Adolescence: Change and Continuity

Dear Tod,

After reading your e-mail concerning the students in your school district, we have attempted to answer your questions regarding the effects of poverty on cognitive development. We had distinguished between the terms ability and achievement in order to more clearly identify the effects of poverty. We certainly hope that the information contained in this e-mail will assist you in your efforts to lessen the effects of poverty on your students.

In researching the normative cognitive development of children and adolescents one factor remained constant: there is great debate in the academic community as to whether a general stage theory of cognitive development (such as Piaget's) accurately measures development (Flavell 1992). Since Piaget's establishment of "the four stage's of childhood development: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational" (Papert 1999, 106), advanced scientific technique and academic research have challenged this general stage development construct of cognitive development (Flavell 1992). However, all researchers do agree that children experience rapid and "varied" cognitive growth over their life-span (Flavell 1992). The extent to which individual differences and environmental factors play a role in this growth is up for debate in the scientific community (Flavell 1992, Preece and Read 1996).

Researchers have discovered that "adults' reasoning has turned out to be not as rational as was once thought. Without training, even high school and college students rarely solve Piagetian formal operations tasks" (Flavell 1992, 1000). Therefore, the sixth-graders you are involved with may, and most likely do, have the capacity to realize that each beaker has the same amount of water in it but just may not have been coached to think critically about the problem or they may not have the acquired the constructs (life experience with similar problems) to tackle this task.

There are three general schools of thought regarding children's cognitive development: Piagetian, Neo-Piagetian, and Individual/contextual growth (Flavell 1992). Piagetian theorists follow a general stage theory of cognitive development; the four stages of childhood development previously cited (Flavell 1992). Neo-Piagetian theorists derive their basis for cognitive development from both general stage theory and take into account individual differences in development (Flavell 1992). The third group of theorists concentrate on individual differences in growth and development; taking into consideration children's environmental context of development (Flavell 1992).

I located two different "check-lists" for development through childhood and adolescence aside from Piaget's theory. The first is from Siegler who proposes "that the main things that develop are (a) basic processes, (b) strategies, (c) metacognition, and (d) content knowledge" (in Flavell 1992, 1003). Flavell (1992) suggests that there are "seven cognitive-developmental trends during middle childhood and adolescence: (a) increases in information-processing capacity, (b) increases in domain-specific knowledge, (c) concrete and formal operations, (d) the ability to engage in quantitative thinking, (e) the acquisition of metacognitive knowledge and experiences, and (g) improvement of the cognitive competencies the child already possesses" (1003). Of particular interest to you may be Lee's (1996) "Cognitive development in bilingual children: A case for bilingual instruction in early childhood education". This article asserts that bilingual children educated in their non-native language may be suffering in terms of cognitive development (Lee 1996). This article proposes that instruction in both the native and non-native languages will able children to grasp constructs and bring this knowledge home without the communication barrier that purely non-native language education fosters in households where the parents speak little English (Lee 1996).

As the growing importance of education is recognized, many researchers are attempting to identify those factors which lead to school success. Currently, one of the factors which is receiving great attention is cognitive ability. Indeed, cognitive ability sets the stage for, and affects, future learning and school success. Without the proper knowledge and skills, future learning may be inhibited. Cognitive ability has been defined as a stable individual trait which is influenced by both genetics and environmental factors (Guo, 1998). Guo (1998) has compared cognitive ability with cognitive achievement by explaining that ability is a "measure of the rate of learning" while achievement in a "measure of what is learned" (264). As a result of the great importance of cognitive ability for school success, many researchers have attempted to identify those factors which affect children's cognitive ability. Numerous studies have found that poverty has a detrimental effect on children's cognitive ability. Early poverty (during the first five years) is especially troublesome. In fact, Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, and Smith (1998) report that poverty during early and middle childhood affects cognitive outcomes more than poverty experienced during adolescence. Specifically, the time periods of preschool and early elementary school appear to be critical stages for cognitive development; differences in cognitive ability can be identified as early as 24 months (Dubow & Ippolito, 1994). Additionally, IQ scores become more stable between the ages eight to ten, and therefore, preschool and early school experiences are most important for cognitive development (Guo, 1998).

Preschool readiness is one aspect of cognitive ability which affects school success. Children who come from poverty-stricken families often lack those skills preparing them for school (Dubow & Ippolito, 1994). As Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, and Smith (1998) report, "preschool ability sets the stage for children's transition into the formal school system. Children who have not learned skills such as color naming, sorting, counting, letters, and the names of everyday objects are at a disadvantage compared with children who have mastered these skills" (420). Additionally, children who grow up in poverty score lower on IQ measures and on standardized tests measuring reading and math abilities than middle-class children. In fact, children whose families report having incomes less than one-half of the poverty line score between six and thirteen points lower on standardized tests than children who grow up in middle-class families. Although six to thirteen points may seem minor, this is, in fact, a significant difference (Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, the number of years in poverty is inversely related to cognitive ability: the greater the number of years in poverty, the lower the scores on standardized test (Dubow & Ippolito, 1994).

There is increasing evidence that the effects of poverty on cognitive ability are mediated through children's home environments (Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998; Dubow & Ippolito, 1994). The physical conditions of the home are related to cognitive development, and this factor is also quite obviously correlated with poverty (Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998). Additionally, families living in poverty often lack the means to provide the cognitive stimuli needed for adequate development. For example, poor children may not have access to books and their parents often do not read to them. As a result of the lack in stimulation, the cognitive abilities of children living in poverty do not develop like those of their middle-class peers, and therefore, they are at a disadvantage upon entering school (Dubow & Ippolito, 1994). Mother-child interactions are also related to cognitive development, and the relationships between mother and child are often strained in poverty-stricken families as a result of the economic stresses experienced by the family (Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998). Each of these factors serves to harm the cognitive abilities of young children growing up in poverty, and as a result, they are more likely to experience difficulties in school.

Poverty has been identified as having negative effects on cognitive development, therefore influencing the child's performance in school and in other areas. Guo (1998) has defined achievement as a measure of what is learned and has reported that achievement is a product of social interactions and environment. Achievement can be measured through achievement tests, which are closely tied to formal education, a specific course of study, or the content of standard textbooks. Grade retention, grade point average (GPA), high school graduation, and the number of years of schooling are all measures of achievement (Guo, 1998). Guo (1998) reports that, unlike cognitive ability, adolescent achievement is affected more by poverty than is childhood achievement. He suggests that this finding is true because achievement is an accumulation of what is learned, and therefore, is impacted more in adolescence, when students have learned more information and skills, than in childhood. Furthermore, Guo (1998) reports that "poverty experienced in early adolescence as opposed to childhood is more influential on achievement because achievement is very much a function of motivation and opportunity and because an impoverished environment is more likely to affect a child's motivation and opportunity when the child becomes an adolescent" (282). The path between poverty and adolescent achievement is not entirely direct; however, it is extremely important to address the various effects of poverty and attempt to prevent those negative effects, regardless of the mediating factors.

Now that we have identified some of the impacts of poverty on cognitive development, we will examine some possible interventions or recommendations that maybe useful in pulling all the material together. Throughout our research on interventions, many studies seemed to declare a need for more research in this area. However, some teaching techniques and pathways to academic success were uncovered.

Many of studies call for a need for a community action. The problems related to poverty cannot simply be a problem that the school system needs to handle but must be put in the hands of the community and the families. Dunn (1998), who has focused much energy on improving educational opportunities for impoverished Hispanic children, comments on this in his article. Throughout his research, he has discovered a lower standard that society has placed upon these children which then creates a barrier to their potential and limits their performance. If these existing barriers could be removed, intervention could begin, and one would see progress in school and society for all minority children. He also feels that this should be a nationwide attempt. Dunn advocates for integrated school systems where these minority children are placed in classes with a variety of students, which will assist the students in two ways. Specifically, improving their language skills because of the emphasis on Standard English and assisting the children in acquiring middle class values which would advance their cultural capital. Looking from a professor's point, this task could be a bit overwhelming, but there are little things one can do. It has been found that by the time students from low socioeconomic levels end middle school, they show 1.5 times less schooling than high socioeconomic level students (Daly, 1997). The explanation for this finding is that poor students, due to many circumstances in their lives, have not spent enough time learning the material, which is one of the five reasons why students fail (Daly, 1997). Daly (1997) reviewed more than 8,000 studies on academic performance and concluded that there are two teaching techniques that have the greatest overall effect on students with poor academic success. These techniques are:

1. Formative and summative feedback
1. Incentives for slow or inaccurate performance

These teaching techniques would help with the lagging students' motivation. By motivating and convincing the children that they are able learn can make a huge difference in the children's lives (Pennell, 1985). Additionally, all programs should motivate children to engage in new behaviors and place the children in an environment where they can learn and practice these new behaviors (Bolig, 1999). These new behaviors in return create new cognitive development for the students.

Many of the studies suggest a need for quality nursery and kindergarten programs in order enhance early cognitive development. This is a time when school attainment and motivational patterns in the child are forming (Reynolds, 1989). Programs like Head Start have shown to be very effective. A positive academic experience is a very important external force in helping an impoverished child, but it is not the only force. A strong social support group, good role models, and parent involvement also help (Bolig, 1999). If we could improve these areas, intervention may be made easier. All possible programs must consist of certain things. Programs should be designed to be outcome-based, preventive, flexible to the child's needs, and to establish trust with the minority parents. The aim should lie between helping both the child and parents. Parent involvement in school activities has been found to be related to school success and has later outcomes, so one can see its level of importance (Reynolds, 1989). Hess (1996) focuses on parent involvement in her study on Mexican-American children and risk factors for school dropouts. She recommends an examination of current school policies to confirm and develop "strong solid" relations with ethnic parents. Developing programs that educate parents and that encourage involvement by increasing decision-making might be effective in doing this. She also points out a need to identify the risk factors of dropping out of school, which include absenteeism, sibling dropout, permissive parents, and the negative beliefs which a child holds towards academics (Hess, 1996). With these factors in mind, school systems should implement a dropout prevention program and are advised to "integrate measures of absenteeism and expectancy in at-risk students" (Hess, 1996, 367).

With all that is known about low socioeconomic Hispanic children, we certainly see a need for intervention. Cognitive ability and achievement are extremely important for school success, and therefore, interventions which strengthen ability and achievement are certainly needed in order to enhance the school experiences of children growing up in poverty. We hope that our findings have helped you begin your search in what interventions are right for your school and your current situation.

Sincerely,

Nicole Furl

Molly Hart

Alison Moerschbacher

Elizabeth Silvia

Bolig, E. E., Borkowski, J., & Brandenberger, J. (1999). Poverty and health across the life span. In T.L. Whitman, T.V. Merluzzi (Eds.), Life-span perspectives on health and illness (pp. 67-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Daly III, E. J., Witt, J. C., Martins, B.K., Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574.

Dubow, E.F., & Ippolito, M.F. (1994). Effects of poverty and quality of the home environment on changes in the academic and behavioral adjustment of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 401-412.

Duncan, G.J., Yeung, W.J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J.R. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63, 406-423.

Dunn, L. M. (1988). Has Dunn's monograph been shot down in flames: Author reactions to the preceding critiques of it. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10, 301-323.

Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28, 998-1005.

Guo, G. (1998). The timing of the influences of cumulative poverty on children's cognitive ability and achievement. Social Forces, 77, 257-288.

Hess, R. S., D'Amato, R. C. (1996). High school completion among Mexican-American children: Individual and family background variable. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 337-352.

Johnson, E. R, Merrell, K. W., Stover, L. (1990). The effects of early grade retention on the academic achievement of fourth-grade students. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 333-338.

Lee, P. (1996). Cognitive development in bilingual children: A case for bilingual instruction in early childhood education. Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 499-522.

Papert, S. (1999). Child psychologist: Jean Piaget. Time, 153, 104-107.

Pennell, L. (1985). Academic Intervention Program: Applying brain and learning style concepts. Theory Into Practice, 24, 131-134.

Preece, P.F.W., & Read, K.L.Q. (1996). A classical IQ model of the stages of cognitive development. Intelligence 23, 229-236.

Reynolds, A. J. (1989). A structural model of first-grade outcomes for an urban, low socioeconomic status, minority population. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 594-603.

This site was produced by students taking HDFS 433: The Transition to Adulthood and HDFS 239: Adolescent Development at the Pennsylvania State University. Feedback can be sent to the individual authors or to Nancy Darling (darling@bard.edu).