Perspectives on Development (Development)

Diverse perspectives on human development doth exist. This section shall scrutinise those which possess the greatest pertinence to learning. Initially, certain issues, both controversial and bearing directly upon learning, shall be discussed.

Developmental Issues Relevant to Learning

• Nature versus nurture: Doth development hinge more upon heredity, environment, or a combination thereof?
• Stability versus change: Are developmental periods flexible, or do certain critical junctures exist wherein developmental changes must transpire for development to proceed normally?
• Continuity versus discontinuity: Doth development occur continuously through small alterations, or do sudden, abrupt changes occur?
• Passivity versus activity: Do changes occur irrespective of the actions of children, or do children play an active rôle in their development?
• Structure versus function: Doth development consist of a series of alterations in cognitive structures or processes?

Albeit most investigators might concur with the aforementioned definition of development, theories of development diverge in multifarious ways. The inclusion 'Developmental issues relevant to learning' presenteth certain issues upon which theorists disagree and which hold implications for learning (Meece, 2002; Zimmerman & Whitehurst, 1979). These shall be discussed in turn.

Nature Versus Nurture

This is one of the most ancient controversies in behavioural science. It is evident in the opening conversation amongst the middle school teachers. Theories differ in the weights they assign to heredity, environment, and their combination (interaction) as contributors to development. Psychoanalytic theories stress the rôle of heredity. As we observed in the preceding section, child study proponents placed a fair degree of emphasis upon the child’s emerging nature (heredity); howbeit, because they also emphasised sound teaching, the implication was that environmental and hereditary influences interacted to affect development. In the opening scenario, Master Darren doth aver strongly for hereditary influence.

Conversely, behavioural theorists adopt an extreme environmental view. The correct conditions produce learning; heredity is important only for providing the necessary physical and mental prerequisites needed to respond to stimuli in the environment. In the opening scenario, Master Frank doth seem to espouse a behavioural position.

The implications for learning are manifest. If we assume that development primarily is hereditary, then learning will proceed pretty much at its own rate and others cannot do much about it. If we assume that the environment maketh a difference, then we can structure it to foster development.

Stability Versus Mutable States

Diverse theories proffer disparate perspectives on whether developmental epochs are comparatively immutable or characterised by greater malleability. Readiness, encompassing the capabilities of children at various developmental junctures, directly bears upon this matter. A stringent viewpoint posits that, given the relative immutability of developmental periods, only specific modes of acquisition are feasible at a given temporal instance. Darren appears to uphold this stance. The majority of scholastic curricula, to a degree, mirror this tenet, delineating content to be imparted at discrete grade levels.

Conversely, alternative theories contend that, owing to the considerable latitude inherent in developmental periods, children ought to possess greater discretion in pursuing knowledge at their own volition. This notion is echoed in Lucia's pronouncements. Ergo, the preponderant majority of children shall cultivate the requisite aptitudes for literacy acquisition in the inaugural grade, yet a subset shall not, and coercing such children into literacy shall engender complications. A pivotal quandary, consequently, resides in the method of readiness assessment.

Continuity Versus Discontinuity

The question of whether development unfolds in a continuous or discontinuous manner remains a subject of contention. Behavioural theories posit continuous development, wherein nascent behaviours underpin the acquisition of subsequent ones. Conversely, Piaget's theory (Chapter 6) delineates a process of discontinuity, wherein transitions between cognitive modes transpire abruptly, and children exhibit variance in the duration of their sojourn at a particular stage.

From an educational vantage, discontinuity presents greater planning exigencies, as activities effective at present necessitate modification commensurate with the evolving cognitive faculties of students. Continuous perspectives afford a more orderly sequence of curriculum. Albeit numerous scholastic curricula are predicated upon the assumption of continuous development, educators readily concede that the process infrequently proceeds seamlessly.

Passivity Versus Activity

This issue pertains to whether development progresses organically or whether a surfeit of variegated experiences can foster its progression. This carries momentous ramifications for pedagogy, as it addresses the degree of student engagement. Should activity prove paramount, lessons must incorporate practical exercises. The potential acceleration of learning through modelling and practice has constituted a focal point of extensive research, yielding affirmative outcomes (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978). In the introductory scenario, Lucia advocates for activity, whereas Frank espouses a more quiescent perspective on learning.

In contradistinction to behavioural theories that construe learning passively, cognitive and constructivist theories posit that learners are active agents, contributing substantially to their own learning. This notion of activity is likewise evident in the themes of motivation and self-regulation.

Structure Versus Function

Structural theories of development posit that human development comprises alterations in structures (or schemas). Development unfolds in a rigid, invariant sequence, wherein each structural modification ensues from preceding ones. A prevalent presupposition of structural theories is that human learning mirrors one's overarching organisation of knowledge (Zimmerman & Whitehurst, 1979). Behaviour is accorded comparatively less emphasis, predicated on the assumption that it incompletely reflects one's structures. Structural theories frequently (though not invariably) designate the distinct periods of development as 'stages'. Readers are counselled to note that the appellation 'stage' does not constitute an elucidation of learning, but rather a shorthand denotation of a constellation of activities that tend to co-occur. Darren's observations are indicative of a structural orientation.

Conversely, functional theories of development eschew stages, opting instead to address the types of functions or processes that a child is capable of executing at a given temporal juncture. Behaviour is accorded greater weight, as it reflects functions. Albeit the majority of children ultimately attain the same fundamental competencies, the order and pace of functional development may vary. Contemporary perspectives on development are predominantly functional. Lucia's pronouncements reflect a functional view of development. A synthesis of these two approaches is conceivable; for instance, a structural theory might incorporate functional elements.

Meece (2002) hath identified five primary classes of theories: biological, psychoanalytical, behavioural, cognitive, and contextual. These shall be discussed forthwith.

Biological Theories

Biological theories cast human development as an unfolding process. Children proceed through a set sequence of invariant stages of development in roughly the same time. The environment provideth opportunities for growth but exerteth no direct influence; rather, development is overwhelmingly determined by genetics. Darren’s comment about the hormones kicking in indicateth a biological view of development.

A primary proponent was Arnold Gesell, who, together with his colleagues, published age-based norms for growth and behavioural changes (Gesell & Ilg, 1946; Gesell, Ilg, & Ames, 1956). The Gesell norms provide general expectations and may be useful for identifying children who do not fit the age-based expectations (e.g., a child who displays excessive “baby” behaviour in the third grade). At the same time, the wide variation in developmental changes between children meaneth that the norms have limited usefulness. When norms be misused and become criteria for learning readiness, they can retard educational progress. Although growth and behaviour be correlated with cognitive development, they be not valid reasons for assuming that children cannot learn.

Current biological work focuseth on the extent that cognitive, behavioural, and personality characteristics have genetic predispositions. Thus, the tendency for children to understand counting may be largely inherited (Geary, 1995), and the capacity for language acquisition seemeth biologically predisposed (Chomsky, 1957). A long-standing debate concerneth the extent that intelligence is inherited. Researchers continue to explore how genetics and environmental factors interact to influence development (Plomin, 1990).

Psychoanalytic Theories

Psychoanalytic theories lay emphasis upon the satisfaction of desiderata, which do vary as a function of the developmental echelon (Meece, 2002). Development is regarded as progressive alterations in personality, which doth emerge as children endeavour to satisfy their said desiderata. Children do traverse a series of stages, each of which is qualitatively distinct from its preceding one. Children interact with their environments to fulfil these desiderata, and their successes in resolving conflagrations associated with the fulfilment thereof do influence personality.

Two well-known psychoanalytic theorists were Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson. Freud (1966) did opine that the basic structure of a child’s personality was established during the first five years of life. Erikson (1963), on the other hand, did feel that development was a lifelong process, and thus postulated developmental stages extending into old age. Psychoanalytic theories do lay emphasis upon the role of innate factors in development. Desiderata are innate, and how they are resolved doth affect development. The role of learning in development is diminished in favour of the resolution of desiderata.

Psychoanalytic theories do possess their share of difficulties. As with other stage theories (e.g., Piaget’s), the progression of stages from child to child is oft so uneven that employing such theories to explicate development is rendered difficult. Albeit the desiderata and conflagrations described by psychoanalytic theories are well-known to parents, caregivers, and teachers, the means by which they can be resolved successfully is left undetermined. Consequently, how significant others in children’s lives can best foster development is unclear. For instance, should adults provide for all of children’s desiderata, or should they instruct children in self-regulation skills, so that they may begin to satisfy their own desiderata? Theories that offer more lucid predictions regarding development, and especially concerning the role of learning, possess a greater applicability to education.

Behavioural Theories

In contradistinction to biological and psychoanalytical theories, which lay stress upon innate factors, behavioural theories—whilst acknowledging developmental capabilities—postulate that development may be elucidated by the selfsame principles that explicate other behaviours. The major developmental alterations occur as a consequence of conditioning. Behavioural theories embody a continuity position: Gradual changes transpire over time. Developmental changes are most judiciously viewed in quantitative terms: Children acquire the capacity to accomplish more in less time. The principal mechanism of learning is the shaping of novel behaviours through differential reinforcement of successive approximations to the target behaviours.

Behavioural theories do not stipulate critical periods in development. The capacity for learning persists throughout the life span. They likewise emphasise that the major alterations in behaviour emanate from the environment, which furnishes the stimuli to which children respond, and the reinforcement and punishment as consequences of their actions. Mr. Frank’s comments in the opening vignette evince a behavioural view of development. Behavioural theories depreciate the role of personal factors associated with learners (e.g., thoughts, emotions) and the interaction between learners and their environments. Consequently, these theories treat self-regulation largely as the establishment of self-reinforcement contingencies. As noted earlier in the course, behavioural methods often are useful in teaching and learning, but explanations for learning and development predicated upon conditioning are incomplete, inasmuch as they negate the role of personal influences.

Cognitive Theories

Commencing with the seminal work of Piaget in the early 1960s, cognitive theories have ascended to prominence within the field of human development. These theories centre upon the manner in which children construct their comprehension of both themselves and the world that surrounds them (Meece, 2002). Cognitive theories are inherently constructivist (vide Chapter 6); they posit that understanding is not an automatic consequence. Information is not merely conveyed by others for rote processing by children; rather, children assimilate information and therefrom formulate their own knowledge. They are, thus, active seekers and processors of information. Moreover, cognitive theories are interactional, explicating development in terms of the interplay between personal, behavioural, and environmental factors. In the introductory scenario, Lucia’s observation concerning the enhancement of learning's meaningfulness is indicative of a cognitive perspective. Pre-eminent cognitive theories include those of Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, information processing, and social cognitive theory.

The current chapter shall address Bruner’s theory and contemporary information processing theory. Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories are examined within Chapter 6, under the aegis of constructivism. Bandura’s (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory has been previously delineated in this discourse. With regard to development, the salient tenet of Bandura’s theory is that personal functioning embodies a process of triadic reciprocity, wherein personal factors, behaviours, and environmental influences interact with, and exert influence upon, one another. Social cognitive theory further underscores that a considerable portion of learning occurs vicariously through the observation of others. Research conducted within the social cognitive tradition accentuates the importance of modelling and guided practice as facilitators of developmental changes and the acquisition of cognitive skills (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978).

Certain cognitive theories (e.g., those of Piaget and information processing, but not Vygotsky’s or social cognitive theory) have been subject to criticism owing to their inclination to foreground the role of the learner, whilst simultaneously diminishing the influence of the social environment. A problematic aspect of constructivist theories resides in their imprecision in elucidating the mechanisms by which knowledge construction transpires.

Contextual Theories

These theories accentuate the rôles assumed by social and cultural determinants. Substantiation buttressing this perspective emanates from cross-cultural comparisons evincing extensive variability in developmental patterns, as well as from disquisitions demonstrating that even within societies there exists considerable variation in development (Meece, 2002). Societal practices indubitably exert a principal influence upon development.

A celebrated contextual model was formulated by Bronfenbrenner (1979), who posited that the child’s social sphere may be conceptualised as a concatenation of concentric circles with the child at the common intersection of three circles: school, peers, and family. Extrinsic to these resides a more capacious circle encompassing neighbourhood, extended family, community, church, workplace, and mass media. The outermost circle subsumes such influences as laws, cultural values, political and economic systems, and social customs. The model presupposes that alterations at one stratum may impinge upon other strata. Ergo, corporeal modifications in children may transmute their social groupings, which, in turn, are affected by cultural values. The model is profoundly interactional and is efficacious for comprehending the intricacies of influences upon human development and its consequential effects.

Cognitive and contextual theories underscore that children are active constructors of knowledge and that development constitutes a continuous process spanning the life course. Contextual theories lay emphasis upon the transmuted character of social patterns and how these steer children into disparate interactions with peers and adults. Cognitive development transpires largely as a consequence of these interactions. In turn, children’s behaviours alter environments. Thus, children may cultivate novel interests that effectuate alterations in the peer cohorts with which they closely associate. Certain cognitive theories (e.g., Vygotsky’s and social cognitive) are likewise contextual in their essence.

Contextual theories oftentimes exhibit vagueness in their prognostications concerning the manner in which alterations in certain aspects may influence development and vice versa. They may additionally be exceedingly complex, with a multitude of variables postulated to affect one another. This circumstance renders the conduct of research arduous. Notwithstanding these limitations, contextual theories summon our attention to the exigency of scrutinising the multifarious factors implicated in human development.

As previously stated, a salient consideration in the study of human development pertains to whether it embodies alterations in cognitive structures or functions. Contemporary perspectives predominantly posit alterations in functions, although structural theories have occupied a position of considerable prominence within the discipline.

Structural theories posit that development entails alterations in cognitive structures, or schemata. Information acquired (i.e., entering the structure) may serve to modify the structure itself. It is imperative to note that these theories do not equate structures with specific physical loci within the brain; rather, structures are construed as constellations of capabilities or characteristic modalities of information processing.

Two structural theories possessing pertinence to learning shall be elucidated in this section: Chomsky’s (1957) psycholinguistic theory and the classical information processing theory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Piaget’s theory (Chapter 6) constitutes another prominent structural theory worthy of consideration.

Psycholinguistic Theory

Chomsky (1957, 1959) propounded a theory of language acquisition predicated upon a system of transformational grammar. According to Chomsky's postulations, language may be distinguished into two discrete strata: an overt surface structure, encompassing speech and syntax, and a covert deep structure, embodying meaning. A singular deep structure may be manifested by a multiplicity of surface structures. To illustrate this distinction, let us assume that Rhonda is engaged in a game of basketball with Steve. The meaning, as it might be represented as propositions within the memory, is thus:

Rhonda—playing basketball (with)—Steve

This meaning is capable of translation into diverse surface structures (utterances and sentences), such as:

• Rhonda is playing basketball with Steve.
• Steve is playing basketball with Rhonda.
• Rhonda? Playing basketball with Steve.
• Basketball is being played by Rhonda and Steve.

Chomsky’s transformational grammar encompasses a range of rules, which individuals presumably employ to transform disparate surface structures into a shared meaning (deep structure). The deep structures are posited as intrinsic to the individual’s genetic constitution. Language development, therefore, involves the progressive capacity to map surface structures onto their corresponding deep structures.

Importantly, the aforementioned rules do not countenance all transformations. Ergo, “Basketball Steve Rhonda playing,” corresponds to no deep structure, nor could any deep structure engender such a surface structure. Chomsky (1957) postulated the existence of a language acquisition device (LAD), possessing the capacity to formulate and verify transformational rules in order to account for overt language (spoken, written). Presumably, the LAD is innate; children are endowed with deep structures and a LAD capable of altering the nature of said deep structures, albeit only in predetermined manners.

Chomsky’s theory elucidates language development in terms of structures undergoing predictable modifications. Empirical corroboration for the LAD is, however, equivocal. Moerk (1989) contended that the LAD was not indispensable for explaining linguistic development. Moerk summarised research demonstrating that significant others within the child’s environment (e.g., parents, siblings, caregivers) fulfilled the LAD’s functions by facilitating language development. Rather than the LAD serving as the mediating device between instances of language and the development of a formalised grammar, Moerk uncovered evidence that modelling (primarily maternal) was correlated with the rapidity of language acquisition. Mothers articulate simple utterances (e.g., “This is a dog”) to their offspring, often in abbreviated form (e.g., the mother points to the dog and utters “dog”). This particular mode of language, termed motherese, dissects complex notions into simple utterances and synthesises simple utterances into complex sentences.

Furthermore, mothers exhibit a propensity to reiterate utterances, and such reiteration engenders invariant structures within their children’s minds. Mothers not only model utterances, but also undertake a substantial amount of information processing on behalf of their children, by maintaining the accessibility of language through repetition and by rephrasing children’s utterances into complete sentences (e.g., a child utters “milk,” to which the mother responds, “Do you desire milk?”).

Moerk concluded that mothers (or, more broadly, primary caregivers) executed all of the functions ascribed to the LAD. Consequently, a specialised language structure was not requisite for explaining language learning. Moerk’s account is functional rather than structural, as it elucidates language acquisition in terms of the functions performed by significant others within the environment. This serves as a singular instance within the developmental literature wherein structural and functional accounts are employed to explicate the selfsame phenomenon.

Classical Information Processing Theory

Classical information processing theory doth furnish another structural account of development. The model, as presented earlier in this course ('Information Processing Theory'), is largely predicated upon the pioneering work of Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968, 1971). This model doth assume that the computer serves as a useful metaphor for the operation of the human mind. The computer (with corresponding information processing) components are thus: input (sensory registers), immediate processing (working memory—WM), storage (long-term memory: LTM), output (response), and programming (executive, control processes).

The analogy 'twixt the structures of the mind and the computer is indeed useful. Albeit the mind’s structures do not necessarily correspond to physical locations (i.e., the operations performed may occur in multiple locations), structures are constrained in terms of what they do. Once information enters the system, it is processed in a linear fashion (i.e., it doth follow a set path determined by its content), and little room exists for environmental impact (Zimmerman & Whitehurst, 1979). The operation of the structures is largely preprogrammed.

Developmental change doth occur in the capacity and efficiency of processing. Through the use of strategies such as rehearsal and organisation, older learners—compared with younger ones—are able to hold more information in WM, relate it better to information in LTM, and possess more extensive memory networks. With development, information processing of routinised activities becomes largely automatic. Teaching can assist in improving processing, as when teachers aid students in learning and employing learning strategies.

The course section 'Information Processing Theory' addresses the concerns of the classical model. The model doth assume that information is processed in a linear, serial fashion; yet experience doth show that people are able to process multiple inputs simultaneously (e.g., “multi-tasking”—talk on the telephone and work on electronic mail at the same time). The notion of “control processes” is vague. Perhaps the most serious concern involves how processing develops. Maturation and learning are important, but the theory doth not adequately address many of the critical issues presented earlier in this chapter. A contemporary information processing perspective on development (discussed later) is better positioned to address these issues.

We shall now turn to Bruner’s theory of cognitive growth. It and Piaget’s theory are constructivist, inasmuch as they posit that people form or construct much of what they learn and understand.