When I think about whether cognitive development and language are “natural,” my first instinct is to say yes—both seem to arise in us without conscious planning. Children don’t need formal lessons to begin speaking; they absorb language from their environment almost effortlessly. Still, my background in philosophy taught me to look at “natural” with caution. Just because something emerges spontaneously doesn’t mean it happens in isolation. During college, I remember studying Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar, which suggests that language acquisition is built into our biology (Chomsky, 1965). At the same time, I saw how peers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds had different strengths and struggles with communication. This made me realize that while language capacity may be natural, its development is deeply shaped by social context.

In terms of understanding learning, neuroscience provides fascinating insights into how the brain processes, stores, and retrieves information. For instance, research on neuroplasticity shows how flexible the brain is, even in adulthood (Doidge, 2007). The strength of neuroscience lies in grounding educational theories in biology, giving us concrete evidence of what supports or hinders learning. But there are limits. As Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007) argue, a brain scan can tell us what areas “light up” during problem-solving, but it cannot fully capture the role of motivation, cultural background, or the meaning we attach to knowledge.

From a constructivist perspective, one concept that resonates with me is scaffolding, where teachers or peers provide structured support to help learners reach the next level of understanding (Vygotsky, 1978). I’ve experienced this personally—during my thesis writing in philosophy, my adviser didn’t simply give me answers but asked guiding questions that helped me refine my arguments. This process was frustrating at times but ultimately helped me develop independence as a thinker. What’s insightful about scaffolding is that it emphasizes learning as a dynamic, social process. However, the limit is that not all students have equal access to effective “scaffolds.” If the support is too rigid or absent altogether, learners may either feel constrained or lost.

In reflecting on these ideas, I see that learning is both natural and nurtured, biological and social, individual and collective. The challenge for us, whether as students or teachers, is to navigate these layers thoughtfully.

Has anyone else noticed this balance—between what feels innate in learning and what is clearly shaped by environment and support—in your own classes or professional work?

References

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.

Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. Viking.

Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.