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.
Items highlighted in yellow will NOT APPEAR on the exam.
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. 30 points possible
Think of this section as if it were an entry in your observation journal.
The text will be divided into three sections. For EACH of the THREE sections, write a wellconstructed paragraph which reflects on a single, precise issue of cognitive, social, or moral
development. Thus, you will write THREE paragraphs, each paragraph reflecting on behavior
from the perspective of a single, precise, and different theorist. [For example, if you choose to
evaluate the child’s behavior in relation to Piaget’s concept of conservation in one section, then
you may not use Piaget and/or the concept of conservation as the basis for evaluation in another
paragraph.]
Each paragraph will be worth 10 points for a total of 30 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 – 2 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? As a rule of thumb, use at least 3-4 increasingly more
precise terms in this section. [0 – 4 points]
 Does the paragraph offer a relevant personal experience or example that gives meaning to the
thesis and constructs evidence of genuine concept. This section serves to appropriately
connect theory to practice? [0 – 2 points]
 Does the paragraph end with a good concluding statement, one that summarizes the
connection between theory and “experience/practice” and offers personal insight? [0 – 2]
II.
REQUIRED. Do Parents (or Teachers) Really Matter? 30 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.”
Using Harris’ claim as a starting point,
A. Draw a nature-nurture line. Place your name on the line so as to reflect your position
regarding whether nature or nuture has the greater influence on the development of a
child. Next, position at least four theorists (from among those studied during the
Child Growth and Development course) that will be used to justify your position. Each
indicated position is worth 2 points each for a total of 10 points – when used in
conjunction with Part B. See the list of theorists from which you may choose to justify
your position at the end of this document…**
B. Using the nature-nurture line as a starting point, construct a coherent argument to
justify your position. In developing your argument, be sure to identify the major
components of your argument, tying in key points from each theorist selected to
justify your position. USE RELEVANT, SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY FROM
THEORISTS. In addition, be sure to offer an example – preferably from
personal/research experience – to further clarify the major components of your
argument. Here is your opportunity to add “authority” and “meaning” to your
position by synthesizing relevant portions of theories with personal experiences and
research. In developing and arguing your position, ask yourself the following
questions. (20 points)

Do I begin with a paragraph that clearly states my position? Do I clarify my position
by introducing its major components and at least four significant theorists that
situate, clarify, and give meaning to those component parts? [0 – 3 points]
 Do I offer at least two to three substantive supporting paragraphs that justify my
position? Do I reference key portions of theory to build each component of my
argument? Do I offer authoritative, supporting statements reflective of an
understanding of theory, especially from my own research? Do I use increasingly
more precise terminology from relevant portions of theory to develop my argument?
Does my argument highlight and offer appropriate and logical reasoning and
conceptual depth (Phase III Vygtosky)? Does my argument reflect personal meaning
achieved from synthesizing theory with personal experience or example…as opposed
to a series of sterile statements found in a book or in my notes? [0 – 12 points]
 In the supporting paragraphs, do I offer at least two personal and/or research
experiences and/or examples to connect theory to practice? [0 – 3 points]
 Do I end with a concluding paragraph that restates, summarizes, and reaffirms my
position in terms of its relevant component parts? Does the final paragraph reveal a
key insight that shows evidence that I have thoughtfully and legitimately considered
theory in light of experience so as to give personal meaning to my position? [0 – 2]
III.
Matching [20 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. [1 points each]
IV.
Multiple Choice [20 points possible]. Read each scenario carefully, and then print the
letter of the response that most precisely reflects an understanding of the theory or
concept represented. [2 points each].
Terms/Concepts to Review: This list contains most of the terms encountered during the
semester; however, there are terms missing. Use this list to prepare for sections III and and IV.
However, conceptual understanding of these terms, especially the connections among them, will
be useful on all parts of the final exam.
 General Terms
 Development
 Orderly, Cumulative, Directional
 Nature
 Nurture
 Preformationism
 Continuity
 Discontinuity
 Genetics
 Culture
 Theory
 Perspective
 Paradigm
 Cognitive development
 Locke












Tabula Rasa
Associations
Repetitions
Imitation
Rewards and Punishments
Self control
Experiential
Natural curiosity
Empiricism
Behaviorism
Environmentalism
Rousseau








Noble Savage
Child-centered
Innate reason
Natural consequence
Natural curiosity
Rationalism
Hereditarianism
Innate Reason


Kant
 Constructivism
 Phenomenology
 Interpretivism
 Knowledge Construction
 Meaning
Gesell
 Genetic Blueprint
 Biological Maturation
 Reciprocal Interweaving
 Functional Asymmetry
 Self-regulation
 Developmental /Age Norms
 School Readiness
 Montessori














Sensitive Periods
Child-centered
Independent Mastery
Spontaneous Activity
Role of the Teacher
Choice
Auto-Education
Truth
Fantasy Play
Error control
Normalization
Free Choice
Directed Choice
Prepared Environment
 Piaget
























Genetic epistemology
Scheme (schema)
Organization
Adaptation
Assimilation
Accommodation
Equilibration
Disequilibrium
Heteronomous morality
Autonomous morality
Sensorimotor
Reflexes
 Babinski
 Root
 Moro
 Root
 Sucking
Primary Circular Reactions
Secondary Circular Reactions
Purposeful Co-ordinations
Tertiary Circular Reactions
First Symbols
Circular Reactions
Object permanence
Deferred imitation
A not B error
Preoperational
 Perception Bound
 Centration
 Egocentrism
 Irreversibility
 Transductive reasoning
 Animism
 States rather than Transformations
Concrete operational
 Conservation (types / sequence)
 Identity (Argument)
 Compensation (Argument)
 Inversion (Argument)
 Seriation
 Transitive Inference
 Categorization
Formal operational
 Hypothetical-Deductive Reasoning
 Propositional Thought
 Adolescent Egocentrism
 Imaginary Audience
 Kohlberg










Moral Reasoning
Male morality
Justice
Dilemma
Value
Choice
Rule
Role
Authority
Pre-Conventional
 Punishment-obedience
 Instrumental relativist
 Conventional
 Good boy-nice girl
 Law and order
 Post-Conventional
 Social contract
 Universal ethical principle
 Gilligan






Moral reasoning
Preconventional
Conventional
Post-conventional
Ethic of care
Female morality
 Vygotsky





















Genuine Concepts
Complexes
Pseudoconcepts
Syncretic heaps
Psychological Tools
Lower Mental Function
Higher Mental Function
Zone of proximal development
Level of independent performance
Level of assisted performance
Signs
Cultural Mediation
Semiotic Mediation
Dialectical Processes
Natural v. Cultural Mental Behaviors
Scientific concepts
Spontaneous concepts
Inner Speech / Egocentric speech
Memory / Memory Aids
Good Teaching / Types of Assistance
Metacognition

 Werner



















Gestalt perception
Orthogenic principle
Differentiation
Hierarchical integration
Eidetic imagery
Physiognomic perception
Geometric-technical perception
Microgenesis
Microgenetic mobility
Synesthesia
Self-object differentiation
Sensorimotor-Affective Level
Perceptual Level
Conceptual Level
Organismic orientation
Phenomenal World
Intersensory Experience
Chromaesthesia
Dynamic Schematization
 Erikson / Marcia
















 Scaffolding
Personal Fable
Epigenetic principle
Dichotomy
Trust v. mistrust
Autonomy v. shame/doubt
Initiative v. guilt
Industry v. inferiority
Identity v. role confusion
Intimacy v. isolation
Generativity v. self-absorption
[stagnation]
Integrity v. despair
Exploration / Crisis
Commitment
Identity moratorium
Identity achievement
Identity foreclosure
Identity diffusion
 Bandura
 Observational Learning
 Attention
 Retention
 Motor production
 Reinforcement & motivation
 Self-efficacy (Sources)
 Actual Performance/ Mastery
 Vicarious experiences
 Verbal persuasion
 Physiological Cues
 Symbolic Models
 Symbolic Representations
 Internal Qualities
 External Qualities
 No-Trial Learning
 Stimulus Contiguity
 Direct Reinforcement
 Self-Reinforcement
 Vicarious Reinforcement
 Goodenough –
 Intelligence / Mental Age
 Drawing
 Other / Miscellaneous Terms

 Phenotype
 Genotype
 Cephalocaudally
 Proximodistally
 Inter-rater reliability
 Hierarchic Integration
 Universality
 Invariance (related to sequence)
Other terms associated with student
research studies
V. October Sky. (20 points) 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. ** Students may
complete the question associated with the movie in advance of the final exam and submit it for
consideration of exam credit IF they have met the following three conditions: 1) they attended the
extra class meeting during which the movie was shown and handouts were distributed -- or they met
with and made advance-of-the-movie arrangements with the course instructor to receive the
Erikson/Marcia handouts and make up the movie viewing/meeting; 2) they have word-processed the
response to the question; and 3) the word-processed response is submitted upon entering the final
exam. Specific information regarding the format for responding to this question is available among
the links to Final Exam Resources. Go to http://dante.udallas.edu/edu3327/Final_Exam/EriksonFinal-Exam-Question.doc
VI.
Vygotsky: [20 points possible]. Next semester is just around the corner, and one of your friends is
thinking of taking Child Growth and Development. He/She asks you to describe your experiences
in the class. You get excited, jump up and down, flap your arms wildly and exclaim,
"VYGOTSKY STYLE!" Your friend looks puzzled and asks, "What's Vygotsky Style?" Write
two to three paragraphs to explain. Try to develop “genuine concept” for justifying that the course
is / is not “Vygotsky Style” by integrating course elements / experiences with key, precise concepts
(using precise terms).
In writing your paragraphs, ask yourself the following questions.
 Do I begin with a clear thesis statement? [0 – 3 points]
 Do I offer at least two substantive paragraphs with good support for the thesis? Are there
authoritative, supporting statements reflective of an understanding of both theory and insight
from classroom experience? Do I use key precise terms to develop the concept? Do my
statements reflect logical reasoning, conceptual depth, and authority? Do my statements reflect
personal meaning…as opposed to a series of sterile statements that I found in a book or in my
notes? [0 – 12 points]
 Do I offer at least one personal, course experiences to connect theory to practice? [0 –3 points]
 Do I end with a restatement of my position and a good conclusion that reaffirms my position
and connects theory to “experience/practice” in a legitimate way? [0 – 2]
** AT LEAST FOUR MAJOR theorists studied during the Child Growth and Development semester
must be selected and used as context for your position on the nature-nurture line. See the list below for
acceptable theorists.
Nature
Nurture
Rousseau
Judith Rich-Harris
Piaget
Kohlberg
Erikson
Khirallah
Montessori
Bandura
Gesell
Rousseau
Vygotsky
Werner
Locke
Bowlby
Locke
Gilligan
Marcia
Chomsky
Skinner