PSY-108 Module One Discussion: Nature, Nurture, and Early Development (Southern New Hampshire University)

Post an initial discussion response that takes a position on whether genetics or environment matters more in preschool and school-aged development, then reply to at least two peers. The initial post carries the bulk of the 30 possible points; the peer replies determine whether the discussion advances beyond opinion exchange[reference:1].

Assessment Context

Southern New Hampshire University runs PSY-108 Introduction to Psychology as a first-year undergraduate course in the psychology concentration and as a general education elective. Module One uses a discussion board rather than a written paper because the early weeks test whether students can separate evidence from opinion before heavier assessments begin. The prompt appears in Brightspace, carries 30 possible points, and closes at 11:59 p.m. on the Sunday of Module One. Video Note submissions of two to five minutes are accepted as an alternative to written posts[reference:2]. The rubric attached to the prompt is the Psychology Undergraduate Discussion Rubric, and the course also requires students to acknowledge the PSY Norms of Practice for Online Discussion and the PSY Ethical Usage Practices document[reference:3]. The assignment rewards paraphrased evidence, not direct quotation[reference:4].

Learning Outcomes

Completing this discussion allows students to:

• Distinguish biological from environmental claims about child development without collapsing one into the other.
• Apply at least one peer-reviewed source to a concrete observation of a preschool or school-aged child.
• State and defend a position on the relative weight of nature and nurture rather than describing the debate in neutral terms.
• Advance a peer’s reasoning by introducing evidence, a competing perspective, or a clarifying question.
• Follow the course norms for respectful online disagreement and source attribution.

Task Instructions

Complete two components: an initial post and at least two peer replies. Written posts and Video Notes satisfy the same requirement; choose one format and stay with it for the whole discussion[reference:5].

Initial Post

Address four elements in the first post:

1. Introduce yourself. State your major and one reason preschool or school-aged development interests you[reference:6].
2. Describe one specific moment when you observed nature or nurture actively shaping a preschool or school-aged child’s behaviour. Name the child’s approximate age and the setting. A general claim about a sibling’s personality does not satisfy this element.
3. Take a position. Decide whether genetics, environment, or both carry more weight in this developmental period, and defend the position with evidence-based research rather than personal belief alone[reference:7].
4. Paraphrase at least one credible source and attribute it in APA 7th edition in-text format. Direct quotations are prohibited by the prompt[reference:8].

Video Note submissions must cover the same four elements in two to five minutes and must still cite the source aloud and on screen[reference:9].

Peer Replies

Reply to at least two classmates with substance rather than agreement. The prompt suggests four acceptable moves[reference:10]:

• Post an article, video, or visual that reinforces or challenges the peer’s point.
• Engage the peer on the specific interaction between nature and nurture in the example they described.
• Ask a question that pushes the peer to explain the mechanism behind their claim.
• Share a contrasting personal experience without dismissing the peer’s position.

A reply that restates the original post and adds “I agree” does not satisfy the rubric’s advancement criterion.

Marking Criteria

The Psychology Undergraduate Discussion Rubric scores submissions across five elements. The Module One Activity template converts each element into a proficiency level: Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or Not Evident[reference:11].

• Contribution to the learning community: The initial post opens a line of inquiry that classmates can build on; the student engages with feedback rather than posting and leaving[reference:12].
• Relevance to programmatic themes: The post connects to at least one course theme, such as emotional intelligence, career connections, or well-being, where the prompt allows[reference:13].
• Advancement of discussion: Peer replies introduce new evidence or questions. The template example describes asking a classmate about nature and nurture in relation to the classmate’s professional obstacles[reference:14].
• Professional communication: Posts are clear, respectful, and free of dismissive phrasing when viewpoints differ[reference:15].
• Timeliness and norms of practice: The initial post appears by the Thursday checkpoint where the course sets one, and replies appear before the Sunday close. The student follows the online discussion norms document[reference:16].

Example Student Response

My nephew turned four last spring, and his reaction to a crowded indoor play centre gave me a clear look at both sides of this debate. He stood by the door for close to ten minutes while other children climbed and shouted. His mother did not force him in. She crouched beside him, named what he was seeing, and suggested one small step toward the edge of the mat. He took it, and twenty minutes later he was passing a block to another child. His withdrawal from novelty looks like temperament, the biological baseline that developmental researchers call behavioural inhibition. The scaffolded entry looks like environment doing real work on that baseline. I do not think the question is which side wins. Adoption research that separates inherited propensity from rearing conditions shows that early language development emerges from the interplay between a child’s genetic emotional reactivity and the parenting the child receives, not from either factor alone (Disentangling genetic and environmental influences on early language development, Flom et al., 2024). Both factors carry weight, and the more useful question is how they combine in a particular child at a particular moment.

Gene-Environment Interaction Evidence

The example above gestures at interaction, and the research base behind that gesture is deeper than most first-year posts acknowledge. A longitudinal adoption study tracked genetic propensity for negative emotionality and surgency alongside observed parenting behaviour, then modelled their joint effect on early language. The study found that parenting quality moderated the expression of genetic propensity rather than operating independently of it, which means a supportive environment can change how strongly a temperamental predisposition shows up in measurable outcomes (Flom et al., 2024). Differential susceptibility research pushes the point further: some children are more responsive to environmental input in both directions, deteriorating under stress and thriving under support. Treating nature and nurture as competing forces misses this conditional structure entirely.

Common Misreadings of the Prompt

A frequent student question is whether the post must pick a side or can conclude that both matter. The prompt asks for a position, which means a post that says “both are important” without explaining how they combine reads as evasive. A stronger version of the both-matter position states which factor does more explanatory work in the specific observation and why. Another common slip is citing a textbook summary instead of a peer-reviewed study; the rubric rewards evidence-based research, and course materials on developmental psychology point students toward primary sources. A third misreading concerns the peer replies. Posting a link without commentary does not advance the discussion; the link has to be attached to a specific claim about the classmate’s example. Students who plan the initial post around one concrete scene, one clear position, and one paraphraseable study tend to score at Proficient or above without adding length.

Conclusion

Module One is a diagnostic task, and the strongest submissions read that way. A student who describes a specific child in a specific moment gives the instructor something to assess. A student who names a position and attaches a paraphraseable study to it demonstrates the evidence habit the rest of the course depends on. Peer replies separate students who treat discussion as a checklist from students who treat it as an argument to be tested. The word count stays modest, but the cognitive demand is real: separate observation from inference, separate evidence from opinion, and show the work in public where classmates can push back.

References

• Flom, M., et al. (2024). Disentangling genetic and environmental influences on early language development: The interplay of genetic propensity for negative emotionality and surgency, and parenting behavior effects on early language skills in an adoption study. Child Development, 95(3), 699–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14021
• Kim, J., & Kochanska, G. (2025). Multifinality in pathways from early ecological adversity to children’s future self-regulation: Elucidating mechanisms, moderators, and their developmental timing. Development and Psychopathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579425000273
• Oxford Bibliographies. (2023). Nature versus nurture debate in psychology. Oxford Bibliographies in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199828340-0298
• Worthman, C. M., et al. (2024). Caregiving quality and adolescent cortical structure: A 16-year longitudinal study of institutionally reared youth. Developmental Science, 28(5), e70043. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.70043

PSY-108 Module One Discussion: Nature, Nurture, and Early Development

Assignment Overview

The PSY-108 Module One Discussion at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) examines how genetics and environmental experiences influence development during the preschool and school-aged years. Students consider how inherited characteristics, family relationships, parenting practices, education, and social experiences shape children’s behaviour and emerging abilities. The discussion asks students to move beyond personal opinion and apply psychological research to an observable example of child development.

The assignment requires two components: an initial discussion post and substantive replies to at least two classmates. The assessment carries 30 possible points, with the initial contribution accounting for most of the available marks. Peer responses demonstrate whether students can evaluate different perspectives, introduce relevant evidence, and extend an academic conversation.

Students may submit a written discussion post or a Video Note lasting two to five minutes. Both formats must address the same assessment requirements. The supplied instructions identify the Module One Sunday deadline as 11:59 p.m. Students should check Brightspace for the exact submission date, any Thursday participation checkpoint, and the current instructor announcements.

Learning Objectives

The discussion develops students’ ability to explain biological and environmental influences on childhood development. It also encourages the application of research findings to everyday observations, particularly situations involving temperament, learning, emotional responses, and social behaviour.

Successful submissions demonstrate that students can:

• Distinguish genetic influences from environmental experiences without treating them as unrelated forces.
• Apply peer-reviewed psychological research to a specific observation involving a preschool or school-aged child.
• Establish and defend a clear position on the relative importance of nature and nurture.
• Respond to classmates with relevant evidence, thoughtful questions, or contrasting interpretations.
• Communicate respectfully and follow academic citation and online discussion requirements.

SNHU’s introductory psychology course connects psychological concepts to perceptions, emotions, behaviour, and everyday experiences. The Module One discussion provides an opportunity to apply those broad course themes to child development.

Initial Discussion Post

The initial post should address four connected requirements. Each element contributes to the overall argument, so students should develop a coherent response rather than present four unrelated answers.

Personal Introduction and Interest

Begin with a brief introduction that identifies the student’s major and explains an interest in preschool or school-aged development. The introduction should establish a connection between the student’s academic interests and the discussion topic.

For example, a student studying education might explain an interest in how children’s early experiences influence classroom participation. A psychology student might focus on temperament, emotional development, or differences in children’s responses to unfamiliar situations. The explanation should remain relevant to the subject rather than becoming a lengthy personal biography.

A Specific Observation of Nature or Nurture

Describe an actual situation in which biological characteristics or environmental experiences appeared to influence a child’s behaviour. Identify the child’s approximate age and the setting, then explain what happened and why the observation matters.

A useful example involves a four-year-old child attending an indoor play centre. The child initially remains near the entrance while other children play. The child’s hesitation may indicate an inhibited temperament or discomfort with unfamiliar surroundings. A caregiver responds by offering reassurance and encouraging the child to approach the play area gradually. The child eventually begins interacting with other children.

The example provides evidence of two related influences. Temperament may contribute to the initial response, whereas the caregiver’s support helps the child participate in the unfamiliar environment. Students should distinguish what they actually observed from their interpretation of the behaviour.

A Defensible Position on Nature and Nurture

The central requirement is a clear position on which factor carries greater influence during preschool and school-aged development. Students may argue that genetics has greater influence, that environmental experiences have greater influence, or that both contribute through their interaction. A position that simply states that both factors matter requires further explanation to satisfy the prompt.

A defensible argument could place greater emphasis on environmental influence during this developmental period. Children inherit characteristics that may affect temperament, attention, and emotional responsiveness, but caregivers, teachers, peers, and learning opportunities influence how those characteristics appear in everyday behaviour. The argument should explain why the chosen factor carries greater weight in the example rather than presenting a general opinion.

Research supports the importance of examining both influences. Cheung et al. (2024), for example, used an adoption study involving 561 children to examine genetic influences on temperament alongside parenting behaviour and early language development. Their findings showed that genetically influenced characteristics and aspects of caregiving both contributed to language outcomes. Maternal warmth and parenting sensitivity showed beneficial associations with early language skills, even after the researchers accounted for specific genetic influences.

The study provides a useful basis for discussing the relationship between inherited characteristics and environmental experiences. It does not establish that one factor always dominates every aspect of development. Students should connect its findings to their own observations and explain the limits of the comparison.

Research Evidence and APA 7 Referencing

Support the discussion with at least one credible scholarly source. Peer-reviewed journal articles offer stronger evidence than general websites, anonymous educational summaries, or unsupported personal opinions.

Students should paraphrase the research rather than reproduce sentences from the original publication. An APA 7 in-text citation should identify the author or authors and publication year. For a work with three or more authors, APA 7 uses the first author’s surname followed by et al. from the first citation.

For example:

Research involving adopted children indicates that inherited temperament characteristics and the quality of early caregiving can contribute jointly to emerging language skills (Cheung et al., 2024).

The corresponding full reference should appear at the end of the post or in the reference section, as required by the instructor. Students submitting a Video Note should mention the source aloud and display its citation on screen. Direct quotations do not satisfy the supplied prompt’s paraphrasing requirement.

Peer Discussion Replies

Students must respond to at least two classmates. Each reply should contribute something meaningful to the discussion rather than repeat the original post or offer simple agreement.

A strong response identifies a specific claim or observation from the classmate’s contribution and examines it using psychological concepts or research. Students may introduce a peer-reviewed article, discuss how temperament and caregiving interact in the described situation, or ask a question that encourages further explanation.

For example, a classmate may argue that a child’s shyness mainly reflects genetics. A useful response could examine whether the child’s classroom environment, previous social experiences, or teacher support also influence participation. The reply should explain how these conditions might affect the behaviour and ask whether the classmate observed any change when the child received encouragement.

Another useful approach involves presenting a contrasting experience. A student might describe a child who initially avoided group activities but gradually became more confident through repeated classroom interaction. The comparison can help examine whether repeated exposure and adult encouragement change how children express their temperament.

Replies should remain respectful when classmates reach different conclusions. Disagreement becomes academically useful when students explain their reasoning and support their interpretations with evidence.

Assessment and Marking Criteria

The supplied assignment description identifies the Psychology Undergraduate Discussion Rubric as the assessment framework. The discussion evaluates five areas of performance.

Contribution to the learning community: The initial post should introduce a relevant observation and a position that invites further discussion. Students should also engage with classmates rather than submit their contributions without considering responses.

Relevance to programmatic themes: Students should connect the discussion to relevant psychology themes, including emotional intelligence, well-being, career connections, or other course concepts where appropriate.

Advancement of discussion: Peer replies should add evidence, raise a useful question, or introduce a different interpretation. Responses that contain only agreement or repetition do not demonstrate sufficient discussion development.

Professional communication: Written and recorded contributions should communicate ideas clearly. Students should maintain a respectful tone, use appropriate psychological terminology, and avoid dismissive comments about opposing viewpoints.

Timeliness and norms of practice: Students should observe the submission schedule, participate within the required discussion period, and follow the PSY Norms of Practice for Online Discussion and the PSY Ethical Usage Practices document.

The supplied Module One Activity template identifies four proficiency levels: Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Improvement, and Not Evident. Students should review the actual Brightspace rubric before submitting, because the full scoring descriptors and any instructor-specific requirements take precedence over a general assignment summary.

Recommended Approach to Completing the Discussion

A strong initial post begins with an observable event rather than a broad statement about children’s personalities. The student should describe the child’s age, setting, behaviour, and response to the surrounding environment. The next section should interpret the observation using the nature-and-nurture distinction, then connect that interpretation to a relevant research finding.

The argument should identify which influence appears more important in the particular developmental situation. For instance, inherited temperament may help explain why a child initially avoids an unfamiliar activity, but supportive adult interaction may have a stronger immediate influence on whether the child eventually participates. The conclusion should explain what the example reveals about development without claiming that a single observation proves a general psychological theory.

Students should also check that their citations match the reference list. Every in-text citation must correspond to a complete reference, and every reference should support a claim actually made in the discussion. The final review should identify unsupported assumptions, unclear descriptions, grammar problems, and unnecessary repetition.

Final Submission Checklist

• Introduce the student’s major and interest in child development.

• Describe a specific observation involving a preschool or school-aged child.

  Stuck on Your Assignment?

  Essay Bishops Experts Are Ready Right Now

  Join thousands of students who submit confidently. Human-written, plagiarism-checked, and formatted to your institution's exact standards.

  Order My Custom Paper Use code BISHOPS for 25% off

• Identify the child’s approximate age and the setting.

• State and defend a position on nature, nurture, or their interaction.

• Paraphrase at least one credible scholarly source.

• Apply APA 7 in-text citations and provide the corresponding reference.

• Submit the initial post in the required format.

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.

• Follow the course’s online discussion and ethical usage requirements.

• Confirm the deadline and rubric in Brightspace.

Conclusion

The PSY-108 Module One Discussion assesses students’ ability to apply psychological research to observable child development. A successful response describes a specific developmental situation, distinguishes observation from interpretation, and defends a clear position on genetic and environmental influences. Scholarly evidence strengthens the explanation, while meaningful peer replies demonstrate the ability to examine alternative interpretations and extend academic discussion.

The strongest submissions treat childhood development as a process shaped by inherited characteristics and lived experiences. They explain how those influences relate to a particular behaviour rather than assuming that every child responds to the same circumstances in the same way.

PSY-108 Module One Discussion: Nature, Nurture, and Early Development

Initial Discussion Post

Hello everyone,

My name is [Your Name], and I am majoring in [Your Major]. I am interested in preschool and school-aged development because early childhood experiences can have lasting effects on how children learn, communicate, and form relationships. Understanding these influences can help parents, teachers, and other caregivers provide the support children need as they grow.

A situation that illustrates the relationship between nature and nurture involved a child who was approximately four years old at an indoor play centre. The child initially stayed close to the entrance while other children participated in activities. Rather than forcing the child to join, the caregiver offered reassurance, explained what the other children were doing, and encouraged the child to approach the play area gradually. After some time, the child became more comfortable and began interacting with the other children. The child’s initial hesitation could reflect an inherited temperament, particularly a cautious response to unfamiliar situations. However, the caregiver’s patience and encouragement appeared to influence how the child responded to the new environment.

I believe that environment has a greater influence on preschool and school-aged development, although genetics establishes important individual differences. Children may inherit temperamental characteristics that influence their emotional responses, attention, and social behaviour. However, their experiences with parents, teachers, classmates, and other people affect how they develop those characteristics and respond to everyday challenges.

Research supports the importance of environmental experiences. Cheung et al. (2024) examined 561 adopted children and investigated how inherited temperamental characteristics and parenting behaviour influenced early language development. Their findings indicated that parental warmth and sensitivity contributed positively to children’s language skills, even after the researchers accounted for specific genetic influences. The study also showed that inherited characteristics could affect language development, which demonstrates why genetics cannot be dismissed when examining childhood behaviour.

Austerberry et al. (2022) reached a related conclusion through a systematic review and meta-analysis of 139 publications involving 79,044 twin pairs. Their findings identified genetic contributions alongside shared and individual environmental influences across several areas of infant development. Although their research focused on infancy, it helps explain why developmental differences cannot be attributed to genetics alone.

Ultimately, environmental experiences carry greater practical influence in shaping how children apply their abilities, interact with others, and respond to challenges during early development. A child may have an naturally cautious temperament, but supportive caregiving and positive social experiences can encourage greater confidence. The interaction between these influences deserves attention because children do not all respond to the same environment in identical ways.

References

Austerberry, C., Mateen, M., Fearon, P., & Ronald, A. (2022). Heritability of psychological traits and developmental milestones in infancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 5(8), e2227887. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27887

Cheung, R. W., Austerberry, C., Fearon, P., Hayiou-Thomas, M. E., Leve, L. D., Shaw, D. S., Ganiban, J. M., Natsuaki, M. N., Neiderhieser, J. M., & Reiss, D. (2024). Disentangling genetic and environmental influences on early language development: The interplay of genetic propensity for negative emotionality and surgency, and parenting behavior effects on early language skills in an adoption study. Child Development, 95(3), 699–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14021

Peer Reply One: Responding to a Classmate Who Emphasizes Genetics

I understand your argument that genetics contributes significantly to childhood development, particularly when considering differences in temperament and emotional responses. Your example illustrates how children may react differently to similar situations, even when they experience comparable environments. However, I think environmental experiences also deserve consideration when explaining how those differences develop over time. Shah et al. (2022) reviewed research on temperament, parenting, and attachment and discussed how genetic characteristics can influence children’s responses to environmental conditions. Their findings suggest that children’s inherited tendencies and caregiving experiences can interact during development.

I wonder whether the child’s behaviour might change if a parent or teacher introduced more opportunities for positive social interaction. Could repeated encouragement help the child become more comfortable in situations that initially cause hesitation? I think examining that possibility would strengthen the discussion because it considers how environmental experiences may influence the expression of inherited characteristics.

Reference

Shah, S., Laplante, D., Atkinson, L., & Wazana, A. (2022). From temperament and parenting to attachment: A review of the interplay of gene and environment factors in the developmental pathway to attachment. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 35(6), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000817

Peer Reply Two: Responding to a Classmate Who Emphasizes Environment

Your discussion provides a useful explanation of how family and social experiences influence children’s behaviour. I agree that the environment can have a strong effect on children’s development, particularly when adults provide consistent encouragement and opportunities to learn. However, I would also consider how individual temperament influences the way children respond to those experiences. Cheung et al. (2024) found that inherited temperamental characteristics and parenting behaviour both contributed to early language development among adopted children. Their findings suggest that a supportive environment can promote development even when children have different inherited characteristics.

Your example raises an interesting question about individual differences. Would two children exposed to the same teaching methods or parenting practices necessarily develop the same skills at the same rate? Their temperaments and previous experiences may influence how they respond. I think considering these differences adds depth to your argument because environmental support may benefit children in different ways depending on their individual characteristics.