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.