The school as a learning space

Usually the word school is related with the architectural space where most people spend his childhood and much of his adulthood. 

 

This is a place perceived as finite spaces where apparently the only one action necessary is sit down and listen to a person to learn. However, there is researchers looking at schools as part of the landscape of the environment where anything that happens inside will have an impact in learners lives.

At this sense, when we say the word school immediately  we think of finite spaces, and barriers that prevent children to run wildly. The next idea that emerges with this concept, is the built relationship between teachers and students and among students in that finite space. But a deeper look, allow us to see  the school is a space within a community, that no matter the culture, the country or the economy, it has been searched desperately to create cognitive tools for students, at any level, in order to solve the problems of the community in which they settle.

This article seeks to look at schools from the outside inward, different researches presenting elements that in particular have been analyzed in schools in different countries, but little has been revisedin some poor places. There are analyzed environments, buildings, walls, toilets and classrooms as environments for learning, and relationships with others, making a panning of out into that space we call school. 

The perception of the school space

When you ask children if their school buildings are nice, they almost always say that, schools are not nice, but that does not matter, they must go to it with a blind faith,  because they must be there, but when asked if they like to go to the Park, always respond with a big smile and say YES, because they feel free. 

From this difference in appreciation of the environment, Fisher and Frase in 1983 conducted a study analyzing the perception of school spaces through a comparative study on what children and teachers would like to see, compared to what they have in their classrooms. The study not only found differences between what they have and wish to, but between the children and the teachers. Their  conclusion is that although people occupy the same space, they observe it and live it different. Children saw it as boring, locked, without life, full of walls and doors that do not allow to feel freedom, while teachers saw it as your work center and without many options to change. 

With this study as a background Fraser a year later (1984), led the same study at another elementary school, and found similar differences, children feel trapped in spaces with walls and where often there is no chance of running or laughing.

Under the religious tradition, that was the niche of education for many years, education has been offering in closed places worthy of reverence and meditation, but the schools as places of education independent of religion, did not change too much this cultural perception (Burke, Cunningham & Grosvenor, 2010), and that’s why schools were designing as angular spaces, with seats for two or three persons and trying to front view as when you look at the priest in the Church (Dudek, 2009). 

Even when schools gradually tried to stay away from this conceptualization, with the increasing of  population and levels of violence, schools have eventually, to add doors schools and with it, from the outside, they give the impression that nothing can enter or leave them, they looks like jailhouses (Roeser, Midgley, Urdan, 1996; Burke, Cunningham & Grosvenor, 2010).

That’s one reason several studies seek to create better spaces for teaching and learning, even if socially, it seems that education is focused on the people, and forget the spaces, but the architecture of schools begins from the first glance that is made of them (Dudek, 2009; Bruff, 2009; Falk and Baling, 2010), however, while schools should be seen as a nursery where young minds blossom, spaces sometimes does not give that impression, especially for the children who look with not nice face from the exterior face of their study centers.

Therefore, currently is proposes to consider that if bars can´t been delete, there should be designed outdoor gardens where the community and children may have perception of a place of growth, change, in order to create visually inviting spaces to stay (De Giuli, Da Pos and Carli, 2012).

With this idea, Brink, Nigg, Lampe, Kingston, Mootz, and van Vliet (2010) performed a simple proposal in the United States: they renovated schoolyards, gave them a sense of freedom, where the children could run despite being confined spaces, eliminated barriers for children with special needs and begin to grow plants; in some schools the renovations were simple, in other papers were higher, all supported by the school community. These tasks, made it possible to increase not only the desire of movement in children, but his school notes.

This benefits not only the school rates, but the health of students, as shown by the project's active schools held since 2001 in different countries, that have adapted the model Move it Groove it (Zask, van Beurden, Barnett, Brooks, Dietrich, 2001). This model seeks to create activities of physical movement not only as part of a specific subject, but within the environment, for which the children must walk to reach classrooms, sometimes, lack of space labyrinths, are used and are stairs are appropriately designed so that kids use it as part of their physical effort. This would be particularly important in countries such as Mexico or the United States where overweight rates are notorious.

On the other hand, architect Gutiérrez Paz (2009) explains that while there are basic standards for school buildings, it is also undeniable that architecture expresses a way of thinking, and that schools play a same model, with the impression of being guarded inside and outside the enclosures, so it is suggested that school buildings must express inclusion and not exclusion as well as an image of openness to the community.

There are many proposals for improvement outside, but there are two that are especially motivating, the first is related with green spaces, so it proposed school gardens as places of learning, care and beautification (Blair, 2009; Cosco and Moore, 2009), with which children learn skills of care and up to science, can play in their communities (Miller, 2007), building a green thought for the care of natural resources, is also the connection with nature creates an affective link in children (Cheng Chen-Hsuan and Monroe, 2010).

 It is true that many places doesn’t have enough water, but there are options to choose plants that require less care such as roses, which survive to almost all environments. To this is added that children learn about biology, ecology and responsibility moreover all textbooks.

The second proposal has to do with art, which is kept away from the schools, but is capable of becoming an instrument of learning, where the community can choose topics and be part of the school projects (Dzib Goodin, 2012a). 


In general persons can think of the visual arts, but should include other proposals that it has been shown that children appreciate cognitively, respecting the environments and the idiosyncrasies of the communities where the schools are established (Bratteteig, & Wagner, 2012; Florence Oluremi, 2012), and without a doubt, the art is universally appreciated. Example are the murals that are painted on the streets that give a different figurative meaning for those who look at it. People no longer see a wall, to look at a reflective space.

The interior spaces: courtyards, toilets and stairs

Once  we are in school interiors, should be considered the common spaces and their dimensions. Children need space to run during breaks, these spaces must provide security and inviting physical activity, because in a country where the rate of obesity is so high, physical activity cannot be left aside (Brink, Nigg, Lampe, Kingston, Mootz, van Vliet, 2010;) Gorman, Lackney, Rollings and Huang, 2012), but the sense of movement not only produces it who moves into the same space, it can be produced by environments.

Of course, we not can forget that the quest for inclusion is not only inside the classroom, but outside them, as is proposed in the manual of friendly schools for the children of the UNICEF (2009). Adaptations can be creative, low-cost possibilities but which make a huge difference in the perception of the environment of children, before this proposal of the sustainability of the environments to respond to diversity makes its appearance (Zanoni and Janssens, 2009).

Even if there is a universal perception of environments and colors, they have to be used wisely, since for example the white color is related to hospitals and children don't like to be in them, there are cultural adaptations that must be applied (Sennett, 1992) with the goal that people develop a sense of belonging of architectural environments is therefore so important to think about diversity, while in the universality of public areas, since not only school children come, there are adults who live together and spend many hours a day in those spaces (Khare and Mullick, 2009; Falk and Baling, 2010).

In this sense, as in many other public spaces there is an environment that is a common space which can be analyzed as a public health issue, or as a socio-psychological space that can not be ignored.

The restrooms are a matter of health often neglected in public places, but mostly in schools. Schools should not operate without clean spaces and sufficient toilet materials, starting with water, soap and disposable paper enabling children to make their needs in a healthy and comfortable environment, Lau, Springton, Sohn Masonm, explain it Gadola, Damitz and Gupta, (2012) that found a close relationship between hygiene and absenteeism in schools mainly by diseases from diarrhea to respiratory and this hygiene is preventable.

Similarly, toilets must have doors to avoid the invasion of privacy or allow violence among children, often bullying occurs in these spaces away from the eyes of others, since reported assaults with and without violence, where people are vulnerable to run or even ask for help.  Even it has been noticed that children may suffer kidney damage by avoiding going to the rest room (Ingrey, 2012).

Stairs provide so much support when they have ramps for those who require them, however many schools still do not perform adjustments for the inclusion of people with disabilities being the most necessary for persons with motor, visual and even cognitive difficulty, as in the case of people with autistic spectrum disorders (Gutiérrez Paz, 2009; UNICEF, 2009; Khare and Mullick, 2009).

Classrooms as motivating spaces

When people think of the schools of the future, immediately come to their mind classrooms, so some beg to change the perception that classrooms are sterile spaces for ideas, with bare walls, dead spaces, without creativity, where students and teachers exchange ideas, since they can be much more.

Currently, Nations think of rooms with electronic equipment, where children can touch screens, having access to tablets and where smarts phones have a presence more prominent in learning process. All these proposals will accommodate groups where technology makes cultural sense, since the word is the protagonist of the presence or absence of people learning. Being the word the way of transmission of ideas and knowledge, and this is transferred by any means of communication, but we can’t forget that it’s possible to share ideas through stories to the most sophisticated computers.

The technological giant Apple with Steve Jobs´vision, began at the end of the 1980's, several studies where they examined how classrooms of the future should be. What they found they applied it on their computers, from computers to their tablets, and personally I think that it is the secret of learning: the intuition at the service of curiosity (Dwyer, Ringstaff, Haymore Sandholtz, and Apple Computer Inc, 1988).

Psychologists, however, have done analysis of the relation between the space of learning and motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, to design halls as architectural spaces looking teachers as creators of knowledge spaces for generate curiosity and learning (Carole, 1992; Peter - Szarka, 2012), but that in the search for the magical recipe, lose many times environment. Focus on teaching models, not necessarily enhances learning.

In this sense, Miller (2007) proposed that if children can see gardens from their desks, allows spaces communicative, creative skills and development of welfare in the environment, which is added to the knowledge of the world and the environment, in such a way that the gardens not only beautify the space outside the classrooms, benefit them from the inside. Similar studies have been conducted with other populations and environments (Wells, 2000; Woolner, McCarterWall, and Higgins, 2012).

But the teachers as creators of education seek to create spaces for reflection and creative thinking, examples are experiences where children think, create they ask, they listen, they respect (Haynes, 2008), where the technology breaks creatively also has a space, not by obligation, not why other countries make your bet by technology, but when a natural response to the needs of students and teachers (Strømmen and Lincoln1992).

In this sense, when you think about the target population, they would learn in a different way, for example, when shown errors and held, the results are impressive, as samples so some schools in the United States where the learning of mathematics is an excuse when the error jumps, as a motivation to change the pattern of children (Ewart, 2012).

The experience can be even more rewarding, when you add the art, as a strategy to work the reading or writing that are key to the communicative competence (Dzib Goodin, 2012b), as if the words flow, the imagination makes its best effort to create. That's why metaphors are so important in the early years and for the learning of science. Because the word has the quality of listen or look, either represented through a photograph, painting, or a score with movement, as the dance let us express an idea. 

When creativity goes into the minds of teachers, spaces become infinite and tools are diversified, but above all, children are capable of have better experiences (Bruff, 2009, Bratteteig, & Wagner, 2012; Dzib Goodin, 2012b, Brown Martin,  2012).

 

Conclusion

Schools are much more than just walls and people who live together are, without a doubt life experiences that promote or hinder the academic and professional development of the people living in it. They are in practically all social, cultural and territorial environments and aim to pass on knowledge.

However, when you think about the school improvement thinking of objects, without taking into account the protagonists of those spaces, so that the environment takes on special importance, because schools are part of the communities that host them, because those families, put their faith in schools to give their children a better future and should be therefore should be reflected in those academic spaces and be seen as strange or hostile territories (Sang - Woo, Christopher, Byoung-Suk, Sung-Kwon, 2008).

As explained Brown Martin (2012) schools should be responding to the needs of a society that puts its effort in creating them as creative environments, where students can grow in all directions. Finally, the schools are the environments where the society changes, and active human capital (Dzib Goodin, 2012a).

Why should be designed so that all can live, where all find a place regardless of abilities, differences, preferences. They must be spaces of inclusion (Erkilic & Durak, 2012), where even children with fewer economic resources can feel proud to belong, as it will boost his future and that of their countries (Florence Oluremi, 2012), that schools are not only for those who can learn, but for those who wish to do so, including marginalized groups who must find an exact reason for which to attend. It begins outside of schools, with striking environmental spaces, interior spaces where they feel that they are part of something important: their own growth (McGregor and Mills, 2010).

But schools require ingredient that does not buy or operates from a Tablet, the motivation to learn and motivation to teach, they  can't be bought, even in the worst conditions when a person wants to know something, manages to succeed, as children from a school in India, taking classes under a bridge, so don't have a room architecturally appropriate (Medina, 2012), but your school has something that psychologists, educationalists and societies seek desperately: motivation to make children want to learn and be better to therefore develop auto companies motivated to change.

Viewing school environments has certainly a space for reflection, finally, children and students of all levels, need it.

References:

Blair, D. (2009) The child in the garden: An evaluative Review of the benefits of school gardening. The Journal of Environmental Education.40 (2) 15-38.

Bratteteig, T., & Wagner, I.  (2012) Spaces for participatory creativity. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and Arts. 8 (2-3) 105-126.

Brink, LA., Nigg, CR., Lampe, AMR., Kingston, BA., Mootz, AL., van Vliet, W. (2010) Influence of schoolyard renovations on children’s physical activity: The learning landscape program. American Journal of Public Health. 100 (9) 1672- 1678.

Brown-Martin, G (2012) How would you design a school: Graham Brown-Martin at TEDx East End. Disponible en red: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JVVFE_BLOA

Bruff, D. (2009) Teaching with classrooms response systems: Creating active learning enviroments. Vanderbilt University. USA.

Burke, C., Cunningham, P., & Grosvenor, I. (2010) Putting education in its place: space, place and materials  in the history of education. Journal of the History of Education Society. 39 (6) 677-680.

Carole, A. (1992) Classrooms goals, structures and students motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84 (3) 261-271.

Chen-Hsuan Cheng, J., and Monroe, MC. (2010) Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment & Behavior. 44 (1) 31-49.

Cosco, N., and Moore, R. (2009) Sensory integration and contact with nature: designing outdoor inclusive environments.  The North American Montessori Teachers’ Association.  34 (2) 168- 176.

De Giuli, V., Da Pos, O., and De Carli, M. (2012) Indoor enviromental quality and pupil perception in Italian primary schools. Building Environment.56. 335-345.

Dudek, M (2009) Architecture of Schools: the new learning environments. Routledge, USA.

Dwyer, DC., Ringstaff, C., Haymore Sandholtz, J., and Apple Computer Inc. (1988) Apple Classrooms of tomorrow:  Report 8. En Teachers beliefs and practices part I: Patterns of change. Disponible en red: http://wildej.pbworks.com/f/rpt08.pdf

Dzib Goodin, A. (2012a) Los 10 problemas de la educación. Disponible en: http://neurocognicionyaprendizaje.blogspot.com/2012/12/los-10-problemas-de-la-educacion.html

Dzib Goodin, A. (2012b) 9. Enseñando competencias lingüísticas. Disponible en red: http://maestrosinvocacion.blogspot.com/2012/11/9-ensenando-competencias-linguisticas.html

Erkilic, M. &  Durak, S. (2012) Tolerable and inclusive learning spaces: an evaluation of policies and specifications for physical environments that promote inclusion in Turkish primary schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Disponible en red: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13603116.2012.685333

Ewart, J. (2012) Early math teachers celebrate “critical thinking, not correct answers”. Disponible en red: http://www.ed.gov/blog/2012/11/early-math-teachers-celebrate-critical-thinking-not-correct-answers/

Falk, HJ., and Baling, JD. (2010) Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and behavior.  42 (4) 479-483.

Fisher, DL.,  and Frase, BJ. (1983) A comparison of actual and preferred classrooms environments as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 20 (1) 55-61.

Florence Oluremi, O. (2012) Creating a friendly school learning environment for Nigerian Children. European Scientific Journal: European Scientific Institute. 8 (8). Disponible en red: http://www.eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/137

Fraser, BJ. (1984) Differences between preferred and actual classrooms environment as perceived by primary students and teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 54 (3) 336-339.

Gorman, N., Lackney, JA., Rollings, K., T-K Huang, T. (2012) Designer schools: The role of school space and architecture in obesity prevention. Obesity. 15 (11) 2521-2530.

Gutiérrez Paz, J. (2009) Estándares básicos para construcciones escolares, una Mirada crítica. Revista Educación y Pedagogía. 21 (54) 155-176.

Haynes, J. (2008) Children as philosophers: learning through enquiry and dialogue in the primary classroom. Routledge.USA.

Ingrey, JC. (2012) The public schools washrooms as analytic space for troubling gender: investigating the spatiality of gender through students’ self-knowledge. Gender and Education. 24 (7) 799-817.

Khare, R., and Mullick, A. (2009) Designing inclusive educational spaces with reference to autism. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 53 (8) 517-520.

Lau, CH., Springton, EE., Sohn MW., Masonm, I., Gadola, E., Damitz, M., and Gupta, RS. (2012) Hand hygiene instruction decreases illness-related absenteeism in elementary schools: a prospective cohort study. BioMedical Central Pediatrics. 12 (52) Disponible en red: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2431-12-52.pdf

McGregor, G., and Mills, M. (2010) Alternative education sites and marginalised young people: “I wish there were more schools like this one”. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 16 (8) 843- 862.

Medina, S. (2012) School under bridge in New Delhi offers free education to Indian’s por children (potos). Disponible en: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/school-under-bridge-in-ne_n_2233019.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Miller, DL. (2007) The seeds of learning: Young children develop important skills through their gardening activities at a Midwestern early education program. Applied Environmental Education & Communication. 6 (1) 49 – 66.

Péter-Szarka, S. (2012) Creative climate as a mean to promote creativity in the classroom. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 10 (3) 1011-1034.

Roeser, RW. Midgley, C., Urdan, TC. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioural  functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging.  Journal of Educational Psychology. 88 (3) 408-422.

Sang- Woo, L., Christopher, DE., Byoung-Suk, K., Sung-Kwon, H. (2008) Relationship between landscape structure and neighbourhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. 86 (1) 60-70.

Sennett, R. (1992) The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities.  W.W. Norton, New York.

Strommen, EF., and Lincoln, B. (1992) Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society. 24 (4) 466-476.

UNICEF (2009) Manual Child friendly schools. UNICEF. USA.

Wells, NM. (2000) A Home with nature: Effects of greenness in children on cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior. 32. 775-795.

Woolner, P., McCarter, S., Wall, K., and Higgins, S. (2012) Changed learning through changed space:  When can a participatory approach to the learning environment challenge preconceptions and alter practice?.  Improving Schools. 15 (1) 45-60.

Zanoni, P., and Janssens, M. (2009) Sustainable DiverCities, eds. M. Janssens, D. Pinelli, D. Reymen, S. Wallman, Sustainable Cities: Diversity, Economic Growth and Social Cohesion.  Edward Elgar Publication, USA.

Zask, A., van Beurden, E., Barnett, L., Brooks, LO., Dietrich, UC. (2001) Active school playgrounds—myth or reality? Results of the ‘‘Move It Groove It’’ project. Preventive Medicine. 33 (5) 402–408.

Intelligence or adaptive responses to the environment?

It seems sometimes the universe conspires to make me fall into certain issues, because different persons have shared me different texts about intelligence during the past few weeks. I will not mention them, just in case this articlecan be  offensive to some persons, but I thank all of them for the inspiration. I read around 500 pages before this idea made sense.

It is not a secret that I don't like the concept of intelligence, I have said it at diverse conferences, when people ask me how this links with my ideas about learning, I reply so far, I have not needed it to explain how species evolutionarily have to adapt to the environment, and I still believe that learning is one process that allows them to create responses front the needs around the environment.

I've seen the concept of intelligence as a tautology: no one can prove that it is necessary for learning, because with the right teaching strategies children are able to learn, and when I say ALL,  I mean of children with disorders of neurodevelopmental, people with acquired brain damage, and other species. If the answer makes sense in the environment, the response can be developed under specific mechanisms.

At the same time, so far, after many years of testing and labeling  children, there is no agreement between psychologists about what intelligence is, even more, there is no agreement among the biological, neurocognitive and psychological models, it is not possible to find studies able to unify it from different points of view.

The following map allows me to argue my refusal to believe on the one hand, we can make someone more intelligent, as many schools say and secondly, accept that if someone is not intelligent, doesn’t have a chance to learn:

 

from Lynn and Vanhanen, (2012)

This map was created from hundreds of studies carried out by various associations and independent investigations around the world using standardized tests measuring intelligence and published by Lynn and Vanhanen. What I see on this mapt is the enormous cultural impact, which on average, intelligence is not increased by attending an expensive school, and that intelligence is not victorious before the environment test.

So far, what I can assure, there are only some constants over time, the language, the reading writing and arithmetic skills, all these processes survive among generations, but at the same time are dependent on the social environment, so culture has a great weight in which is called intelligence. 

If we look the map at detail, Finland, which is the country best placed in the PISA tests, is not among the most intelligent. There is not correlation between these tests and the average intelligence of the countries, probably the only thing clear is that greater cultural input, higher average in academic tests, but another view is the fact intelligence does not correlate with academic tests.

But this makes sense, since environmental needs direct the kind of responses expected, in the case of the United States, intelligence is located along East and West coasts, does the landscape have any relationship?.

Now, let’s take a breath for a moment, it is socially said that the most intelligent people are those who manage to highlight, for example a pair of icons in science: Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, both with bad scores in initial education, but none is considered a genius by his score on intelligence tests, but by their ability to analyze problems that no one else would have been able to resolve.

We admire people who have the ability to join the points as no one else has done in any field, which implies the process of association of ideas and especially creativity, divergent, convergent thinking.

This ability to be flexible at the environment is what allows some to take mankind to a new level. Windows, the Ipad, artists and the most exciting theories in science, arise when someone is able to break the model and make something new, call it mental flexibility.

This applies to humans but also to other species. Studies with dogs have shown that more domestication, major adaptive social responses and when we are looking in species that have not had household contacts, as studies with squirrels or prairie dogs, even they, are able to learn and reply in a flexible way to adapt to the  environment. However, like the school learning, domestication makes dependent to the species.

Hence, a question arises: is intelligence inherited?, evidence shows the answer is not, nature won’t  convey skills that were functional for a generation but will not be for another. Many people who were born before generation X are bogged down with new technologies. New generations on the other hand, adapt to continuous changes, the exception is language, reading, writing and numbers.

This applies to brain and artificial neural networks, too-rigid algorithms are not successful, there must be room for adaptation.

That’s why intelligence arises my mental itching when all educational models decide that ALL persons must know the same, and intelligence tests determine the success of children. This simplistic classification of intelligent and non intelligent is absurd in the light of the evidence and how have shown different investigations, only increase the level of stress in children, since it is  found high correlations between low self esteem and depression among children labeled as gifted.

It was Jean Piaget who said the most important thing was not the response of the child, but the logic used by the child to reach it. If Steve Jobs had applied a test about how a computer works, not doubt his teacher would had crucified him, because he was able to see beyond his teachers were able to see.

So far, none expensive school that assure increase children's intelligence is a factory of geniuses. So far, regardless of the level of intelligence of our parents, nobody can sit back comfortably and see how birds fly. All of us must find our way, design it, create it and make it something worthwhile.

So in response to all my friends who ask me, share and comment on the subject of intelligence, here is my answer: no one has sucessfully demonstrate that it is a unique process and I can not convince them that we should exploit the creativity, thinking, convergent and divergent in schools, because no one knows how the future will be and so hold, I have not seen a case where learning depend on intelligence, nor in humans or other species.

References

Deary, I.J. (2012) Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology. 63. 453-482.

Dzib Goodin, A. (2013) Animal models for the study of learning. Available at: http://talkingaboutneurocognitionandlearning.blogspot.com/2013/09/animal-models-for-study-of-learning.html

Eliasmith, C., Trujillo, O. (2014) The use and abuse of large-scale brain models. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 25. 1-6.

Guignard, JH., Jacquet, AT., & Lubart, TI. (2012) Perfectionism and anxiety: A paradox in intellectual giftedness? Plos One. 7 (7) e1043. Available on line: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041043&representation=PDF

Kan, KJ., Wicherts, JM. Dolan, CV., and Van der Maas, HJL. (2013) On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities: The more heritable, the more culture dependent. Psychological Science. In press.

Kovas, Y., Voronin, I., Malykh, SB., Dale, PS., Plomin, R. (2013) Literacy and numeracy are more heritable than intelligence in primary school. Psychological Science. 24 (10) 2048-2056.

Lee, CS., & Therriault, DJ. (2013) The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: A latent variable analysis exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative thinking process. Intelligence. 41 (5) 306-320.

Lynn, R.,  and Vanhanen, T. (2012) Intelligence: A unifying construct for the social science. Ulster Institrute for Social Research. London, UK.

Parental models in birds

It’s very usual to hear the term school for parents, under the idea that humans require a specific training, determined to carry out actions on the environment.

Also said that no one is born knowing how to be a father and it is important to recognize behavior patterns key to regulate the children behavior. However, when other species are analyzed  it’s hard to find truly patterns of behavior that are not evolutionarily designed in order to take a good course to the species.

This time I present two completely different parental models, both from birds in natural environment, without domestication and therefore without cultural ballasts in a semi natural environment, since they live among people who don't annoy them, but they must deal with their natural predators like foxes, coyotes, owls, herons and hawks.

On this occasion, I present a behavior model focused on the Canada Goose (Branta Canadensis) which is of the Anatidae family, of the order of the Anseriformes and the super order of the Galloanserae. 

There are documents that show that these birds have inhabited this planet  since at least 10 million years.

The other observed specie is the Mallard Duck or wild duck (Anas Superciliosa) of the order of the Anseriformes, family Anatidae, of the species A. Platyrhynchos. It is believed that they lived at least since the Pleistocene so tha menas they have been at least been on the face of the Earth since 11 700 years ago.

While both species inhabit the same space, they show different parental behaviors.

In the case of the Canada goose, both parents are responsible for taking care of the chicks, so it is common to see both parents watching and directing their babies. In case of detecting any type of danger, they tend to show behaviour of attack orif it’s necessary they attack. 

From a very young babies them goose begins to modulate behavioral responses by imitating their parents, when very small they tend to stay in places where there is water, but as the chicks grow, they begin to explore territory. Geese fly, walk, run, and prepare to emigrate during the winter.

Babies are born in early spring and its territory is confined to the space where they nest, however these places are not always the same, these can vary year to year, this is the reason it was not possible to follow more families.

Families do not have too much intreraction with other gesse, until the hatchlings begin to move into the environment, however, parents are always caring for their own children, that must learn to fly, fishing, and attack. 

They show intense attack behaviors when the chicks are more vulnerable, especially because couples usually have between 4 to 7 chicks.

Swim classes are always led by mother and closely observed by the father. My impression is that the father is at the point where the family is more vulnerable. Usually if you see a wounded member, it is the father.

Chicks change plumage after few weeks and leave her yellow pajamas for a grey plumage which is replaced by the natural color of adults.

On the other hand, the wild duck, shows much less rigidity on behaviors of care. First, males and females coexist in the same space,  usually in  groups, until the time of mating. It is common to see the ducks resting while mothers care for, protect and teach fledglings how to survive.

The offspring per litter can be 2 to 6, no more than this, in part since the mother can not probably care one more baby.

These birds live in group, but every mother observe their children. The chicks, begin to swim near the mother and mimic their behavior. In case of danger come to her to seek shelter.

Once the baby duckscan care themselves they join the group, and then be ready to wait for winter, survive, with the promise of spring.

It is so the rest of the species search mechanisms of child care, serving the same natural pattern that keeps everyone on the face of the Earth.

References: 

Buntin, JD. (1996) Neural and Hormonal Control of parental behavior in birds. Advances in the Study of Behavior. 25. 161-213.

Ghalambor, CK., Peluz, SI., and Martín, TE. (2013) Plasticity of parental care under the risk of predation: how much should parents reduce care?. Biology Letters. 9 (4) doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0154

Martin, TE., Martin, PR., Olson, CR., Heidinger, BJ., & Fountaine, JJ. (2000) Parental care and clutch size in North and South American birds. Science. 287 (5457) 1482-1485.

Animal models for the study of learning

It's very weird but when I mention that  I do study the learning process, people think I know a lot about education. In different forums, I have explained that school learning is a fully human model, and for some strange reason, we are the only specie that thinks we must spend in a school the greater part of our lives, answering tests about things that many times we won't use anywhere else.

The rest of the species, provide modeling only to more basic skills, usually in the contexts through games, and the main tests  will be surviving in the hostile world, and have offspring in order to help their species. In some cases, creautures will make adaptive changes from the needs of the environment, as an example, I can mention the European birds who have learned to measure road speed limits, to determine its speed and successfully cross roads (Legagneux, & Ducatez, 2013). No need to say that a  miscalculation let them see their brains on the windshields of cars that cross at a higher rate.

With a large number of examples presented by other species, and understanding that learning can be defined as the ability to respond to the environment, modifying behaviors depending on the needs, in my search for answers on how learning develops, I began to use plant and animal models, because once I am clear that the learning takes place in the brain, the next question was: how hell did it get there?.

The big problem following  the line of the analysis of neuroscience, it’s the difficulty to explain a system as complex as the brain. On the basis of the principle in science that it is not possible to explain something from itself (Russell’s paradox), then is complicated explain many of the brain principles only with the accumulation of data obtained from neuroimaging studies, since it is known that our connectome is modified and it is also a custom process.

Hence, as you know, I've used protein models (Dzib Goodin, 2013) and here I present an animal model.

One of the greatest challenges of understanding complex models is to make them simple, it seems to me that the problem of the study of the brain is the cultural human creates from its own evolution, same that observed in other species.

The majority of studies, including the classic Pavlovian studies, have used dogs or lab rats. The problem of canine cognition is that it develops with greater complexity through domestication. Some studies suggest that higher level of domestication, greater social and cognitive functioning of the  domestic dog (Canis familiaris), in this sense social competence as notion evolutionary guarantees social competence development (Miklós, & Topal, 2013;) Cook, 2013), but this was exactly the component that I wished to avoid in my research.

 

The main problem to understand the complexity or diverses forms of cognition called Advanced and compared among species for studies of evolution, is to considered the computational neural mechanisms that may be involved, and identify the genetic changes that are needed to mediate changes in cognitive functions (Green, McCormick, 2013; Heyes, 2012).

As explained Chittka, Rossiter, Skorupski and Fernando (2012), the same cognitive capacity could be mediated by different neural circuits in different species, with a relationship between routines of behavior and its neural implementations. By what the comparative behavior research must be complemented with a bottom-up approach in which neurobiological analyses and molecular allow to observe the genetic and neural bases that limit the cognitive variation (Dickinson, 2012). This idea made me renounce the canine models.

However, when I moved to Chicago several years ago, I found several species, almost wild that allowed me to make them my models of cognitive resources, even if they have an inherited component, they are capable of modifying behavior through experience, which facilitates the recombination of the elements of an existing behavioral repertoire, and can thus see the innovation. 

This advantage, must be taken  with some reservations, as Shanahan (2012) explains,  on a system which massively includes many connections anatomically distributed neuronal environment, is not easy to know how sequences of responses are connected, so I began to observe other natural models.

It is true that in the great Darwinian struggle for existence, all the species are faced with the problems posed by varying environments, either the search and food processing, recognition and attraction of potential mates, avoid predators, competition between rivals or navigation back to the herd or nesting sites and that the mental processes by which different species deal with these problems are variedIt is clear that all animals share the fundamental problem of having to deal with the enormous amount of information in the environment, much of which is likely to be irrelevant to the task at hand. The first step, therefore, is to try to sift through the mass of data and attend what can inform decision making of adaptation. After acquiring the relevant data, animals can then benefit from establishing how the different pieces of information relate to each other.

In complex environments, it may be advantageous not only take into account statistical co-occurrence of different stimuli, but also to extract general rules, so it is possible to act flexibly and solve a variety of problems in different contexts.

This allows to believe that some animal species can also form mental representations or models of the way the world works. These internal representations can be used to reason about the appropriateness of actions or scenarios, based on alternative its probable outcome expectations, thus guiding the behaviour of the individual. Thus, for example, an animal with a mental representation of the action of gravity on objects could use it to reason that food is going to fall out of his reach when it is pressed toward a precipice. The possibility that animals can employ this human reasoning has puzzled observers over the centuries (Thornton, Clayton and Grozinski, 2012).

It is then that I decide to watch the squirrels especially those known as Fox Squirrel and Chipmunks which is common in the suburbs of Chicago. Both are small rodents of the Sciuridae family. These rodents live virtually worldwide, except for Australia, which allows to observe its capacity of adaptation to the environment. Both species live in virtually natural environments, whose main predators are hawks, and owls. 

Their natural diet is based on acorns and fruit of the trees of the region, but that with the arrival of the human species to their environment, they learned to eat corn and various seeds that neighbors provide freely as food for the birds.

It is thus that the trough of the birds was what attracted them, it is curious that all bird feeders have a legend: squirrels proof, which remainds me the objects that presumed to be child-resistant (remember that neither squirrels nor babies know to read).

Their mission, if they  want  to eat some seeds, is to climb up to the balcony 6.8 foot from the ground, in the case of squirrels, have a pine tree near that they use as a trampoline, they have the ability to climb trees without problem and jumping from branch to branch. 

In contrast, chipmunks, do not usually climb to trees, so they use their small claws to climb by wood and climb up to where the food is.

Initially both species were very scary, seems an key issue to adaptation and issuance of behaviors is the confidence (the same is observed with children with learning difficulties), This is because they can be food of predators so it’s very important to behave thinking their environments, and it’s easy to see they feel really scare about rapid movements, principle shared by humans since we are easy prey in hostile environments so that the observation requires they feeling in confidence to allow me to take photographs and watch them.

The next aspect is in general they do not have designed new behaviors that they use those preset systematically looking for that they are as effective as possible, creating adaptive behaviors to the middle.

Step one was to separate the squirrels of the birds. Those who think that birds are helpless before the squirrels are wrong. On two occasions I have seen attacks of birds to squirrels, given this, it gives the impression that adjusted schedules, squirrels can eat the birds in the morning and afternoon and feeder belongs to them during the day. It is a very interesting Pact of non-aggression.

Their diet changed fruits for seeds, specially corn, oats, rice and sunflower, same which is its maximum delicacy. Despite this, they did not affect their predisposition to store food, burying it in pots or on the yard, same as at times it flowed and if they smell the sunflower seeds, they do not prevent unearth them, so I said goodbye to a garden with sunflowers.

In the interest of keeping separate the species, I decided to use special bowls, same that they broke on two occasions, but in a couple of days they learned that they could eat of it, and even allowed to share it with the birds at the established times.

When there was no food in the feeder or bowl, they learned to beg for it, standing at front of the kitchen window at the time they know that I'm around, and who  would deny  something to this beauty?.

Both species hibernate, so during the first winter, which also was the classic winter in the Midwest in the United States with snow from early December until may, only squirrels occasionally ventured out of the burrows, but the two following winters, knowing that there is a permanent food in feeders, they  broke their habits and sent the youngers in search of food, even at the expense of both  hawks and owls can see them easier running on the whiteness of the snow, and no leaves on the branches of trees to protect them. Their meal schedules were modified and were limited to no more than 20 minutes at noon.

As soon as the winter gave truce, even older squirrels came out to ask for food, in this case, is not a sick squirrel, but  a squirrel that remained in hibernation and suffered from alopecy for a couple of weeks.

Achieved their confidence and clearly that accepting the food place, whose sole variation was the feeder or bowl, made one more change, their type of feeder was changed by one swearing to be squirrel-proof. It was intended to observe the behavior before the food that would not be easy to obtain. However, using the answers used in other environments, this specimen emulating Tom Cruise in mission impossible, managed to prove that Adaptive responses do not require departmental tests.

Chipmunks had always been in the vicinity, but squirrels had lousy food habits, ate and at the same time they pour food everywhere, this behavior is a way to share with other squirrels who are unable to climb to the balcony, it’s a kind of social support, sharing the treasure. 

This was not a problem, until we discovered a mouse near the house, the food was being sharing by the own squirrels, birds, rabbits, chipmunks and mice, making our environment in a perfect space so the hawks and owls would have food, don't forget that the environment continues to be hostile to them. From one year to another was notorious the increase in the population of hawks and owls and the decrease in the population of rabbits, squirrels and chipmunks.

Watching this, I change the bowl and the feeder by a transparent box that would allow them to eat in it without throwing the food everywhere.

Once installed the box, the squirrels took a couple of weeks in approach, being a closed environment, they understood this as a trap. Little by little they came until one entered, but with the sound of the camera it ran out. It returned a few hours and tried again, so I decided to avoid the camera to gain confidence.

It was clear that the chipmunks had no need to go up to the balcony to then, they collected the food that the squirrels and birds poured, but when this restaurant was closed, they had to find food, climbing over the balcony, observing all the environment and responding to the slightest movement, since they are very timid creatures, it was not an easy work,  but one day one stayed long enough and climbed inside the box, it learned that there was food there.

This animal model allows to observe innovation and adaptive responses in environments where they are needed, these are displayed to get what they wanted and learning depends on the level of dissonance that the environment offers. Unnecessary skills, are not used unless required by the measurement of the complexity of the task, we must not forget that these specimens are not domesticated and their only motivation is the food.

In future posts, I will share other models such as observed by slugs and snails and plants, especially the dandelion.

References:

Chittka, L., Rossiter, SJ., Skorupski, P., and Fernando, C. (2012) What is comparable in comparative cognition? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2677-2685.

Cook, G. (2013) Inside the Dog Mind. Scientific American Mind. 24. 28-29.

Dickinson, A. (2012) Associative learning and animal cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2733-2742.

Dzib Goodin, A. (2013) La evolución del aprendizaje: más allá de las redes neuroanales. Revista Chilena de Neuropsicología.  8 (1) 20-25.

Heyes, C.  (2012) Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2695-2703.

Green, MR., McCormick , CM. ( 2013) Effects of stressors in adolescence on learning and memory rodent models. Hormones and behavior. 64 (2) 364-379.

Legagneux, P., & Ducatez, S. (2013) European birds adjust their flight initiation distance to road speed limits. Biology Letters. 9 (5) 417.

Miklós, Á. & Topál. J. (2013) What does it take to become “best friends”? Evolutionary  changes in canine social competence. Trends in Cognitive Science. 17 (6) 287-294.

Shanahan, M. (2012) The brain’s connective core and its role in animal cogntion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2704-2714.

Thornton, A., Clayton, NS., and Grodzinski, U. ( 2012) Animal minds:  from computation to Evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2670-2676.