Sociocultural theory, ethology, ecological systems theory, and dynamic system theory all focus on

One of my favorite courses in University was Child Psychology. The first unit of the course discussion contrasted child development stages, milestones, and domains describing children in different stages of development.   This was followed by clarification of the distinctions between various Human Development Theorists through overviews of the major theorists in human development.

For the first unit discussion of the course, I contrasted four theories relating to child development.  I identified some strengths and weaknesses of each theory and compared and contrasted them using real-life examples to illustrate my points.  I made sure to consider how culture and context interacted with these theories.

The four theories relating to child development I chose for discussion are Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, and Erikson’s Psycho-Social Theory of Development.  I chose these theories to compare and contrast as they have influenced the educational system in North America.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory’s strengths include its rich description of the various environmental influences on child and adolescent development.  Bronfenbrenner’s descriptive analysis of the many ways the development of children and adolescents may be optimized has far-reaching implications.  For example, if parents, caregivers, and teachers are provided with workshops focused on improving their parenting / teaching skills respectively, the benefits will be seen in children’s development cognitively and socio-emotionally.  As well, Bronfenbrenner includes the effects values, laws, and customs of the greater society (i.e. Country) has on children and adolescents’ development (Berk, 2005, p. 26).  This theory’s enlightened view that educating families about their strengths and needs empowers them to overcome stressful situations serves to maximize children’s nurturing environments hence stimulating all facets of their development.  Bronfenbrenner has created a theory that is inclusive of the environments in which families are intertwined and recognizes their dynamic nature thereby helping the professionals entrusted with working with family members increase their understanding of the complexities of family function.  Thus, if appropriately applied within a society, Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems would provide professionals such as social workers, teachers, psychologists, and others with stronger abilities to form more productive and effective remedial relationships with the families they are serving.

A weakness in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory is the lack of depth regarding detailed analysis of the specific biological contributors to development, references to which are difficult to uncover, even though he categorized his theory as a bioecological model (Berk, 2008, p. 25).

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development’s strength lies in its embrace of the premise that young children do not think like adults and learn best by having “hands-on” play related educational experiences with familiar aspects of their environment, a concept not identified directly by Bronfenbrenner (Berk, 2008, p. 20).  Examples of this premise of Piaget’s theory include discovery-based educational curriculum such as investigative field and applied studies within all subject areas.

Weaknesses of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development include underestimating the intellectual capabilities of infants, preschoolers, and grade-school children, whom all show greater problem-solving skills when offered tasks to complete that are more familiar and thereby allows them to demonstrate their competencies (Martin, 2003).  One example is the ability of babies to learn simple sign language as a means to communicate their needs and wants.  As well, Piaget viewed children’s cognitive development more as a spontaneous process, one not necessarily dependent upon adult interaction contrary to Bronfenbrenner’s research outcomes.  Bjorklund also challenged Piaget’s view that cognitive growth proceeds through a universal and invariant sequence of stages (Martin, 2003).  Another shortfall of Piaget’s theory involves the exclusion of societal-cultural influences.  For example, in societies where females are considered subordinate and refused the same rights as their male peers, cognitive development is suppressed and stagnated.  The opposite is true in societies where equality of the genders in all aspects of life is the societal-cultural norm.  In addition, Piaget’s theory data, collected based on observations of his own four children, would be considered by conventional scientific criteria, to be invalid due to the limited sample size.

Weaknesses associated with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory include the neglect of the biological aspect of development; details omitted by the theorist Bronfenbrenner as well though he acknowledged biological factors played an integrated role in development along with cultural-societal influences.  Vygotsky also placed less emphasis on children’s ability to influence the form of their own development (Berk, 2005, p.25).  On a more positive note, Vygotsky’s believed that children internalize the dialogues they have with adults and expert peers regarding culturally meaningful activities.  Furthermore, Vygotsky posited that children transform these interactions into internal self-talk, an idea that has been highly significant in supporting the implementation of mentoring and peer tutoring support programs which have been very successful in Canada and the United States (Berk, 2005, p. 24).  I can personally attest to the significant positive outcomes of adults mentoring children because I have been an in-school mentor since 2003 through Big Brothers Big Sisters of Peel (Greater Toronto Area of Ontario, Canada).  Vygotsky also agreed with Piaget’s view that children are active, constructive beings (Berk, 2005, p. 24).  Where Vygotsky and Piaget differ was in their views of children’s dependence upon adult assistance.  Piaget believed children to be independent explorers of their environment; whereas Vygotsky believed children required adult assistance and intervention (Berk, 2005, p. 25).

Vygotsky’s research findings that social interaction surrounding tasks that lead to essential competencies for success in cultures supports the importance of creating community supports to improve competency development outcomes, particularly for vulnerable children, adolescents, and adults.

Piaget and Vygotsky both emphasized the importance of social interactions for increasing the outcomes of cognitive development.  Piaget posited interaction between peers creates what he termed, disequilibrium cognitive conflict, which he believed motivates change.   Therefore, overall, Piaget viewed children as scientists whereas Vygotsky viewed children as apprentices.  However, Vygotsky’s research findings that social interaction surrounding tasks that lead to essential competencies for success in cultures supports the importance of creating community supports to improve competency development outcomes, particularly for vulnerable children, adolescents, and adults.

The strengths I see in Erikson’s theory include his recognition that human development occurs over a lifetime, that development must be understood in relation to cultural-societal factors, and that development is founded upon the competencies and skills valued within a person’s culture and society (Berk, 2005, p. 15).   This concurs with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory.  Another strength of Erikson’s theory is its emphasis on the each “individual’s unique life history as worthy of study and understanding” (Berk, 2005, p. 15).  Children with special needs require adults and “expert” peers, who are compassionate with highly developed socially inclusive behaviors and knowledge of when and how to provide accommodations and modifications interventions, to reduce perceived and actual risks as well as enhance protective relationships in inclusive environments at home, school, and in the community to strengthen their resilience and developmental capacities (Berk, 2005, p. 10).  I know this to be true through personal experience gained over 15 years of raising a daughter diagnosed with autism and a cognitive delay and advocating for educational and social inclusion with continuous improvement in her development.  Consequently, the outcome of one stage is not permanent, but can be altered by later experiences.

A weakness of Erikson’s theory centers around the fact that his ideas were not obtained via any large-scale survey’s rather they were based on his own observations, and his clinical practice and therefore may be somewhat skewed by socio-economic factors.  Evidence and support of quantitative experimental findings are needed to understand more deeply the on-set of each stage Erikson describes.  In contrast, Bronfenbrenner’s theory’s strength is its dynamic nature.  I also believe its strength is it takes into account the great influences on development that culture and societal factors exert on individuals, as does Erikson’s theory.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/PubH5002/hd_theorists/Theorists.asp)

Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development (http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/PubH5002/hd_theorists/Theorists.asp)

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (https://www.google.ca/search?q=Vygotsky%E2%80%99s+Sociocultural+Theory&biw=1745&bih=861&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFp9yAup_JAhULpx4KHU91AJYQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1.1#imgrc=s1vs4RaI4zerBM%3A)

Erikson’s Psycho-Social Theory of Development (http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/PubH5002/hd_theorists/Theorists.asp)

References

Berk, L. (2005). Infants, children, and adolescents. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Berk, L. (2008). Infants, children, and adolescents (6th edition). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., Allyn & Bacon.

Martin, H. (2003). Typical and atypical development: from conception to adolescence. Wiley-Blackwell.

Stika, N., Rahman, Z., Pearson, F., & Echtenkamp, A. (n.d,). Human Development Theorists. from Capella University, Web site: http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/PubH5002/hd_theorists/Theorists.asp