Edu/Psy 3327 Final Exam Review

Edu/Psy 3327 Final Exam Review

Students are required to construct a response to Parts I and II. Of the remaining four parts, students are required to complete two parts. Thus, students will complete four parts total.

I.  REQUIRED. Children’s literature: Be prepared to discuss the behavior of a child you meet in a children’s book. You will examine the child’s behavior in cognitive, social, and/or moral terms. 60 points possible

Choose THREE sections of text from the story. For EACH of the THREE sections, write a well-constructed paragraph which reflects on a single, precise issue of cognitive, social, or moral development. Thus, you will write THREE paragraphs, each paragraph reflecting behavior from the perspective of a single, precise, and different issue. [For example, if you choose to evaluate the child’s behavior in relation to conservation in one section, then you may not use the concept of conservation as the basis for evaluation in another paragraph.]

Each paragraph will be worth 20 points for a total of 60 points. Each paragraph will be graded using the following schema:

·  Does the paragraph begin with a thesis statement that clearly establishes a relationship between the child behavior(s) and a specific aspect of the theory and theorist to be used in evaluating those behaviors? [0 – 4 points]

·  Does the paragraph offer good support for the thesis? Are the supporting statements both reflective of an understanding of the theory and logical in their connection to the behaviors in the story? Do the statements highlight and analyze the appropriate behaviors in the story in their relationship to an appropriate portion of the theory? Are precise terms from the theory/theorist appropriately used? [0 – 8 points]

·  Does the paragraph offer a legitimate personal experience [from personal observations] that serves to appropriately connect theory to practice? [0 – 3 points]

·  Does the paragraph end with a good conclusion, one that connects theory to “experience/practice” and offers legitimate insight? [0 – 5]

II.  REQUIRED. Do Parents (or Teachers) Really Matter? 60 points

Sharon Begley, in an article in Newsweek magazine, discusses the claims of Judith Rich Harris, author of The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do; Parents Matter Less Than You Think and Peers Matter More (464 pages. Free Press).

Begley summarizes Harris’ claims in the following sentences:

“After parents contribute an egg or a sperm filled with DNA, she argues, virtually nothing they do or say – no kind words or hugs, slaps or tirades; neither permissiveness nor authoritarianism; neither encouragement nor scorn – makes a smidgen of difference to what kind of adult the child becomes. Nothing parents do will affect his behavior, mental health, ability to form relationships, sense of self-worth, intelligence or personality. What genes don’t do, peers do.”

A.  You are required to place Judith Rich Harris’ position on a continuum between nature and nurture. In addition, you are required to place your theorist and other significant contributors (those theorists studied in class, including project theorists) to the continuum. Finally, you must establish a place for your own position on the continuum. (26 points) See sample at the end of this document…**

B.  Using the continuum as a framework, write two or three well-constructed paragraphs in response to Harris’ claim. Be sure to integrate both theory and practice into your paragraph. Try to develop a good position for yourself with regard to the nature v. nurture debate using both theory (specifically identify the portion/term of a theory …not the whole theory/theorist) and personal experience (from observations and/or your own life). Here is your opportunity to add “authority” and “construct meaning” for your position with regard to the nature v. nurture debate by selecting appropriate portions of theories you have examined this semester and synthesizing them. In writing your paragraph, ask yourself the following questions. (34 points)

·  Do I begin with a clear statement of my position? [0 – 4 points]

·  Do I offer good support for the thesis? Are there substantive supporting statements reflective of an understanding of both theory and practice and insight from my own research)? Do I use theories, theorists, and precise terms to develop my argument? Does my argument highlight and offer appropriate and logical reasoning and conceptual depth (Phase III Vygtosky)? Does my statement reflect personal meaning…as opposed to a series of sterile statements that I found in a book or in my notes? [0 – 18 points]

·  Do I offer personal experiences to connect theory to practice? [0 – 8 points]

·  Do I end with a restatement of my position and a good conclusion that connects theory to “experience/practice” in a legitimate way? [0 – 4]

III.  Matching [40 points possible]. Match the theory/theorist with the appropriate "schemes" or associations. Indicate your choice by placing the correct letter in the blank provided. Names may be used more than once. Some names may not be used. One term has two theorists equally well associated with it. [2 points each]

IV.  Multiple Choice: Read each scenario carefully, and then print the letter of the response that most precisely reflects an understanding of the theory or concept represented. [4 points each 40 points possible].

Terms/Concepts to Review: This list contains terms used during the semester; however, there may be terms missing from this list. Use this list to prepare for sections III and and IV. However, knowledge of these terms and understanding of the key concepts involving these terms will be useful on all parts of the final exam.

·  Sensorimotor

·  Preoperational

·  Concrete operational

·  Formal operational

·  Scheme

·  Organization

·  Adaptation

·  Accommodation

·  Equilibration

·  Disequilibrium

·  Perceptual centration

·  Conservation

·  Egocentrism

·  Irreversibility

·  Object permanence

·  Transductive reasoning

·  Animism

·  Heteronomous morality

·  Autonomous morality

·  Noble savage

·  Tabula rasa

·  Genuine concepts

·  complexes

·  pseudoconcepts

·  syncretic heaps

·  Epigenetic principle

·  Trust v. mistrust

·  Autonomy v. shame/doubt

·  Initiative v. guilt

·  Industry v. inferiority

·  scaffolding

·  Identity v. role confusion

·  Intimacy v. isolation

·  Generativity v. self-absorption [stagnation]

·  Integrity v. despair

·  Identity moratorium

·  Identity achievement

·  Identity foreclosure

·  Identity diffusion

·  Dilemma

·  Male morality

·  Female morality

·  Genotype

·  Phenotype

·  Cephalocaudally

·  Proximodistally

·  Reciprocal interweaving

·  Functional asymmetry

·  Self-regulation

·  Preformationism

·  Genetic epistemology

·  Pre-conventional / pre-moral

·  Conventional / Generalized Conformity

·  Post-conventional / Autonomous Level

·  Punishment-obedience / Type 0

·  Instrumental relativist / Type 1 / Hedonistic Egoism

·  Good boy-nice girl / Type 2

·  Law and order / Type 3

·  Social contract / Democratic Legalists

·  Universal ethical principle / Conscience of Principle Orientation

·  Preconvention

·  Conventional

·  Postconventional

·  Ethic of care

·  Moral reasoning

·  Justice

·  Zone of proximal development

·  Level of independent performance

·  Level of assisted performance

·  Sign

·  Semiotic mediation

·  Scientific concepts

·  Spontaneous concepts

·  Constructivism

·  Rationalism

·  Empiricism

·  Theory

·  Hereditarianism

·  Environmentalism

·  Maturationism

·  Paradigm

·  Continuity

·  Discontinuity

·  Genetics

·  Culture

·  Nature

·  Nurture

·  Seriation

·  Transitive inference

·  Adolescent egocentrism

·  Moral judgment

·  Ethic of care

·  A/not-B error

·  Deferred imitation

·  Gestalt perception

·  Orthogenic principle

·  Differentiation

·  Hierarchical integration

·  Eidetic imagery

·  Physiognomic perception

·  Geometric-technical perception

·  Microgenetic mobility

·  Synesthesia

·  Self-object differentiation

·  Perceptual

·  Conceptual

·  Organismic orientation

·  Constructivist learning environment

·  Knowledge construction

·  Cognitive development

·  Crisis

·  Commitment

·  Sensitive periods

·  Spontaneous activity

·  Role of the teacher

·  Observational learning

·  Attention

·  Retention

·  Motor production

·  Reinforcement & motivation

·  Self-efficacy

·  Actual performance

·  Vicarious experiences

·  Verbal persuasion

·  Inner speech

·  Egocentric speech

·  Mental tool

·  Mediator

·  Self-regulation

·  Ambiguous figures

·  Inhibitory control

·  Selective attention

·  Hurried Stressed

·  Stressor

·  Play

·  Other terms associated with student projects

V.  October Sky. Erik Erikson uses a set of eight dichotomies to identify the stages in his theory of psychosocial development. One of those eight stages is "identity v. role confusion." James Marcia, elaborating on Erikson's work, suggested that there are four alternatives for adolescents as they confront themselves and their identity. Using Marcia's four alternatives, as discussed in class, use incidents from the movie to indicate your understanding of the alternatives by filling in the following table. [40 points possible.] **Remember, you can be complete this portion of the final exam in advance and submit it upon coming to the exam IF you have met the following conditions: 1) you attended the extra class meeting during which the movie was shown and handouts were distributed -- or you met with and made special arrangements with course instructor to receive the Erikson/Marcia handouts and make up the extra meeting; 2) the response to the question is word-processed; and 3) the response is submitted upon entering the final exam. This specific question and form for responding to this question is online available among the links to Final Exam Resources.

VI.  Surprise….but think Vygotsky-style!

**

Nature ______Nurture

Locke

Rousseau

Vygotsky/Khirallah

What about Judith Rich-Harris?

Piaget

Kohlberg

Gilligan

Erikson

Marcia

Vygotsky

Bandura

Elkind

Werner

Gesell

Goodenough

Harris

And others??

Remember you will be expected to not only draw the line but defend it – by explaining both the theorist’s position in terms of nature – nurture and the theorist’s position in relation to the position of other theorists.