1:Development in children (Slavin, 2018, Ch. 2)

Description:

Chapter 2 in Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (12th edition) by Robert Slavin (2018) explains theories of development in children. This is an important consideration of effective instruction in K-12 education. Teaching should be developmentally appropriate, understanding that it will be necessary to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of individual learners in the classroom who will be at different developmental stages. The chapter explores the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bronfenbrenner, including where these theories differ and where they may overlap. The chapter ended with an examination of language and literacy development as it is one of the most important aspects of development.

Analysis:

It is essential for teachers to understand how children grow and develop physically, emotionally, and intellectually in order to facilitate effective learning, and much research has been conducted about this topic. The theories of two psychologists, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, have emerged as the most widely recognized perspectives on childhood development. These two differing theories align with the debate about which has a greater impact on development, nature or nurture, with Piaget prioritizing nature or biology represented by fixed stages of development, and Vygotsky focusing more on the impact of nurture or environment in determining the rate and manner of development. While psychologists may differ about which has a greater influence on how a child develops, most would agree that nature and nurture are both important factors (Slavin, 2018).

Jean Piaget describes four distinct stages of cognitive development that are determined by a child’s age. According to Piaget, these stages are fixed and sequential and can be represented by particular cognitive skills (Slavin, 2018). The Sensorimotor stage occurs from birth to age two and is identified by the concept of “object permanence”, the understanding that an object exists even when not visible or present. Children from ages two to seven are in the Preoperational stage and can use symbols to represent objects. Their thinking remains primitive and egocentric. Concrete operational stage happens around ages seven to eleven and demonstrates an increase in logical thinking. Problem-solving ability increases, but abstract thinking is still not evident. Finally, from ages eleven into adulthood, children are in the Formal operational stage, in which they can demonstrate abstract thinking and systematic experimentation (Slavin, 2018, Table 2.1). Throughout all of these stages, children are making sense of the world, and the objects in it through “schemes” or patterns of thinking that expand with the developmental stages (Slavin, 2018, p. 25). Since I work in a high school and deal with students who, according to Piaget, are in the Formal operational stage, the fact that “there are many individuals who never reach this stage” and “As many as two-thirds of U.S. high school students do not succeed on Piaget’s formal operations tasks” was quite striking (Slavin, 2018, p. 31). In contrast, Gelman(2000), Kuhn (2006), Siegler and Svetina (2006) stated that “Several researchers have found that young children can be taught to succeed on simpler forms of Piaget’s tasks before they reach the stage at which the task is usually achieved” (cited in Slavin, 2018). These findings seem to weaken the idea of fixed stages of development and intellect.

Lev Vygotsky saw broad environmental factors such as history and culture as essential to understanding development (Slavin, 2018). In contrast to Piaget’s focus on the developmental stage, Vygotsky believed that learning through “the acquisition of signs by means of information from others and deliberate teaching” could precede development (Slavin, 2018, p. 33). When children are given a task that is difficult, but can be achieved with appropriate support (what Vygotsky refers to as the “zone of proximal development”), the most effective instruction is taking place. This support or “scaffolding” can move children to higher skill levels (Slavin, 2018, p. 34).

A third psychologist, Urie Bronfenbrenner, presented a “bioecological” system of development which emphasized, “the social and institutional influences on a child’s development, from family, schools, places of worship, and neighborhoods, to broader social and political influences, such as mass media and government” (Slavin, 2018, p. 36). He recognized the importance of expanding structures that exist outside the child and have increasing influence at every stage of development. Since these factors are ever-changing and in some cases (historical passage of time) vast in nature, it seems less effective to plan instruction around Piaget’s inflexible stages.

Every theory of development would recognize language and literacy as a key aspect of development, and a necessary component of academic success. Much time and energy is allocated to determining and delivering the most effective literacy instruction at every level of education, but just as in other areas of cognitive development, environmental factors will have a tremendous impact on a student’s reading, writing, and speaking ability.

Reflection:

Having taught for the last eleven years at a high school that, using standardized test scores as an indicator, would be considered “underperforming”, the concept of “developmentally appropriate instruction” (Slavin, 2018) and “the zone of proximal development”(Slavin, 2018) are regular topics of discussion. Reading this chapter brought up many thoughts, and even emotions. Our teachers are always wrestling with how to design instruction with the appropriate level of rigor, while also providing the support or “scaffolding” (Slavin, 2018) needed from individual students. Recognizing that Piaget’s stages of development probably do represent the typical skills and abilities of children at certain ages, my experience leads me to believe that environmental factors have a far greater influence. Therefore, I resonated most with Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory, and I especially appreciated his inclusion of the “chronosystem” (passage of time and historical events) because I think there are huge global shifts, such as the increase in technology, that impact our students’ development (Slavin, 2018, p. 37).

Another thought that repeatedly came to mind as I was reading was the concept of motivation. What role does intrinsic motivation have on a child’s development? It seems that in the earliest stages, all children are curious and eager to understand the world around them. To what degree is this biological, and what environmental factors encourage or hinder this exploration? I certainly encounter many students who are developmentally behind and lack the motivation to grow. In some cases, they are even resistant to the opportunities and support provided to them to move forward. Again, this reinforces my belief that environmental factors such as family, culture, exposure, and even past school experiences have led to this outcome.

These beliefs apply to the development of language and literacy as well. I was a high school English teacher for 14 years, and it was clear to me that some students had a distinct advantage in terms of language development, and therefore academic success. Take for example, the statement from Chapter 2 that said, “By the time they start school, children have mastered most of the grammatical rules of language” (Slavin, 2018, p. 37). Wouldn’t it be true that they have mastered the rules of grammar that they have been exposed to in their environment? And if they are surrounded by “non-standard” (or non-academic) English, they will have a higher learning curve than a student who has heard “standard” English since birth. 

It is certainly essential for teachers to consider these developmental factors when designing curricula and determining instructional strategies. The differing theories and the vast number of influential factors make this a tremendously difficult task. The never-ending frustration for teachers is how to close the developmental gaps they encounter while continuing to provide instruction that “meets the standards” determined by their schools, districts, and states.

Reference

Slavin, R. E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (12th ed.). Pearson 

Education.