Cognitive / Social development through apprenticeship rather than by peers

[Shiroi Tora]

Children learn through many means. Modeling allows them to learn as a whole. When they take after someone they admire, they take on (so long as their model is positive) many positive aspects. How the person (mentor) arrives at decisions becomes apparent after the child sees a pattern of cause and effect. Through discussion, the child is exposed to methods of thought as well as new information. They see how the mentor prioritized, processed and acted on the information. It is very efficient and is the way the world generally operates.

It is the child who never looks upward to learn that is kept in perpetual adolescence. Actually, reading books is apprenticing to the author. School is supposed to be the same thing. So far as structured learning...it is either.. learning from the learned...or the blind leading the blind.

Correct social rules generally come from above also.


You know what I think...your thoughts?

 

[krisi]

I agree, and I disagree. The type of learning you are describing causes "deep" knowledge. Skills, details, rules, order, all of which are beautiful and necessary things to learn.

However, peer relationships teach the same amount, but different concepts. The knowledge gained is a "wide" kind of knowledge. Play schemas in childhood lay the foundation for more complex concepts and problem-solving in adolescence and adulthood. Children with autism spectrum disorders often have rigid play schemas--playing with other children, same age peers, older peers, and particularly younger peers can help expand those play schemas and introduce them to a variety of concepts.

Another aspect of problem solving that peer play has to offer is conflict resolution. Everyone, no matter how intelligent, makes mistakes. We need to learn how to deal with the mistakes once we have made them. We need to learn how to emotionally handle having made a mistake with another person, learn to apologize, and work through repairing the relationship. Trial and error learning is important in relationships, because forsight is near impossible with other people, because there are so many ways a person can react. Also what makes one person react a certain way can very well make another person react in an entirely different way. This unpredictability is what makes socialization difficult for some aspies. However, trial and error learning(I was going to address this more in your other thread), when done intelligently, does not simply involve "well, that didn't work, I won't try that again." As you pointed out in your other thread, a multitude of alternate courses of action exist, so trying just anything other than what caused the error may still not create the desired outcome. It involves more critical thinking. "What went wrong?" "What other, similar things might cause a similar response?" "What can I change to get a better response from that person?" Doing the "opposite" of what caused the error in the first place is not always effective--in fact, sometimes it even causes the same type of outcome.

To use a (somewhat cliched) metaphor, optimally, a person's knowledge is like an ocean: both wide and deep. If your learning experiences are limited to those you have described, the knowledge tends to be very deep without much width, like a sinkhole. To have a multitude of peer experiences without formal instruction (or without paying attention to formal instruction), causes one's knowledge to be very wide, but not deep at all, like a lake that is essentially a sandbar throughout the majority of it.

 

[Shiroi Tora]

Ah...but to have been taught appropriate play from the beginning allows the child to behave appropriately. There are built in examples of conflict resolution in sports. The mentors also teach mature ways by the child seeing how they operate in the real world. Martial arts are particularly adept at teaching respect for one another. The children that had played the most with other children usually became great at compromise...of themselves. Giving of oneself more than what is fair to oneself is not conflict resolution...it is cowering.

Now...playtime could be with children of morals their own age...but with something to teach. Again, sports. Yes, uncontrolled play is great for problem solving skill development....if they learn the correct lesson...if the group desires equality for individuals...if not...they are learning either domination or acquiescention.

Yes...through modeling...older...more morale...somehow better...children will learn to become better more efficiently.

 

[krisi]

Ah...but to have been taught appropriate play from the beginning allows the child to behave appropriately.

Yes, it most certainly does. That is why both forms of learning are necessary.

There are built in examples of conflict resolution in sports. The mentors also teach mature ways by the child seeing how they operate in the real world.

There are examples of cause and effect, rulebreaking and punishment, rule-adhearing and escape of punishment, practice and positive performance. However, sports do not always offer replacement behaviors (sometimes they do), most sports involve breaking a rule and being penalized, either in points, or in removal from the game. In fact, sports can foster aggressive attitudes and behaviors: Did you know that in basketball, if someone has the ball, and someone is guarding them, the person with the ball can pivot, jam their elbow into the defender's nose, break their nose, and a foul will be called on the person guarding?

Martial arts are particularly adept at teaching respect for one another. The children that had played the most with other children usually became great at compromise...of themselves. Giving of oneself more than what is fair to oneself is not conflict resolution...it is cowering.

I agree with the statement about martial arts--martial arts is also very good about providing replacement behaviors (I do not do this; I do this instead). I also agree that simply giving in is not conflict resolution; it's rolling over and being a doormat. However, effective conflict resolution tends to involve compromise on both sides, such that both people can agree to a solution. One cannot always insist on their own way, and it takes creative and intelligent problem-solving skills in order to find a solution where you are not "giving of oneself more than what is fair to oneself."

Now...playtime could be with children of morals their own age...but with something to teach. Again, sports. Yes, uncontrolled play is great for problem solving skill development....if they learn the correct lesson...if the group desires equality for individuals...if not...they are learning either domination or acquiescention.

Yes...through modeling...older...more morale...somehow better...children will learn to become better more efficiently.

You are assuming that there is a "correct" lesson to learn. Unfortunatly, with unsupervised, unstructure play, children sometimes learn that they can "get their way" by various maladaptive means (threatening, physical violence, lying, yelling, etc). However, in loosely supervised unstructured play, children can work out conflicts with scaffolded adult involvement--that is, if one person is getting out of hand, the adult steps in to say, "We don't (yell/bite/push/etc). Find another way to work this out." Thus, the children learn that their maladaptive attempts are inappropriate, but are put in a situation where they need to think critically and suppress impulsive behavior in order to find an appropriate solution. Of course, one would expect different levels of independence with this (and thus varying degrees of support should be provided) based upon the child's age an maturity; more adult support would be needed for a four year old than for a nine-year-old (I would estimate that the aforementioned scenario would be effective for children whose maturity is around the "third grade" level up through adolescence) . However, the adult should only be involved as needed to provide the appropriate supports. Otherwise, the child becomes dependent upon the adult to problem-solve for them, rather than learning to think the situation through and make appropriate decisions.

 

[Shiroi Tora]

Agreed...so long as the conflict resolution is based on merit and not compromise. Most conflict resolution attempts to limit violence (only unjustified violence is evil) as if it were a bad thing... at the expense of justice. Their goal is make sure no fighting occurs....they can do this by taking part of yours to give to him so they are bought off.

Now....hear me out on this one....

Compromise is too often...evil...it is too often...the support of evil.

More frequently there is a wrong or right...only when none have a right in the first place does dividing the resources apply.

If you have a right to it...you should not give up anything. A robber takes $2.00 from you....a conflict resolutionist steps in and talks with the robber...the robber agrees to give back $1.00 if both have peace....you are vilified if you resort to violence to take back YOUR money instead of accepting the COMPROMISE to avoid the greatest "evil"...violence.

Dividing up fairly is justice...and not compromise. When people give up what they want...in part or in whole...it is to get something of greater value to them....or to prevent from something worse from happening. That is compromise...and frequently it is to compromise principles (sacrificing long term gains for the short).

Sorry...that was merely a side point of yours...it is a major one with me...I know one must fight when necessary.