Nature versus nurture is considered as an old debate in child psychology.

What makes this comparison fallacious?

Nature describes behaviors that are innate that are born to us. Nurture describes behaviors
that are acquired as a result of environmental influences. This debate centers on whether particular
behaviors are entirely innate, or whether they’re acquired from experience, or influence of the
environment.

The nature and nurture viewpoints of human behavior were considered to be determinist
and didn't give any scope for free will. However, increasingly people acknowledge that lots of
behavior comes about through a mixture of inborn predispositions and environmental experiences.
The debate is also closely linked with reductionism, because extreme nature-nurture arguments are
by definition reductionist by saying that some aspect of behavior is solely caused by genes or solely
caused by experience. Nature-nurture debates in psychological theory, by contrast, are frequently
historical and not current. Nowadays most psychologists see the development of behavior
differently. They see biological predisposition as guiding development in certain directions, but
experience as influencing how that development manifests itself. The two sources are seen as
synergy rather than oppositional. And this is the way that they interact, which is the focus of
interest. It can also be valuable to discover that some behavior is due to nature and not to quote
inappropriate upbringings by parents. Another thing about the debate is that it is simplistic to divide
explanation into nature and nurture when the two made truly combined in complex ways to
influence behavior. Another lapse is that discovering a particular behavior or capacity, for example,
intelligence is inherited may lead to some assuming many more behaviors are inherited and failed to
consider the effects of the environment.

Nature and nurture, in fact, interact in a seamless reciprocal relationship. The age-old
debate over nature vs. nurture is actually a misunderstanding. It's erroneous because it implies that
nature and nurture are incompatible.
 As a future educator, how do the theories of Freud, Erikson, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Kohlberg
contribute to child's overall development? Will the teacher be considered ineffective
if he/she does not relate to these development? Why do you say so?

As a teacher, you'll constantly wonder if your classroom goals and objectives are appropriate
for your students. You'll want to know not only if a skill is appropriate for a learner's cognitive ability,
but also how much time it will take to master it. Knowing a child's developmental level, prior
developmental accomplishments, and the next developmental hurdles to overcome will assist you in
deciding what to teach and how to teach it.

Developmental knowledge can assist you in teaching students who are having difficulties
with learning and adjustment. It assists you in identifying the various forces that influence growth,
maturation, learning, and development, as well as the behavior of your students. It can also help you
understand the different types of behavior you'll see among students. Children approach learning in
a variety of ways as they progress through their lives. When an educator has a thorough
understanding of human development, they can use it to make assessments about the children's
behaviors, which can help them, and you can take a step back and reflect on their actions, which
may indicate that they are at a different developmental stage than their peers.

Teachers have a significant influence on what or how children will become in the future.
Teachers who have the ability to motivate, support, and care for their students have a significant
impact on their lives. Despite the fact that all children develop in their own unique way as a direct
result of both hereditary and environmental influences, there is a certain pattern of development
that applies to nearly all children, the teacher will not be deemed ineffective if he or she fails to
relate to these changes.