Week 2: Theories of Development - Roberson

This week's reading in LifeSmart was dedicated to the different developmental theories that people have studied and discussed over time. All of the theories are fairly different, and give varying ideas behind development and its stages. I will summarize a few that stood out to me for different reasons:

Freud:

While I don't necessarily agree with the freudian stages of development (a little too sexually-charged and vague), I do agree that the human personality uses defense mechanisms to deal with conflicts that arise within every stage of development (Fiore, p. 30). When you think about cases of child neglect and abuse, those children have learned to adapt and exist within that environment. 

Erickson:

I think that I agree most with Erik Erikson's views of development and the intricate stages between birth to 65 and older. The stages, psychosocial crises, and environmental influences are perfectly aligned and I think a person would be hard-pressed to dispute them based on his extensive research. I found it particularly interesting that while you would automatically assume that playing with a child between the ages of 3 to 5 is appropriate, it is actually essential in helping to build the child's identity (Fiore, p. 33).

Piaget:

I liked the shift from psychoanalytic theories into cognitive theories. I can see how the use of symbols and "to think abstractly increases with each stage until we are able to manipulate abstract concepts and consider hypothetical alternatives" (Fiore, p. 34). I work with children of all different developmental levels, and have experienced this first hand. While all of the high school students are learning the same lesson, it is differentiated based upon their individual levels of comprehension. While one student may be making a simple graphic organizer of the basic concepts or sequence of a story, another may be coming up with alternate endings to the story because he can think on a more critical level.

Vgotsky:

Lev Vygotsky believed that the clues to understanding mental development lie in children's social processes. He spoke of two planes on which they occurred: 1) interpsychological - social exchanges with others and 2) intrapsychological - inner dialogue to guide behavior. I definitely agree that the ways in which we interact with people and the environment around us shapes who we are. I work with a girl that grew up in around the same area that I did, and I know that we get along so well because we have similar interests and mannerisms. Vygotsky focused on internalization - "when we observe something (behaviors, customs, rules) and then make it part of our own repertoire over time" (Fiore, p. 36). He also believed that speech is one of the most powerful tools humans use to progress developmentally (Fiore, p. 37). The school that I work at was founded by 3 speech & language pathologists, and we are constantly reminded of the importance of language. At a school for children with autism, it can be easy to overload the students with language that they are incapable to process. Language can be such a barrier for them, and it is important to monitor and take data on it. 

Bandura:

Albert Bandura stuck out to me because he stressed the importance of modeling on personality development (Fiore, p. 40). At work I use modeling very often, again as a way to minimize language that can be too overwhelming. Children of all ages can successfully recognize modeling through observation and mimicking. 


It was interesting to read of all of the different viewpoints and different things that each person considered most important in development. I agreed with different parts of almost all of them, so I don't believe that any particular one is more correct than the others. I think it's important to analyze ALL of the different angles, because human development is broad and all-inclusive.

Week 1: The Mobius Strip - Roberson

I really enjoyed this week's video about the mobius strip. I like the idea that a person is born into wholeness and integrity, and that there should be no differentiation between the two in that person's life. Due to the stressors and humdrum of life, though, we lose touch with our souls and conform to our "roles." In thinking about this, I agree that most people adopt a different persona outside of their personal lives and behave as they feel they should in maybe their professional atmosphere. Parker Palmer stated that this way of flipping back and forth between the two can actually be detrimental and unhealthy, even painful. People may be born whole, but they become too concerned with "surviving and succeeding" and lose touch with the values and principles that make up their inner person. We subconsciously feel that it is unsafe to reveal our inner selves to the outside world, and begin to build a barrier. Palmer says that people eventually realize this disconnect and wish to close the gap, and react to life in ways that are synonymous with their core values and principles. While this is a good start, he feels that this way of thinking creates something comparable to a gated community. While one person may feel that their beliefs are the "correct" way to think, this model excludes other people and their beliefs. It doesn't allow the entrance of anything else, which can hinder unity. A better option would be the mobius strip model, which resembles the infinity symbol. This introduces the idea that there is no difference between the inner and the outer person, and the two actually feed off of each other. Whatever is inside, emerges and interacts with the outside world. We take that interaction and internalize it, and it influences what we form as our personal realities. 

I know that in my everyday life, I definitely alter my personality/appearance to fit the different roles that I have. In a professional atmosphere, I think censoring yourself and being politically correct are very important. It was a little difficult to realize that this is not exactly what Palmer was referring to. A person's inner self is a compilation of many things, and their core values should be what truly motivates the things they do or say. I can see the ways in which I have previously lived the "circle" model. I have always tried to live from my heart and stay true to my beliefs, but there have been instances in which someone did not agree with my beliefs and I was unwilling to hear their side. Our LifeSmart text talks about a biopsychosocial model of development, in which it "results from the interaction of biological, psychological, and social/environmental factors" (Fiore, p. 13). It makes sense that a person's views would be influenced by outside factors, and should not be dismissed because they are different from their own. All of these outside influences help shape a person as they progress through life, and can change accordingly. 

As an aspiring teacher, I think this was a great reminder for how we want our students to look at the world. It is already full of closed-minded people that attach themselves to their beliefs and block out all others. I want my students to be able to address opinions and thoughts that are different from their own in ways that are not demeaning or dismissive. I want them to think critically, but never by passing judgment. We live in an ever-changing, diverse world, and I would love for my students to be equipped with the tools they need to excel within it.