Beginnings of the Scientific Study of Development (Development)

The genesis of the scientific study of human development is profoundly anchored in history and philosophy. These shall be examined seriatim.

Educators do acknowledge the influence of development upon teaching and learning, albeit this hath not invariably been the case. During the 1800s, life in the United States, and the role of children within society, were disparate from their present state (Mondale & Patton, 2001). Notwithstanding the guarantees enshrined within the U.S. Constitution, education was not universal, being rather the preserve of children from the middle and upper strata of society. Many children—particularly those hailing from rural and working-class milieux—laboured to procure funds or otherwise assist in the sustenance of their families. Such children attended school sporadically, and many relinquished their studies at a tender age. At the elementary level, the principal aim was to impart reading; the “3 Rs” had not yet attained standardisation. Secondary schools were, for the most part, preparatory institutions for the universities, which were oriented towards the humanities and religion.

The epoch spanning the American Civil War and the First World War, oft designated the Industrial Revolution, is widely celebrated for substantive advancements, albeit life was arduous. Economic exigencies engendered an underclass, notwithstanding the protracted hours of labour performed by many individuals six days per week. Insalubrious sanitary conditions fostered the propagation of diseases within the burgeoning cities.

Schoolmasters were austere, and lessons were frequently protracted and tedious. Children were expected to study and learn assiduously; should they fail to learn, they (and not society, parents, or teachers) were held accountable. Individualised instruction was non-existent; students toiled upon the same lesson concurrently. Schoolmasters lectured and conducted recitations. They were trained in school subjects, rather than pedagogy.

Into this tableau entered a multitude of immigrants to the United States, especially between the years of 1880 and 1920. This vast influx necessitated substantial augmentations in the number of schools and teachers. Normal schools and universities were ill-equipped to furnish copious quantities of high-calibre teachers. Normal schools constituted the predominant source of teacher preparation, but were increasingly perceived as inadequate, particularly for the preparation of secondary teachers (Davidson & Benjamin, 1987). In the latter moiety of the nineteenth century, schools of education were established in greater numbers at major colleges and universities. The exigency lay in training teachers to manage large cohorts of students from diverse origins.

The disquisitions of educational philosophers and critics did also serve to establish the scientific study of the development and improvement of education. A number of European philosophers, inclusive of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel, did write extensively concerning the nature of children. As their writings became better known in the United States, educators and others did increasingly question whether U.S. education was appropriate for students.

Rousseau (1712–1778) held the belief that children were fundamentally good and that the purpose of education was to assist in developing this propensity. Teachers ought to establish one-to-one relationships with students (i.e., tutor/tutee) and consider their individual needs and talents in arranging learning activities. Above all, learning ought to be satisfying and self-directed; children ought to learn from hands-on experience and not be compelled to learn.

Pestalozzi (1746–1827) did emphasise that education ought to be for everyone and that learning ought to be self-directed rather than rote—the dominant style of learning at the time in U.S. schools. Pestalozzi stressed the emotional development of students, which could be enhanced through close relationships between teachers and learners.

Froebel (1782–1852) believed that children were fundamentally good and in need of nurturing commencing at an early age. He founded the kindergarten (“garden for children”), which reflected his belief that children—like young plants—needed to be nurtured.

Recall the Chapter 1 discussion of how psychology underwent a transformation beginning at the end of the nineteenth century from a branch of philosophy to a science of its own. A similar transformation occurred in education. The emergence of psychology, writings on the goodness of children and the necessity for their nurturing, and pressure for the education of all children triggered by large numbers of immigrants—along with other influences (e.g., social Darwinism, compulsory attendance laws)—did lead to a call for the scientific study of children.

By the end of the nineteenth century:

Davidson & Benjamin, 1987, p. 46:

Immigration and industrialisation heightened the need for schooling, the increasing enrolment of students sparked a demand from parents and teachers for information about how to teach children; the social Darwinists and individual difference psychologists wished to know about how adult differences started, and the child welfare workers desired assistance in planning programmes to aid children. The Child Study Movement attempted to meet these diverse needs.

We shall now turn to a discussion of the Child Study Movement.

Hall’s Work

The generally acknowledged founder of the Child Study Movement is G. (Granville) Stanley Hall (1844–1924). Subsequent to receiving his doctorate from Harvard University, Hall studied in Germany for a period of two years and became quite enamoured with the German educational system and its particular view of the child’s nature (Davidson & Benjamin, 1987). In 1882, he addressed the National Education Association, advocating for child study as the very core of the study of pedagogy. Subsequently, he conducted a large-scale investigation of Boston children entering into formal schooling. He administered a rather lengthy questionnaire, meticulously designed to ascertain the extent of their knowledge on various subjects (e.g., animals, mathematics). The results therefrom demonstrated that the children possessed a profound ignorance of many salient features of U.S. life (e.g., a staggering 93% were wholly unaware that leather is derived from animals).

As a professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University, Hall was most favourably positioned to establish child study as a veritable scientific discipline. Hall (1894) posited that the relatively nascent science of psychology possessed a natural and fitting application to the field of education. Alas, Hall did not remain actively involved within the movement for long, owing to his relocation to Clark University as its president; however, he did continue to speak publicly on the importance thereof and publish extensively on the subject (Hall, 1894, 1896, 1900, 1903). Others became strong proponents of child study, and active centres were duly established within universities and normal schools.

From the very outset, the Child Study Movement was broad in scope and somewhat ill-defined, it must be conceded:

Hall, 1900, p. 689:

It is a nondescript and . . . unparalleled movement—partly psychology, partly anthropology, partly medico-hygiene. It is closely related at every step to the study of instinct in animals, and to the rites and beliefs of primitive people; and it has a distinct ethico-philosophical aspect . . . with a spice of folk-lore and of religious evolution, sometimes with an alloy of gossip and nursery tradition, but possessing a broad, practical side in the pedagogy of all stages. It has all the advantages and the less grave disadvantages of its many-sidedness.

Despite Hall’s glowing description, the broad scope of the Child Study Movement eventually contributed, it must be conceded, to its ultimate undoing.

Aims and Methodologies

A perceived exigency for the study of children arose amongst pedagogues, parents, and sundry individuals, premised on the conviction that both instruction and child-rearing might be ameliorated through a proper comprehension of juvenile nature. A cardinal objective of the Child Study Movement resided in the advancement of education (Davidson & Benjamin, 1987). Antecedent to this movement, the prevailing supposition held that acquaintance with children might be acquired through the very act of teaching. Conversely, proponents of child study maintained that such acquaintance ought to precede instruction, thereby rendering education more efficacious and gratifying. “From this standpoint, it doth become manifestly plain that the pedagogue must be cognisant of two matters: (1) the subject-matter to be imparted; and (2) the nature and capacity of the minds wherein it is to be implanted” (Hall, 1900, p. 699). The Child Study Movement lent considerable impetus to the establishment of schools of education within universities, fostering robust connections with public scholastic institutions.

A further aspiration consisted in the acquisition of knowledge conducive to improved parenting (Davidson & Benjamin, 1987). Through a deeper understanding of child development, parents would be better positioned to secure the fullest realisation of their children's potential.

In consonance with its intimate association with the discipline of psychology, the Child Study Movement also pursued a research programme. This programme was primarily directed towards a more profound understanding of children through the medium of testing. Hall devised an extensive questionnaire, which served as a precedent for others. Additional research methodologies employed included naturalistic observation, assessments of aptitude and ability, and psychophysical investigations into vision and perception.

Critique

The Child Study Movement, it must be conceded, furnished several signal contributions to the disciplines of psychology and pedagogy. One such contribution was the 'baby biography', a systematic chronicle of observations pertaining to a single child over a protracted duration. These biographies furnished meticulous accounts of the child's actions, responses, and verbalisations, thereby illuminating the developmental progression of various processes. This mode of longitudinal research, predicated upon naturalistic observation, remains commonplace to this day, particularly amongst those scholars concerned with the study of infants and toddlers.

A second contribution lay in the introduction of children as research participants. The experimental methodologies germane to the burgeoning science of psychology were increasingly deployed in the study of children. The Child Study Movement served to foster the conviction that children were legitimate subjects for research. As the corpus of research findings expanded, so too did the need for avenues of publication and presentation, precipitating the establishment of new journals and professional associations.

Furthermore, the Child Study Movement exerted an influence upon the training of teachers. Normal schools and university faculties of education were entrusted with the provision of pre-service training of the highest calibre, such that graduates might competently discharge their teaching duties. As with other learned professions, pedagogy benefited from teacher education programmes firmly underpinned by educational theory and research.

Finally, the Child Study Movement served to fill a palpable lacuna in the public sphere. A desire for information concerning children was manifest amongst the populace, a desire which advocates of child study were keen to satisfy (Davidson & Benjamin, 1987). Child-care professionals, such as teachers and social workers, perceived a need for greater knowledge in order to more effectively execute their duties. The proliferation of journals led to the publication of articles concerning methods of teaching specific school subjects. In regard to teaching methodologies, the emphasis on drills and recitations diminished somewhat, as children were increasingly permitted freedom of expression and exploration of their own interests (including through play). In sum, the Child Study Movement exerted a humanising influence upon educational practice.

Notwithstanding these contributions, a number of psychologists and educators voiced criticisms concerning the soundness of the Child Study Movement. Whilst ostensibly grounded in research, many studies of children suffered from suspect validity, owing to methodological deficiencies and flaws in assessment instruments. Data were frequently collected by parents and teachers. Whilst such participatory research is commonplace today, it was, in Hall's time, opposed by many professionals, who maintained that only trained experts were qualified to collect data.

Perhaps the principal defect of the Child Study Movement, a defect it shared with functionalism, was the excessive breadth of its focus, which rendered it incapable of maintaining cohesion. The Child Study Movement comprised an amalgam of individuals with disparate interests and agendas, including researchers, practitioners, parents, child-care providers, and administrators. In attempting to achieve too much, it achieved little with true distinction. Hall's self-imposed estrangement from child study, coupled with his writings on controversial topics (e.g., corporal punishment, the role of women in education), created a vacuum in leadership. The ascendance of behaviourism in psychology further contributed to its decline.

Nonetheless, the legacy of child study endures in a variety of guises, including psychology (educational, developmental, school, experimental child, and mental testing), education (early education, teacher training, physical education, and special education), and counselling (social work, vocational) (Davidson & Benjamin, 1987). As child study became more scientific, new child development centres flourished at universities.

The Child Study Movement exerted an influence upon many individuals who subsequently rose to prominence in their own right. John Dewey (Chapter 1) studied under Hall at Johns Hopkins and collaborated with other proponents of child study. Arnold Gesell (discussed later in this chapter) capitalised upon child study's emphasis on normative data to produce age-related norms. Edward L. Thorndike (Chapter 3) furnished educational research with a much-needed methodological sophistication and endeavoured to make sense of the findings of child study research studies. Thorndike continued to emphasise the integration of learning and development (Davidson & Benjamin, 1987).

By the 1920s, the Child Study Movement had ceased to be viable and had been effectively supplanted in psychology by behaviourism. We shall now turn our attention to an examination of the types of developmental theories that have emerged since that time.