Theories of Child Development

I know I'm getting awfully academic on this blog, lately, but I don't have time for anything but academia, and I spend so much time thinking and writing about it, that I might as well put it here. Don't worry, the Winter break is soon approaching, so I will have a chance to lighten up and stop pondering academia soon. Aren't ya glad? Anyhow, here is an assignment that I just completed for my never ending Psyc class. Be glad I'm not posting math- that would put you even more to sleep.

The question from my instructor:
Before posting to this forum, you need to complete the Developmental Issues Questionnaire and note your answers to the 5 questions. For this forum, look at that pattern of answers and describe which developmental theory is the best match among Freud's psychoanalytic theory, Piaget's cognitive-developmental theory, Skinner's learning theory, Bandura's learning theory, and contextual/systems theory this includes Brofenbrenner and Vygotsky), and explain why you think this theory is the best match. For your reply, choose a post which includes a pattern of responses for which you might have chosen a different match, and explain why. I am looking for a clear understanding of the theories, an ability to accurately translate those theories into associated beliefs about development, and clear appropriate communication of ideas to me and your fellow students.

My response:

Developmental Issues Questionnaire

1. Children are
b. neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

2. Biological influences (heredity, maturation) & environmental influences (culture, parenting styles, learning experiences) are thought to contribute to development. Overall,
d. environmental factors contribute somewhat more than biological factors.

3. People are basically
b. passive beings whose characteristics are molded either by social influences (parents and other significant people, outside events) or by biological changes outside their control.

4. Development proceeds
a. through stages, so that the individual changes rather abruptly into quite a different kind of person than he or she was in an earlier stage.

5. When we compare the development of individuals, we see
a. many similarities; children and adults develop along universal paths and experience similar changes at similar ages.


It was hard for me to claim subscription to one of the listed development theories, because I found either conflict or insufficiency within each of the theorists/theories listed. I have undergone training as a Waldorf early childhood educator, and most of my child development ideas line up with the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher who founded Waldorf Education in the 1900’s. He attempted to find “a synthesis between science and mysticism…a connection between the cognitive path of Western philosophy and the inner and spiritual needs of the human being (1).” He shared a view with Geothe, that, “Thinking … is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas (1).” Steiner was not listed as an option, for a theory choice on this assignment, and so I looked for some commonality between my own opinions largely based on Steiner’s teachings, and some, but not all of the principles in most of the theories listed on this forum topic.

At first, I thought that Skinner’s idea, that the nature of reaction to stimulus in our environment is a major source of teaching, sounded correct. “Changes in behavior are the result of an individual's response to events (stimuli) that occur in the environment. A response produces a consequence such as defining a word, hitting a ball, or solving a math problem.(2)” I know also, that positive reinforcement is vital in the form of encouragement for children. Looking deeper though, I realized that I do not agree with Skinner’s objective of positive reinforcement, completely. Although I do think that it is vital to praise children and let them know when they have done well, the way that Skinner lays out the idea of reinforcement seems artificial to me. “Reinforcement is the key element in Skinner's S-R theory. A reinforcer is anything that strengthens the desired response. It could be verbal praise, a good grade or a feeling of increased accomplishment or satisfaction. The theory also covers negative reinforcers -- any stimulus that results in the increased frequency of a response when it is withdrawn (different from adversive stimuli -- punishment -- which result in reduced responses). A great deal of attention was given to schedules of reinforcement (e.g. interval versus ratio) and their effects on establishing and maintaining behavior.(2)” I think it is important for children to learn from natural consequences of their actions. If we attempt to have a set-up where we control the consequences and timing of response to what they do, then they are not learning from what REALLY goes on in the world as a result of their actions, and it is not authentic learning. I think Skinner’s methods would be better used for training dogs, as it is more about training or programming, than actual learning.

I noticed that I agree with a great deal of Piaget’s assertions, for example, the idea that “children are born curious and that their cognitive development [is] unfolded as a result of their interaction with objects in the world, such as eggs, clay, sponges, and cats (4, p. 419)”. I think that children thrive when they are allowed to explore with their senses, taking in the world around them. I especially liked Piaget’s theories about distinct stages of development, and the need to teach to those stages, for developmental appropriate learning that does not push ahead, beyond readiness. Piaget’s principles are as follows:

“1. Children will provide different explanations of reality at different stages of cognitive development.

2. Cognitive development is facilitated by providing activities or situations that engage learners and require adaptation (i.e., assimilation and accommodation).

3. Learning materials and activities should involve the appropriate level of motor or mental operations for a child of given age; avoid asking students to perform tasks that are beyond their current cognitive capabilities.

4. Use teaching methods that actively involve students and present challenges.(3)”

Still, I did not find Piaget’s developmental stages to be as complete as those of Steiner, where a more holistic development in which the cognitive works interactively with the rest of the body and spirit to grow healthfully, and seven year cycles of change and maturation are addressed. Also, Piaget’s ideas about “interactions with the world” seemed to include mostly objects. They lacked sufficient inclusion the vitally important world of family, friends and caregivers.

This lack led me to look into the concept of Observational learning, where learning takes place by watching the actions of others. Bandura thought that, “in all societies, appropriate social behavior is passed on from generation to generation largely through observation. The rituals and behaviors that are a part of our culture are acquired by each new generation, not only through deliberate training of the young but also through young people observing the patterns of behaviors of their elders (4, p.243)”. This social learning, is what I have been taught to use in my teaching, and is known as modeling. “Bandura identified three basic models of observational learning:

1. A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behavior.
2. A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of a behavior.
3. A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media.(5)”
I agree with demonstrating behavior, and storytelling is of huge use as a symbolic model (although films, televisions and online media are in my opinion, damaging to developing children), but the verbal instruction model might be better for older, more developed children, or adults. When working with small children, I have seen evidence that all but the most brief and simple verbal instruction is ineffective. In fact, even putting instruction into a song is more helpful. Excessive talk/instruction actually freezes up healthy creativity and physical activity, as the “thinking forces” are brought too early and too suddenly up into the head. Little children are more alive in their limbs and their imaginings, and that is just how they should be, with no early, harsh awakenings. Imitation of others, though, and learning through imaginative storytelling that can enter into their already imaginative minds, is ideal for learning and development.

Another theorist, Vygotsky, thought that “cognitive development was largely the result of the child’s interaction with members of his or her own culture rather than his or her interaction with objects”. He thought “at any age, a child was capable of acquiring a wide-but nonetheless bounded-range of skills”, and he called this range the child’s “zone of proximal development…of course, the ability to learn from others requires fundamental communicative skills that take time to develop (4, p.419).” I am not sure if my interpretation is correct, but I am imagining that his idea of “proximal development”, is somewhat in alignment with Steiner’s ideas of intellectual readiness. According to my teacher trainers who follow Steiner, although a child may have many capabilities, and much intelligence and capacity, he may not be ready to develop a certain cognitive skill. Again, it is best from a “whole child” perspective, to wait until certain other parts of them are ready, such as social development, and a grounding of the mind, which was previously floating completely in fantasy. Once these aspects are complete, we can bring the intellect more fully into a challenge. I really like Vygotsky’s ideas about interpersonal connection being vital to learning from another human. People imitate the behaviors of those with whom they have a personal connection, such as a mother, teacher or sibling.

Principles:

1. Cognitive development is limited to a certain range at any given age.

2. Full cognitive development requires social interaction (6).

Still, these theories, as compelling as they are, do not bring to light the biological factors along with the cultural and interpersonal influences that impact development. Although I think that environmental factors contribute somewhat more than biological factors in human development, both are present and must be considered. I have never appreciated the curriculum, or the environment that I have seen and experienced at the very popular “Head Start” child development centers. It surprised me completely to find that the theorist that suited my opinions the most closely, was the founder of this program. So finally, I must say that I agree the most, with Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. “The interactions between factors in the child’s maturing biology, his immediate family/community environment, and the societal landscape fuels and steers his development. Changes or conflict in one layer will ripple through outer layers.(7)” He talks about a microsystem (family, school and neighborhood), the mesosystem (connections, such as between teacher and parents), the exosystem (greater community), and the chronosystem (timing of life happenings and environmental changes). These systems effect the child incrementally in that order and the systems have bi-directional influences, meaning that they effect the child and the child also effects them. Brofenbrenner emphasizes quality and context of environmental influences, recognizing that needs and influences chance with age and development. He sees that society has undergone damage from an increase in technology, and that family life is suffering. This suffering comes largely from instability and unpredictability of family life, and is destructive to healthy child development. Long term relationships are the most important ingredient for healthy development.

I doubt that my answers to the questionnaire are a sufficient link to understanding why I agree with this particular developmental theory. My connection with this is more than what the questions revealed. For example, the emphasis on stability and predictability are some of my stronger beliefs about what children need. Ritual, rhythm and repetition are like a mantra for Waldorf Early Childhood Educators. It is so important for children to feel safe within a framework of predictable life that they can depend on. Only within the arms of this security, can they find the resources, to branch out and learn about the further world. This is why the first system, the microsystem is by far the most influential to development. This is where the predictable, safe, life can be created, so that the outer systems are not overwhelming, but rather engaging from a distance. Additionally, the second system, the mesosystem, where the child can be supported by the relationships around her that relate back to her own life, are deeply important. The child will feel open to her experience of school, if the parents have a good relationship with the teachers that the child is in the care of. Finally, the idea of technology being a destructive force to development is a strongly ingrained principle that I go by. I absolutely believe that small children have no business with television, movies and computers, and that those media influences are deadening to creativity and learning, and overwhelming and destructive to the immature nervous and sensory systems. Also, on a larger level, technology has not been healthy for “real” relationships between people, which so importantly effect a child’s development. The world of the workforce has been negatively impacted by technology, as well. It has partially caused long work hours, and intense demands on parents who should be relating to their children, not spending all of their hours attempting to work both from work and home, which are all too often one and the same.

Sources:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner
2) http://tip.psychology.org/skinner.html
3) http://tip.psychology.org/piaget.html
4) Psychology, Schacter, Gilbert, Wagner
5) http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/sociallearning.htm
6) http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html
7) http://pt3.nl.edu/paquetteryanwebquest.pdf