to think of objects in less literal ways. For example, if asked for the first word that comes to mind when one hears the word “pizza,” the preschooler is likely to say “eat” or some word that describes what is done with a pizza. However, the school-aged child is more likely to place pizza in the appropriate category and say “food” or “carbohydrate.”

This sophistication of vocabulary is also evidenced in the fact that school-aged children are able to tell jokes and delight in doing so. They may use jokes that involve plays on words, such as “knock-knock” jokes or jokes with punch lines. Preschoolers do not understand plays on words and rely on telling “jokes” that are literal or slapstick, such as “A man fell down in the mud! Isn’t that funny?” Children’s understanding of social cues improves, and they are better able to tailor their communication to their audience, which is called pragmatics. Kids understand that they can tell a joke to their friends that would be inappropriate to tell their grandma.

Grammar and Flexibility

School-aged children are also able to learn new rules of grammar with more flexibility. While preschoolers are likely to be reluctant to give up saying “I goed there”, school-aged children will learn this rather quickly along with other rules of grammar. They become more proficient in the rules of language but are often tripped up by more abstract uses of language, like sarcasm

While the preschool years might be a good time to learn a second language (being able to understand and speak the language), the school years may be the best time to be taught a second language (the rules of grammar).

Bilingualism

Although monolingual speakers often do not realize it, the majority of children around the world are Bilingual, meaning that they understand and use two languages (Meyers-Sutton, 2005; Camarota & Zeigler, 2015), and about 23% of children and youth speak a language other than English in 2019 (Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2021). A large majority of students who are bilingual (75%) are Hispanic, but the rest represent more than 100 different language groups from around the world. In larger communities throughout the U.S., it is common for a single classroom to contain students from several language backgrounds at once.

In classrooms, as in other social settings, bilingualism exists in different forms and degrees. At one extreme are students who speak both English and another language fluently; at the other extreme are those who speak only limited versions of both languages. In between are students who speak their home (or heritage) language much better than English, as well as others who have partially lost their heritage language in the process of learning English (Tse, 2001). Commonly, a student may speak a language satisfactorily but be challenged by reading or writing it. That is, children can be bilingual without being biliterate. Whatever the case, each bilingual student brings unique strengths and poses unique challenges to teachers. 

The student who speaks both languages fluently has a definite cognitive advantage. As you might suspect, and research confirms, a fully fluent bilingual student is in a better position to express concepts or ideas in more than one way and to be aware of doing so (Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1995; Francis, 2006). Unfortunately, the bilingualism of many students is unbalanced in the sense that they are either still learning English or else they have lost some earlier ability to use their original heritage language. Losing one’s original language is a concern as research finds that language loss limits students’ ability to learn English as well or as quickly as they could. Having a large vocabulary in a first language has been shown to save time in learning vocabulary in a second language (Hansen, Umeda & McKinney, 2002). Preserving the first language is important if a student has impaired skills in all languages and, therefore, needs intervention or help from a speech-language specialist. Research has found, in such cases, that the specialist can be more effective if the specialist speaks and uses the first language as well as English (Kohnert, Yim, Nett, Kan, & Duran, 2005). 

Learning and Intelligence

Schools and Testing

When Should School Begin?

In the United States, children generally begin school around age 5 or 6. In fact, most Western countries follow this model. But WHY do we begin school at 5 or 6? For the most part, this age was chosen as a matter of convenience. In countries where the mother is expected to work, the age at which children begin school tends to be younger. That said, research does not support that children should begin formal education so early. Many research studies suggest age 7 is the most appropriate age to begin formalized school. Before age 7, children learn best through play. By age 7, most children are capable of learning in a more formal, academic-forward setting.

The Controversy Over Testing In Schools

Children’s academic performance is often measured with the use of standardized tests. Achievement tests are used to measure what a child has already learned. Achievement tests are often used as measures of teaching effectiveness within a school setting and as a method to make schools that receive tax dollars (such as public schools, charter schools, and private schools that receive vouchers) accountable to the government for their performance. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act mandating that schools administer achievement tests to students and publish those results so that parents have an idea of their children’s performance and the government has information on the gaps in educational achievement between children from various social class, racial, and ethnic groups. Schools that show significant gaps in these levels of performance are to work toward narrowing these gaps. Educators have criticized the policy for focusing too much on testing as the only indication of performance levels.

Aptitude tests are designed to measure a student’s ability to learn or to determine if a person has potential in a particular program. These are often used at the beginning of a course of study or as part of college entrance requirements. Originally, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) were billed as aptitude tests, but their makers later dropped “aptitude” from the titles (Strauss, 2014).  Other supposed aptitude tests include the MCAT (Medical College Admission Test), the LSAT (Law School Admission Test), and the GRE (Graduate Record Examination). Many of these tests have been criticized as measuring achievement from earlier education as opposed to aptitude or one’s ability to learn. Intelligence tests, like IQ, are considered a broader form of aptitude tests that were designed to measure a person’s ability to learn. They also face criticism for their ability to accurately measure intelligence.

Theories of Intelligence

Psychologists have long debated how best to conceptualize and measure intelligence (Sternberg, 2003). These questions include how many types of intelligence there are, the role of nature versus nurture in intelligence, how intelligence is represented in the brain, and the meaning of group differences in intelligence. Intelligence tests and psychological definitions of intelligence have been heavily criticized since the 1970s for being biased in favor of Anglo-American, middle-class respondents and for being inadequate tools for measuring non-academic types of intelligence or talent.

Intelligence changes with experience and intelligence quotients or scores do not reflect that plasticity. What is considered smart varies culturally as well, and most intelligence tests do not take this variation into account. For example, in the West, being smart is associated with being quick. A person who answers a question the fastest is seen as the smartest. But in some cultures, being smart is associated with considering an idea thoroughly before giving an answer. A well-thought-out and contemplative answer is the best answer.

General (g) versus Specific (s) Intelligence

From 1904 to 1905, the French psychologist Alfred Binet (1857–1914) and his colleague Théodore Simon (1872–1961) began working on behalf of the French government to develop a measure that would identify children who would not be successful with the regular school curriculum. The goal was to help teachers better educate these students (Aiken, 1994). Binet and Simon developed what most psychologists today regard as the first intelligence test, which consisted of a wide variety of questions that included the ability to name objects, define words, draw pictures, complete sentences, compare items, and construct sentences.

Binet and Simon (Binet, Simon, & Town, 1915; Siegler, 1992) believed that the questions they asked the children all assessed the basic abilities to understand, reason, and make judgments. It turned out that the correlations among these different types of measures were in fact all positive; that is, students who got one item correct were more likely to also get other items correct, even though the questions themselves were very different.

On the basis of these results, the psychologist Charles Spearman (1863–1945) hypothesized that there must be a single underlying construct that all of these items measure. He called the construct that the different abilities and skills measured on intelligence tests have in common the General Intelligence Factor (g). Virtually all psychologists now believe that there is a generalized intelligence factor, “g”, that relates to abstract thinking and that includes the abilities to acquire knowledge, to reason abstractly, to adapt to novel situations, and to benefit from instruction and experience (Gottfredson, 1997; Sternberg, 2003). People with higher general intelligence learn faster.

Soon after Binet and Simon introduced their test, the American psychologist Lewis Terman at Stanford University (1877–1956) developed an American version of Binet’s test that became known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. The Stanford-Binet is a measure of general intelligence made up of a wide variety of tasks, including vocabulary, memory for pictures, naming of familiar objects, repeating sentences, and following commands.

Although psychologists generally agree that “g” exists, there is also evidence for specific intelligence or“s,” a measure of specific skills in narrow domains. One empirical result in support of the idea of “s” comes from intelligence tests themselves. Although the different types of questions do correlate with each other, some items correlate more highly with each other than do other items; they form clusters or clumps of intelligences.

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Another alternative view of intelligence is presented by Sternberg (1997; 1999). Sternberg offers three types of intelligence, known as the triarchic theory of intelligence, which holds that people may display more or less analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, and practical intelligence. Sternberg was concerned that there was too much emphasis placed on aptitude test scores and believed that there were other, less easily measured, qualities necessary for success in higher education and in the world of work. Aptitude test scores indicate the first type of intelligence—academic or analytical.

• Analytical (componential): This includes the ability to solve problems based on logic, verbal comprehension, vocabulary, and spatial abilities.

Sternberg noted that students who have high academic abilities may still lack what is required to be successful graduate students or competent professionals. To do well as a graduate student, he noted, one needs to be creative. The second type of intelligence emphasizes this quality.

• Creative (experiential): the ability to apply newly found skills to novel situations.

A potential graduate student might be strong academically and have creative ideas, but still lack the social skills required to work effectively with others or to practice good judgment in a variety of situations. Common sense is the third type of intelligence.

Furthermore, the brain areas that are associated with convergent thinking, thinking that is directed toward finding the correct answer to a given problem, are different from those associated with divergent thinking, the ability to generate many different ideas or solutions to a single problem (Tarasova, Volf, & Razoumnikova, 2010). On the other hand, being creative often takes some of the basic abilities measured by “g”, including the abilities to learn from experience, to remember information, and to think abstractly (Bink & Marsh, 2000). Ericsson (1998), Weisberg (2006), Hennessey and Amabile (2010), and Simonton (1992) studied creative people and identified at least five components that are likely to be important for creativity as listed in Table 2.

Component	Description
Expertise	Creative people have studied and learned about a topic
Imaginative Thinking	Creative people view problems in new and different ways
Risk Taking	Creative people take on new, but potentially risky approaches
Intrinsic Interest	Creative people take on projects for interest not money
Working in Creative Environments	The most creative people are supported, aided, and challenged by other people working on similar projects

Table 2 Important Components for Creativity. Adapted from Lally & Valentine-French, 2019

• Practical (contextual): the ability to use common sense and to know what is called for in a situation.

This type of intelligence helps a person know when problems need to be solved. Practical intelligence can help a person know how to act and what to wear for job interviews, when to get out of problematic relationships, how to get along with others at work, and when to make changes to reduce stress.

Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Another champion of the idea of specific types of intelligences rather than one overall intelligence is the psychologist Howard Gardner (1983, 1999). Gardner argued that it would be evolutionarily functional for different people to have different talents and skills, and proposed that there are eight intelligences that can be differentiated from each other. Table 2 lists Gardner’s eight specific intelligences. 

Howard Gardner (1983, 1998, 1999) suggests that there are not one but eight domains of intelligence. His theory is known as the theory of multiple intelligences. The first three are skills that IQ tests can measure:

• Logical-mathematical: the ability to solve mathematical problems, problems of logic, numerical patterns
• Linguistic: vocabulary, reading comprehension, function of language
• Spatial: visual accuracy, ability to read maps, understand space and distance

The next five represent skills that are not measured in standard IQ tests but are talents or abilities that can also be important for success in a variety of fields. These are:

• Musical: ability to understand patterns in music, hear pitches, recognize rhythms and melodies
• Bodily-kinesthetic: motor coordination, grace of movement, agility, strength
• Naturalistic: knowledge of plants, animals, minerals, climate, weather
• Interpersonal: understand the emotions, mood, and motivation of others; able to communicate effectively
• Intrapersonal: understanding of the self, mood, motivation, temperament, realistic knowledge of strengths, weaknesses
• A potential ninth intelligence, existential intelligence, still needs empirical support. It covers concern about and understanding of life’s larger questions, meaning of life, or spiritual matters

Gardner identified these 8 intelligences using multiple sources of evidence. He conducted psychometric analyses of tests designed to capture different kinds of intelligence. He also examined evidence from studies of children who were talented in one or more areas and from studies of adults who suffered brain damage from strokes that compromised capacities in some areas but not in others. Gardner also noted that some evidence for multiple intelligences comes from the abilities of autistic savants, people who score low on intelligence tests overall but who nevertheless may have exceptional skills in a given domain, such as math, music, art, or in being able to recite statistics in a given sport (Treffert & Wallace, 2004).

Intelligence	Description
Linguistic	The ability to speak and write well
Logical-mathematical	The ability to use logic and mathematical skills to solve problems
Spatial	The ability to think and reason about objects in three dimensions
Musical	The ability to perform and enjoy music
Kinesthetic (body)	The ability to move the body in sports, dance or other physical activities
Interpersonal	The ability to understand and interact effectively with others
Intrapersonal	The ability to have insight into the self
Naturalistic	The ability to recognize, identify, and understand animals, plants, and other living things

Table 2: Gardner’s Eight Specific Intelligences. Adapted from Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Measuring Intelligence: Standardization and the Intelligence Quotient

Intelligence tests aim to measure “g,” the general intelligence factor. These tests need to be reliable (consistent over time) and valid (actually measure intelligence). Psychologists have developed highly accurate intelligence tests, making them one of psychology’s key contributions to public life. Intelligence varies with age, so understanding intelligence requires knowledge of age-specific norms. Standardizing a test involves giving it to many people of different ages to compute average scores.

A number of scales are based on the IQ. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is the most widely used intelligence test for adults (Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The current version of the WAIS, the WAIS-IV, was standardized on 2,200 people ranging from 16 to 90 years of age. It consists of 15 different tasks, each designed to assess intelligence, including working memory, arithmetic ability, spatial ability, and general knowledge about the world. The WAIS-IV yields score on four domains: verbal, perceptual, working memory, and processing speed. The reliability of the test is high (more than 0.95), and it shows substantial construct validity. The WAIS-IV is correlated highly with other IQ tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, as well as with criteria of academic and life success, including college grades, measures of work performance, and occupational level. It also shows significant correlations with measures of everyday functioning among people with intellectual disabilities. The Wechsler scale has also been adapted for preschool children in the form of the Wechsler Primary and Preschool Scale of Intelligence-Fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV) and for older children and adolescents in the form of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V).

 

Cultural Variations in the Classroom

Remember Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model we learned about when we first examined theories of development? This model helps us understand an individual by examining the contexts in which the person lives and the direct (microsystem) and indirect influences (exosystem) on that person’s life. School becomes a very important component of children’s lives during middle childhood, and one way to understand children is to look at the world of school. We have discussed educational policies that impact the curriculum in schools above. Another way to examine the world of school is to look at the cultural values (part of Bronfenbrenner’s macrosystem): the concepts, behaviors, and roles that are part of the school experience but are not part of the formal curriculum. These are part of the hidden curriculum but are nevertheless very powerful messages. The hidden curriculum includes ideas of patriotism, gender roles, the ranking of occupations and classes, competition, and other values. Teachers, counselors, and other students specify and make known what is considered appropriate for girls and boys. The gender curriculum continues into high school, college, and professional school. Students learn a ranking system of occupations and social classes as well. Students in gifted programs or those moving toward college preparation classes may be viewed as superior to those who are receiving tutoring.

Cultures and ethnic groups differ not only in languages but also in how languages are used. Since some of the patterns differ from those typical of modern classrooms, they can create misunderstandings between teachers and students (Cazden, 2001; Rogers et al., 2005). Consider these examples:

• Speaking. In some cultures, it is polite or even intelligent not to speak unless you have something truly important to say. Chitchat, or talk that simply affirms a personal tie between people, is considered immature or intrusive (Minami, 2002).  In a classroom, this habit can make it easier for a child to learn not to interrupt others, but it can also make the child seem unfriendly.
• Eye contact. Eye contact varies by culture. In many African American and Latin-American communities, it is considered appropriate and respectful for a child not to look directly at an adult who is speaking to them (Torres-Guzman, 1998).  In classrooms, however, teachers often expect a lot of eye contact (as in “I want all eyes on me!”) and may be tempted to construe lack of eye contact as a sign of indifference or disrespect.
• Social Distance. Social distance varies by culture. In some cultures, it is common to stand relatively close when having a conversation; in others, it is more customary to stand relatively far apart (Beaulieu, 2004). Problems may happen when a teacher and a student prefer different social distances. A student who expects a closer distance than the teacher may seem overly familiar or intrusive, whereas one who expects a longer distance may seem overly formal or hesitant.
• Wait times can vary by culture. Wait time is the gap between the end of one person’s comment or question and the next person’s reply or answer. In some cultures, wait time is relatively long, as long as three or four seconds (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). In others, it is a negative gap, meaning that it is acceptable, even expected, for a person to interrupt before the end of the previous comment.

• Questions. In most non-Anglo cultures, questions are intended to gain information, and it is assumed that a person asking the question truly does not have the information requested (Rogoff, 2003).  In most U.S. classrooms, however, teachers regularly ask questions, which are questions to which the teacher already knows the answer, and that simply assess whether a student knows the answer as well (Macbeth, 2003). The question: “How much is 2 + 2?” for example, is a test question. If children are not aware of this purpose, they may become confused or think that the teacher is surprisingly ignorant. Worse yet, students may feel that the teacher is trying to deliberately shame students by revealing the students’ ignorance or incompetence to others.
• Preference for activities that are cooperative rather than competitive. Many activities in school are competitive, even when teachers try to de-emphasize the competition. Once past the first year or second year of school, students often become attentive to who receives the highest marks on an assignment, for example, who is the best athlete at various sports or whose contributions to class discussions get the most verbal recognition from the teacher (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). A teacher deliberately organizes important activities or assignments competitively, as in “Let’s see who finishes the math sheet first”. Classroom life can then become explicitly competitive, and the competitive atmosphere can interfere with cultivating supportive relationships among students or between students and the teacher (Cohen, 2004). For students who give priority to these relationships, competition can seem confusing at best and threatening at worst. A student may wonder, “What sort of sharing or helping with answers is allowed?” The answer to this question may be different depending on the cultural background of the student and teacher. What the student views as cooperative sharing may be seen by the teacher as laziness, freeloading, or even cheating.

Developmental Psychopathology

Developmental psychopathology is the approach to investigating the processes and pathways to typical and atypical development (Eme, 2017). The goal is to better understand the development of developmental disorders and the best ways to help children.  This section could have also been located in the physical or socioemotional development sections; it’s a good example of dynamic systems theory: physical changes in the brain interact with changes in how children think (cognitive) and their relationships and environmental supports (psychosocial).

Children’s cognitive and social skills are evaluated as they enter and progress through school. Sometimes, this evaluation indicates that a child needs special assistance with language or in learning how to interact with others. Evaluation and diagnosis of a child can be the first step in helping to provide that child with the type of instruction and resources needed. In the U.S., a diagnosis or label is often required to get access to adequate funding and treatment.

But diagnosis and labeling also have social implications. It is important to consider that children can be misdiagnosed and that once a child has received a diagnostic label, the child, teachers, and family members may tend to interpret the actions of the child through that label. The label can also influence the child’s self-concept. Consider, for example, a child who is misdiagnosed as learning disabled. That child may expect to have difficulties in school, lack confidence, and out of these expectations, have trouble indeed. This self-fulfilling prophecy, or tendency to act in such a way as to make what you predict will happen come true, calls our attention to the power that labels can have, whether or not they are accurately applied.

It is also important to consider that children’s difficulties can change over time: a child who has problems in school may improve later or may live under circumstances as an adult where the problem (such as a delay in math skills or reading skills) is no longer relevant. That person, however, will still have a label as learning disabled. It should be recognized that the distinction between abnormal and normal behavior is not always clear; some abnormal behavior in children is fairly common. Misdiagnosis may be more of a concern when evaluating learning difficulties than in cases of autism spectrum disorder, where unusual behaviors are clear and consistent.

Keeping these cautionary considerations in mind, let’s turn our attention to some developmental and learning difficulties.

A Learning Disability (or LD) is a specific impairment of academic learning that interferes with a specific aspect of schoolwork, and that reduces a student’s academic performance significantly. A LD shows itself as a major discrepancy between a student’s ability and some feature of achievement: The student may be delayed in reading, writing, listening, speaking, or doing mathematics, but not in all of these at once. A learning problem is not considered a learning disability if it stems from physical, sensory, or motor handicaps or from generalized intellectual impairment. It is also not an LD if the learning problem really reflects the challenges of learning English as a second language. Genuine LDs are the learning problems left over after these other possibilities are accounted for or excluded. Most importantly, though, an LD relates to a fairly specific area of academic learning. A student may be able to read and compute well enough, for example, but not be able to write. LDs are by far the most common form of special educational need, accounting for half of all students with special needs in the United States and anywhere from 5 to 20 percent of all students, depending on how the numbers are estimated (United States Department of Education 2005; Ysseldyke & Bielinski, 2002).

These difficulties are typically identified in school because this is when children’s academic abilities are being tested, compared, and measured. Consequently, once academic testing is no longer essential in that person’s life (as when they are working rather than going to school) these disabilities may no longer be noticed or relevant, depending on the person’s job and the extent of the disability.

Dyslexia

Dyslexia is one of the most commonly diagnosed disabilities and involves having difficulty in the area of reading. This diagnosis is used for a number of reading difficulties. Common characteristics are difficulty with phonological processing, which includes the manipulation of sounds, spelling, and rapid visual/verbal processing. Additionally, the child may reverse letters, have difficulty reading from left to right, or may have problems associating letters with sounds. It appears to be rooted in neurological problems involving the parts of the brain active in recognizing letters, verbally responding, or being able to manipulate sounds. Recent studies have identified a number of genes linked to developing dyslexia (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2016). Treatment typically involves altering teaching methods to accommodate the person’s particular problematic area.

ADHD

A child with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD) shows a constant pattern of inattention and/or hyperactive and impulsive behavior that interferes with normal functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). It is considered a neurological and behavioral disorder in which a person has difficulty staying on task, screening out distractions, and inhibiting behavioral outbursts. The most commonly recommended treatment involves the use of medication, structuring the classroom environment to keep distractions at a minimum, tutoring, and teaching parents how to set limits and encourage age-appropriate behavior (NINDS, 2006). Some people say that the term Attention Deficit is a misnomer because people who suffer from ADHD actually have great difficulty tuning things out. They are bombarded with information… their brains are trying to pay attention to everything. They do not have a deficit of attention- they are trying to pay attention to too many things at once, so everything suffers.

Recent research suggests that several brain structures may be implicated in ADHD. These studies have mainly focused on the frontal lobe and prefrontal cortex. Some studies suggest that the frontal lobe is underdeveloped in children and adults with ADHD. The frontal lobe is involved in executive function, attention, planning, impulse control, motivation, and decision-making. In some cases, the development is delayed but catches up to expected standards by adulthood; in other cases, the frontal lobe never fully develops.

In the U.S., ADHD occurs in about 9.4% of children (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021, September 23).  On average, males (12.9%) are more likely to have ADHD than are females (5.6%); however, such findings might reflect the greater propensity of males to engage in aggressive and antisocial behavior and thus incur a greater likelihood of being referred to psychological clinics (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021, September 23). Children with ADHD may experience severe academic and social challenges. Compared to their non-ADHD counterparts, children with ADHD tend to have lower grades and standardized test scores and higher rates of expulsion, grade retention, and dropping out (Loe & Feldman, 2007).

Causes of ADHD

Family and twin studies indicate that genetics play a significant role in the development of ADHD. Burt (2009), in a review of 26 studies, reported that the median rate of concordance for identical twins was .66, whereas the median concordance rate for fraternal twins was .20. The specific genes involved in ADHD are thought to include at least two that are important in the regulation of the neurotransmitter dopamine (Gizer et al., 2009) suggesting that dopamine may be important in ADHD. Indeed, medications used in the treatment of ADHD, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine with dextroamphetamine (Adderall), have stimulant qualities and elevate dopamine activity. People with ADHD show less dopamine activity in key regions of the brain, especially those associated with motivation and reward (Volkow et al., 2009), which provides support to the theory that dopamine deficits may be a vital factor in the development of this disorder (Swanson et al., 2007).

Treatment for ADHD

There is still a lot of controversy about medicating children with ADHD. While there is clear evidence that medication works to control the negative effects of ADHD, there are also negative side effects that must be dealt with, including problems sleeping, changes in appetite, headaches, and more. Further, the long-term effects of medicating young children are not well understood. For these reasons, many parents prefer an intervention that does not involve medication. The most common non-pharmaceutical intervention for ADHD is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). CBT works by helping children to become aware of their thought processes, and then to learn to change those thought processes to be more beneficial or positive. CBT can also help by educating parents about ways to help their children learn about self-control and discipline. There is very good evidence that CBT is an effective strategy for treating ADHD. Indeed, in some studies, children treated with CBT have better long-term outcomes than children treated with medication. Some studies show that a combination of medication and CBT is most beneficial because the medication helps with behavior change more quickly, allowing for the child to learn through CBT more quickly. The CBT then helps with longer-term behavior change so that the child can stop taking medications and deal effectively with their ADHD symptoms based on what they have learned through CBT.