Questions: To what extent do you think cognitive development and language are "natural"? What are the potential strengths and weaknesses of neuroscience as an approach to the understanding of learning?

_____________________________________-

1. Cognitive Development and "natural" language learning

Given the sheer complexity of language learning with its often complicated grammar, concepts, and vocabulary, it seems inarguable that our brains come with some of the necessary "wiring" and mechanisms for language acquisition in place already from birth. Otherwise, language learning would be way too complicated for a young child to master. This is the main thrust of the Constructionist view of theory of brain developmentalism and learning that our course materials reviewed. This was famously espoused by Noam Chomsky and later by Steven Pinker, the director of M.I.T.'s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, and others. As Pinker puts it, humans have a natural instinct that makes language learning possible.

Unlike Chomsky, Pinker directly links this to natural selection and human evolution. Both humans and chimps, for example, have the physical vocal organs to speak, but only human brains are able to produce or use grammar. Pinker has spoken more fully about a “cognitive niche” or advantage that humans have - and how language is critical to this.

In reviewing some of the developmental literature on learning, we see that studies of infants have found evidence of this “bias for learning” - or what Chomsky referred to as “Universal Grammar.” For example, infants show a bias for listening to speech right from birth. Babies when sucking their thumb will adjust their sucking so they can better listen to speech - and do not make such adjustments for other types of non-vocal sounds. [1] For babies who are 4 weeks old or younger, this bias for listening applies equally to speech by a person or vocal sounds made by a monkey. However, by the age of just 3 months, their listening progresses to show a clear preference for listening to human speech. [2] By the age of 8 months, infants can segment words from fluent speech. "This word segmentation was based on statistical learning from only 2 minutes of exposure, suggesting that infants have access to a powerful mechanism for the computation of statistical properties of the language input." [3] In other words, one cannot separate language learning from our cognitive development -- or the "natural" aspect of language learning.

This does not mean that interaction with people and a child's environment do not matter. Clearly, nature and nurture matter. For example, despite the wiring in a child's brain making them ready for language learning, if they grow up in an environment without exposure to human language, they will not learn it. This was illustrated in the story of how children raised by wolves were unable to speak a human language. [4]

To me, however, this suggests that cognitive development (the neuroscience) and the idea of “social mind” (social or distributed cognitivism as noted in our readings) are both natural and even essential components of our ability to learn language. We need the “wiring” that develops in our brains (wolf cubs do not have it), but the language itself that we learn has been created out of cognitions and experiences distributed across individuals and communities -- all interacting over time. This concept is described by Gavriel Salomon in our readings - who described language as an “intellectual partnership.”

That said, people engaging and evolving languages still depend on our brain's built-in processing mechanisms already in place. This seems fundamental to the “natural” aspect of language learning -- and it is the core foundation for the view that cognitive development is instrumental. Changes in a child's information processing, intelligence, reasoning, language development, and memory as they grow are key to language learning. In short, "language acquisition builds on cognitive development." [5]

As a result, our ability to learn language(s) progresses as we grow and our brain develops through the four stages of cognitive development.

As our brains develop -- for example, changes in our synaptic connections and prefrontal cortex development -- so does our ability to process and learn language. This also aligns with what has been observed in developmental studies - our ability to learn language changes over time. For example, by the time we reach puberty (well into the formal operational stage shown above), our language acquisition abilities weakens, as a recent MIT study found. [6]

2. Strengths and weaknesses of neuroscience for understanding learning

The link between cognitive development and language learning is a connection that has been demonstrated by advancements in neuroscience. Neuroscience -- the study of the brain and associated nervous system -- provides important understandings about the mental processes involved in learning -- and losing learning that one had previously gained.

Neuroscience has undoubtedly assisted in our understanding of learning. For example, research in neuroscience has helped us understand the factors involved learning difficulties such as dyslexia or ADHD. It has shown us the "use it or lose it" quality of learning -- or how learning a skill changes our brain, but that those changes can be lost when we stop practicing our using that skill -- and the thus the importance and benefits of lifelong learning. [7]

However, neuroscience -- or more accurately an over emphasis by people who draw upon neuroscience -- to explain learning is the potential for it to become a justification for dividing people (or our assumptions about their potential) between "normal" and those with learning difficulties. As neuroscience is more widely known, it also creates a risk of over-diagnosis or falling back on "medical" explanations for people with educational difficulties when in fact there are many complex factors at play. Over focusing on neuroscience can lead to the human behavior of "when you hold a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

This can also lead to some people commercially exploiting wider acceptance of neuroscience and its importance to learning. Witness the explosion of books, learning games, trainings, and nutritional supplements that all claim they are scientifically proven ways to improve learning. This is fueled by the appeal or attraction to things explained by science. [8]

___________________________

Sources:

1. Vouloumanos A, Werker JF. Listening to language at birth: evidence for a bias for speech in neonates. Developmental Science. 2007

2. Vouloumanos A, Hauser MD, Werker JF, Martin A. The tuning of human neonates' preference for speech. Child Dev. 2010 Mar-Apr;81(2):517-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01412.x. PMID: 20438457 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20438457/

3. Saffran JR, Aslin RN, Newport EI. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science. 1996. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/274/5294/1926.abstract

4. https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/supporting-material/the-wolf-children-of-godamuri

5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661304002165

6. https://news.mit.edu/2018/cognitive-scientists-define-critical-period-learning-language-0501

7. "Brain Waves Module 2: Neuroscience: implications for education and lifelong learning," The Royal Society, Feb. 2011. https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/publication/4294975733.pdf

8. See Weisberg DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E, & Gray JR (2008). "The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience