In the view of developmental scientists, the age old debate of nature versus nurture has been determined some time. Nature and Nurture collaboratively shape the developmental pathways of a child (Keating 2013). The physical environment in an educational setting should not only support a child’s in general welfare and safety, but it should also support their emotional well-being, promoting their individual and social development, encompassing the aspects of challenging and developing their learning in an appropriate way as an active learner (Durrett and Torelli ND), but they also need to be active in their own development. The child's active role in their development is partly promoted in "the hidden curriculum", the unintended learning and invisible factors that can attribute to a child’s development, or prohibit a child’s development (Myles, Shelvan and Trautman 2004). This essay will explain the meaning of nature and nurture with regards to children and an early years setting based on a child's development. It will look at the active child in comparison to the passive child. It will the look at the environment as a facilitator of learning. It will also critically discuss my own settings environment, and how it supports a child's ability to shape, control and direct their own development, focusing to begin with on movement. Movement has an impact on cognitive learning and autonomy, and gives experiences to build brain architecture. The essay will then review how peer teaching used within the setting can promote active learning dispositions such as critical thinking and active participation by scaffolding and role modelling from children of similar age (Kay and Macleod-Brundell 2008) . Finally It will focus on how my setting's use of extrinsic rewards as a tool to drive a child's determination to reach a specific target or goal does not support a child's active role in development in the positive way it was first thought to.
When looking at child development we must first look at the term development itself. development is a change and transformation that is continuous through our lives, the progression from dependency to increasing autonomy, Dahlberg (1985) cited in Cable, Goodliff and Miller 2010. These transformations can be affected by various factors, leading us back at the nature versus nurture debate. Nature is what is believed to be how we are born, the pre wiring we are born with, such as genetics, physical growth and maturation. Though there are different views on this, there are three perspectives that hold quite different views. Empiricism, where society believe a child is an empty vessel moulded by adult, such as John Locke. Nativist, the opposite of empiricism, where children are believed to be pre programmed, such as Jean Jaques Rousseua. and then there are Interactionist, which are a mix of both of these, empty vessels and pre programmed, such as Immanuel kant. (Bruce 2005)
For example, behaviourists theories, such as classical conditioning by Skinner (cited in Goodwin 2008) believe that children are passive in their learning, blank slates to be moulded and shaped through extrinsic motivation, (Miles Gordon and Williams Browne 2009). Where as constructivists views, such as Piaget and later work into social constructivism such as Vygotsky (cited in Goodwin 2008) believe children are active in their learning development, with a natural curiosity and want to engage in experiences, through intrinsic motivation (Miles Gordon and Williams Browne 2009). This is viewed as either a continuous process which varies over time, or a discontinuous process that happens in stages (Dahlberg and Moss 2008). Many theories also suggest that it is the collaboration between the two that shape a child's development (Keating 2013). Although our genetic make up is our foundations for development it is our life experiences, societies views and other outside influences, also referred to as nurture, that can have a positive or negative effect on a child's development (Richardson 2007). Various theorists and approaches to learning use the environment to enhance a child's development. For example Bronfenbrenner ecological theory is based on the premise that development is influenced by these outside factors, (Miles Gordon and Williams Browne 2009). Other theories and approaches to learning, such as Reggio or Montessori also place a great importance on the environment to a child's development, but focus on using the environment as a third teacher, allowing children to learn through child centred play. (Jackson 2015). The third teacher is about having an enabling environment that allows children to interact and engage with the environment around them, nurturing their development (Ellis and Strong-Wilson 2007). This idea of the environment being nurture also encompasses the idea of the hidden curriculum, also known as the unintended learning. The way in which children learn about moral beliefs and values, as well as societies expectations (Myles, Shelvan and Trautman 2004). The hidden curriculum is not something that is specifically taught, but rather an awareness of behaviour or expectation learnt from role models, such as peers or cultural learning via school and home links by working with parents (Byrne and Callard 2008) building on a child's own experiences and knowledge enhancing independence of development.
Movement has an impact on cognitive learning and autonomy. Brains are built upon strong foundations, and even before birth these foundations are beginning to be built, and although heredity determines the basis of these foundations, the mapping and structures are linked in form by a child's experiences and interactions to build brain architecture (Healy 2011). Movement and other early experiences contribute to the young brain's evolving construction. The developing brain both expects and requires these typical human experiences, and relies on them as a component of its growth (Thompson 2001) . My setting understands the importance of movement and physical activity for this brain development, along with other positive impacts it has. My setting has free flow play encouraging children to choose whether they both indoors and out doors, moving between the two independently. Children are encouraged to also move around indoors, between different areas of learning in the room, as well as equipment that is strategically placed by staff to encourage more movement, such as mark making with paper places on the underneath tables, or using long pieces of paper so children can move around whilst drawing and writing. We also have music and dance sessions that involve physical activity using both gross and fine motor skills. Outdoor movement includes riding bikes, balancing, and various forms of movement similar to indoors. The setting offers a physical environment that not only supports their need to discover and explore, but also their fundamental need climb, move, walk etc (Durrett and Torelli No Date). This multifaceted environment also allows children varying chances to explore risk and boundaries, allowing them to develop a positive sense of self and also learn to deal with some emotional barriers, such as fear or self soothing when they may have had a minor fall or bump (Thompson 2001). This also links to the self determination theory (Coltman and Whitebread 2015). This theory is underpinned by 3 areas of personal development, relatedness, autonomy and competence. Within the setting, movement can connect with each of these areas, choice of where and what to play, as well as social interaction, also allowing children to direct and shape their own development, as well as push themselves to take more risk and challenge themselves. We also learn from theorists and researchers such as Jane Healy (2011) that children develop and strengthen their synapses, connector in the brain, by repeating activities and learning, and in contrast loose them if they do not use them. In a similar process, gaining new physical experiences on the body and its senses, also creates new synapses, or pathways in the brain that link learning. For example my setting during dancing uses ribbons, organza, puppets, adding a tactile or texture to the physical activity, which will create a new experience. However Healy (2011) also highlights the importance of children having time to sleep or relax, giving their brain time to make sense of what they have learnt and be able to process their new information. This showing that children may also need an area within their environment that they can also do this, such as the dark corner, and reading areas we have in our setting to allow them some quiet time to reflect, and even discuss their experiences with fellow peers.
Peer teaching used within the setting can promote active learning dispositions such as critical thinking and active participation by scaffolding and role modelling from children of similar age (Kay and Macleod-Brundell 2008). This teaching works in cohort to varying areas of the setting. It encompasses the idea of children being the educator to other children of similar age and social or cultural backgrounds and abilities. When Vygotsky first introduced the concept of the zones of proximal development he also affirmed the importance of children who are more competent, can aid a less competent child in their development (Moll 2003). Vygotsky believed that a child will follow an adults example and gradually gain the ability to do a task, seeing the child in what they can now and with a role model such as a peer, and their environment will affect what or how they learn and at what rate of development. This was in contrast to Piaget who believed that children developed at a universal rate, non-dependent on the cultural or social factors (Dockrell, Smith and Tomlinson 2005). Post modern perspectives on child learning approaches questioning the develop-mentalist approach that many settings have followed for some time, and still do in some way, such as using documents such as development matters Early Education (2012) or expected norms of development (Gesell cited in Pound 2014) . It encompasses the idea that children learn best when there syllabus is based upon their own interest or lives and routine around them. It outlines the effects of a child's home, family and culture and that of the society around them. It encourages practitioners to look at a child's needs and experiences and based on this, establish an exchange of knowledge that a child can build upon, evaluating their own approach. This shows that we should empower children, they are not negative or deficit (Alexander 2008) and are capable of being active in their own development. Peer teaching can be a positive collaborator to this development as children don't underestimate each others ability or have expectations of each others social or cultural influences (Dunning and Kruger 1999). Peer teaching can be an inclusive practice, for example in my setting there are many different cultures and social backgrounds but the peer culture within the group does not determine interactions within the group (Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett and Farmer 2012). My setting also has a wide age range with younger and older children together, given the same boundaries and expectations. The older children take a role of their own accord to help scaffold younger children, showing them something they have learnt themselves, such as demonstrating how a toy works, or even correcting behaviour and social expectations, such as saying please or not saying words that are unacceptable within the setting. This scaffolding can be traced back also to the hidden curriculum (Byrne and Callard 2008), the unintended learning that one child then passes on to another. Children will also give honest reflection to each other, and using language appropriate between them to help educate their peers, allowing them to copy a range of competencies and build self esteem, thus promoting active learning dispositions (Lillard 2005). Kohlberg places a strong emphasis on being fair and caring, responsible for each other (Miles Gordon and Williams Browne 2009), but it has also been shown that peer education can also have a negative impact on a child's development. Peer culture can also disaffirm the intended outcome through social exclusion, poor relationship building thus also having a negative impact on motivation (Rietveld 2010).
My setting uses extrinsic rewards as a tool to drive a child's determination to reach a specific target or goal. My setting uses a reward jar system that enables children to receive a reward at the end of term. This also used alongside reward systems being used at home by parents for things such as potty training, enabling a link to a child's own habitus. Behaviourist perspectives such as skinner (cited in Miles Gordon and Williams Browne 2009) believed that extrinsic motivation could help condition a child's behaviour. His Antecedent, behaviour and consequence model was a prime example of this, by identifying a trigger, then the type of behaviour, and finally using consequence or a re-inforcer to gain a specific outcome (Davis and Luthans 1980). For example, in our setting the reward system may be used if a child has sat down well at snack time, gaining both praise and a stone in their jar, encouraging a child to then do this again next time. This was also supported by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and theory of self actualization, a child being deficit until needs are met and that even as adults, self actualization is rarely ever met (Davis and Luthans 1980). However, this does not support a child's active role in development in the positive way it was first thought to (Theodotou 2014). The eight principles of Montessori teach us that extrinsic rewards are damaging to the child's active role in development, negatively impacting motivation, and they also encourage teachers to view children as motivated doers (Lillard 2005). Empirical findings by learning approaches such as Montessori and Reggio have both shown the benefits of intrinsic motivation on a child active role in their development, again linking to the self determination theory and the areas of relatedness, autonomy and competence. (Coltman and Whitebread 2015). Intrinsic motivation enables a child to forma sense of positive well being and confidence. When we look at the impact for example on self-esteem, and that this growth rate will be dependent on a child's confidence. Children who lack confidence will need continuous encouragement to increase and improve their own self image, but also to be able to gain confidence in trying new things rather than avoid them due to rick of failure. This supports the notion that a child's well being, self and agency has a direct impact on their ability to learn and reach their full potential. It also supports the idea of a child being active and the teacher scaffolding a child according to their needs. (Kay and Macleod-Brundell 2008). Develop-mentalist viewpoints however are difficult to change. My setting is underpinned by the Early Years Statutory Framework (Department of Education 2014) and developmental Norms associated to this. It supports children to be active in their learning but from a develop-mentalist viewpoint and developmentally appropriate practice governed by government requirements and local authority expectations (Dahlberg and Moss 2005). Some practitioners can find it hard to be challenged by the idea of develop-mentalism being incorrect, and can be difficult for practitioners to change the approach they have been using for so long and is still used in many ways by schools and within workplaces. For example my setting uses the extrinsic reward system based on that of the local school that most of the children will then continue on with, so using a recognisable system enables the transition easier, and more positive to the child's needs (Cable, Goodliff and Miller 2010).
For Years children have been taught using a behaviourist and develop-mentlist view, with teachers instructing a child's learning. But new perspectives such as post modernism and sociocultural have also deduced that children have the ability to learn from hands on experience, and that interaction is an important part of this. Post structuralism in collaboration with this looks at the way of thinking that co-exist between home and school, friendships and social networks and also social fields in the child's life, i.e home, school, and the distinctive approach for each individual. Childhood education should be viewed as being something that is not measurable by a set outcome, but can be something that can be produced and made a priority in a child's learning based upon a particular discourse, a product of both nature and nurture.mean making. A child's own multiple pedagogies and diverse life experiences should be supported by the environment and the hidden curriculum. In conclusion, to enable a child to be active on their own development we must give them an environment that can enable them physically, mentally emotionally and socially. Discovery should not be limited to one particular area, and should scaffold curiosity and exploration. Teachers should also be aware of the impact outside influences and societies view of the child can have on a child’s learning development and use the environment as a third teacher to support children on this basis. A teacher to pay close attention to the countless ways a setting can speak to this interaction. teacher allowing them to view the world through the eyes of the child. environment embeds learning Again allowing the environment to become a teacher itself. By allowing children opportunities to move, and use space independently, discover and explore, they can become agents of their own learning. Children are teacher within their own right, educating not only their own development but also teaching and scaffolding peers. Children have the ability to shape, control and direct their own development when given the intrinsic motivation to do so, along with an environment that supports their natural curiosity, along with providing a hidden curriculum, the third teacher, as well as adults and peers to support them on this journey of self discovery.