Teaching is intrinsically a developmental issue. Most obviously, we use teaching to inform junior (typically younger) ignorant individuals of relevant information. Kline's article does much to explore the complexities of teaching behaviour and the various definitions of what counts as teaching. However, to fully understand the psychology of teaching, we need to think beyond a static system in which one individual is teacher and one learner, and also consider the process by which learners become teachers. While Kline makes good use of developmental and comparative evidence, the full potential of a developmental approach is not realized in this version of the theory.
It is recognized in the theory that teachers need psychological capacities, particularly: theory of mind, metacognition, and (what we might call) a theory of development (knowledge about children's competencies) (see target article, sect. 5.2). Kline reports evidence that children with better theory of mind (sect. 2.1, para. 2) or metacognition (sect. 5.2, para. 5) may be better teachers. But we risk neglecting some developmental issues here. First, there is significant controversy about the timing of these capacities' emergence, which is overlooked by Kline's theory (see, e.g., Baillargeon et al. [Reference Baillargeon, Scott and He2010] and Sodian [Reference Sodian2011] for theory of mind; Beran et al. [Reference Beran, Brandl, Perner and Proust2012] for metacognition). In particular, theory of mind has (controversially) been ascribed to infants in their first year of life (e.g., Kovács et al. Reference Kovács, Téglás and Endress2010), but is thought to emerge much later, in early or even middle childhood, by others (e.g., Sodian Reference Sodian2011). For claims about whether teaching is natural or unique to humans, it matters whether these capacities are innate or must be learned (independently or perhaps taught by others). A related question about development is whether the experiences of being teacher and learner are inter-dependent: Does one need the experiences of being a learner in order to become a teacher oneself? Kline's suggestion that perhaps “pupil and teacher psychologies should be considered separate adaptations” (sect. 5, para. 1) implies that this is not the case; however, the developmental interaction between emerging abilities and experiences has not been fully described empirically.
Furthermore, there is an implicit assumption that once these capacities are in place they will be deployed in an adult-like way. In contrast, Apperly (Reference Apperly2011) observes that young children who pass theory of mind tests are rather different from accomplished adult theory of mind users. Fledgling abilities may need to be refined, and they need to be deployed spontaneously (without the prompting of supportive or experimenting adults). We do not know whether children who can identify opportunities for teaching using their cognitive capacities always exploit them. Another question is whether all adult individuals who “have” a theory of mind are equally good at using it. Again, one might think not (see Apperly [2011] for discussion). Overall, we lack research that brings together a sophisticated approach to the development and deployment of these psychological capabilities and the consequent relationship with teaching behaviours.
There are claims in the literature about the development of teaching and its early emergence (e.g., Strauss et al. Reference Strauss, Ziv and Stein2002). Kline considers them, briefly, in the early part of the target article when reviewing previous accounts of teaching (e.g., sect. 2.1, para. 2). Yet, studies of the development of teaching tend to focus on only one of the teaching types that she later describes: direct active teaching (e.g., Davis-Unger & Carlson Reference Davis-Unger and Carlson2008). One of the main contributions of Kline's theory is that the account incorporates different types of teaching. It would be greatly enriched by consideration of the developmental emergence of these different types and by the cognitive, social, and motivational factors that influence their emergence (maturation or acquisition). For example, rarer evidence of other types of teaching comes from a cooperative task in which child participants (24- to 42-months-old) had to master complementary actions to solve a task in pairs. Evidence of demonstrations and attention-seeking is reported, as well as examples of more overt teaching directives. However, in this task, teachers gained from the learner's competence (Ashley & Tomasello Reference Ashley and Tomasello1998). We need more evidence on the emergence of different types of teaching in childhood (across different cultures) and to address how different psychological capabilities are required for each.
Kline's article ends (sect. 7) with a call to comparative psychologists to use her framework to guide their empirical work. While this is commendable, where is the complementary call to developmental psychology? As it stands, the theory is unlikely to have its full potential impact on this field. To understand teaching behaviour fully, we must engage with questions about its development more deeply: by charting the emergence of different types of teaching in the life span, by taking a more sophisticated and precise approach to the psychological capacities that may underpin (types of) teaching, and, in both cases, by considering whether these behaviours are acquired, and how.
Teaching is intrinsically a developmental issue. Most obviously, we use teaching to inform junior (typically younger) ignorant individuals of relevant information. Kline's article does much to explore the complexities of teaching behaviour and the various definitions of what counts as teaching. However, to fully understand the psychology of teaching, we need to think beyond a static system in which one individual is teacher and one learner, and also consider the process by which learners become teachers. While Kline makes good use of developmental and comparative evidence, the full potential of a developmental approach is not realized in this version of the theory.
It is recognized in the theory that teachers need psychological capacities, particularly: theory of mind, metacognition, and (what we might call) a theory of development (knowledge about children's competencies) (see target article, sect. 5.2). Kline reports evidence that children with better theory of mind (sect. 2.1, para. 2) or metacognition (sect. 5.2, para. 5) may be better teachers. But we risk neglecting some developmental issues here. First, there is significant controversy about the timing of these capacities' emergence, which is overlooked by Kline's theory (see, e.g., Baillargeon et al. [Reference Baillargeon, Scott and He2010] and Sodian [Reference Sodian2011] for theory of mind; Beran et al. [Reference Beran, Brandl, Perner and Proust2012] for metacognition). In particular, theory of mind has (controversially) been ascribed to infants in their first year of life (e.g., Kovács et al. Reference Kovács, Téglás and Endress2010), but is thought to emerge much later, in early or even middle childhood, by others (e.g., Sodian Reference Sodian2011). For claims about whether teaching is natural or unique to humans, it matters whether these capacities are innate or must be learned (independently or perhaps taught by others). A related question about development is whether the experiences of being teacher and learner are inter-dependent: Does one need the experiences of being a learner in order to become a teacher oneself? Kline's suggestion that perhaps “pupil and teacher psychologies should be considered separate adaptations” (sect. 5, para. 1) implies that this is not the case; however, the developmental interaction between emerging abilities and experiences has not been fully described empirically.
Furthermore, there is an implicit assumption that once these capacities are in place they will be deployed in an adult-like way. In contrast, Apperly (Reference Apperly2011) observes that young children who pass theory of mind tests are rather different from accomplished adult theory of mind users. Fledgling abilities may need to be refined, and they need to be deployed spontaneously (without the prompting of supportive or experimenting adults). We do not know whether children who can identify opportunities for teaching using their cognitive capacities always exploit them. Another question is whether all adult individuals who “have” a theory of mind are equally good at using it. Again, one might think not (see Apperly [2011] for discussion). Overall, we lack research that brings together a sophisticated approach to the development and deployment of these psychological capabilities and the consequent relationship with teaching behaviours.
There are claims in the literature about the development of teaching and its early emergence (e.g., Strauss et al. Reference Strauss, Ziv and Stein2002). Kline considers them, briefly, in the early part of the target article when reviewing previous accounts of teaching (e.g., sect. 2.1, para. 2). Yet, studies of the development of teaching tend to focus on only one of the teaching types that she later describes: direct active teaching (e.g., Davis-Unger & Carlson Reference Davis-Unger and Carlson2008). One of the main contributions of Kline's theory is that the account incorporates different types of teaching. It would be greatly enriched by consideration of the developmental emergence of these different types and by the cognitive, social, and motivational factors that influence their emergence (maturation or acquisition). For example, rarer evidence of other types of teaching comes from a cooperative task in which child participants (24- to 42-months-old) had to master complementary actions to solve a task in pairs. Evidence of demonstrations and attention-seeking is reported, as well as examples of more overt teaching directives. However, in this task, teachers gained from the learner's competence (Ashley & Tomasello Reference Ashley and Tomasello1998). We need more evidence on the emergence of different types of teaching in childhood (across different cultures) and to address how different psychological capabilities are required for each.
Kline's article ends (sect. 7) with a call to comparative psychologists to use her framework to guide their empirical work. While this is commendable, where is the complementary call to developmental psychology? As it stands, the theory is unlikely to have its full potential impact on this field. To understand teaching behaviour fully, we must engage with questions about its development more deeply: by charting the emergence of different types of teaching in the life span, by taking a more sophisticated and precise approach to the psychological capacities that may underpin (types of) teaching, and, in both cases, by considering whether these behaviours are acquired, and how.