The nature or nurture binary is bunk. At best, it asks for a facile choice between what are essentially complementary mechanisms of brain and behavior. At worst, it’s a model that strips an individual of agency, forcing a fixed mindset that hinders self-directed growth and lifelong learning.

For proof, let’s take up Bransford et al.’s rallying call for a synergy of inquiry and set aside – for a moment, at least – our preoccupation with design strategies for formal learning.

If we slide backwards along the continuum of learning contexts, we can examine the mind in its initial state, untouched by schooling. The brain of a newborn child is characterized by the raw, electric potentiality of a system primed for implicit learning and rapid change. For this inchoate bundle of nerves and neurons, experience – what we call nurture – plays an outsized role. To be sure, DNA has granted it certain baked-in capacities for movement, language, and perception. But the people, objects, and environments to which it is exposed have the power to shape the brain at a basic, structural level. From the density of synapses to the patterns of neural networks, the brain organizes itself through processes of “pruning” and “neural commitment” in response to experience (Bransford et al., 2006, p. 213).

We should be wary, though, of framing this development as a purely passive process. If a learner believes her intellectual capacity is fixed as the sum of her DNA and her early learning experiences, what hope could she have for transformation? Experiential, implicit learning and informal learning across diverse contexts certainly inform one’s total knowledge acquisition, but to what extend do they define it?

Carol Dweck’s seminal work in mindsets shows that those individuals who possess a fixed self-conception believe their intelligence and abilities are predefined, static traits. For learners with a fixed mindset, there is little use in challenging themselves or adjusting their strategies for learning – they believe they either have what it takes to succeed or they don’t (Dweck, 2006).

Here, the concept of neural plasticity comes into play. Emerging research challenges the idea of rigid “critical periods” for learning and shows that the mind is indeed more flexible, or plastic, than learning scientists originally believed (Bransford et al., 2006, p. 213). Indeed, the “adaptive expertise” afforded by this kind of neural flexibility is not only possible, but desirable in our quickly changing 21st century world.

Becoming an adaptive expert requires that learners have confidence in their abilities to change and grow by working outside of their comfort zones. Pushing themselves to explore unfamiliar ideas and strategies can reduce their efficiency in the short term, which can be an uncomfortable prospect (Bransford et al., 2006, p. 226). Still, learning to build the resilience to fully engage with the ambiguity inherent in working with open-ended problems is a necessary step in becoming a mature, adaptive learner. Flexibility, resilience, and a growth mindset are internal, rather than technological tools that can act as bridges across contexts as learners work to gain new knowledge, skills, and experiences (Sharples et al., 2009, p. 235).

Sources

Bransford, J., Vye, N., Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P., … Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elerbaum Associates.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233-249). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7