Writer’s Choice

paper_one_sampel_of_writing_0 x
Write a four-page paper (Observation) after observing children in a public setting. This could be a mall, a grocery store, a playground etc.
In your writing include these headings:
– An introduction
– A physical description of the location
– A physical description of the individual observed
– Interactions observed – include observation sheet
– Behaviors observed – include observation sheet
Then, using your understanding of human development theories and based upon your brief observations, estimate the developmental stage of the child. You may use any of the theories from the text and include one additional resource to support your analysis.
Textbook- Life-Span Human Development by Sigelman & Rider
“Attach is a sample of the paper”

10

Running Head: LEARNING AND STAGE THEORY IN UNISON

Learning and Stage Theory in

Unison

Human Development

Date

Introduction

This observation applies stage theories and learning theories to describe the estimated level of development of a child. The purpose of this observation is to show that both stage theories and learning theories can be used simultaneously to describe a child’s perceived level of development. These two types of theories are generally seen as opposed to one another, but I believe that they can both shed light on the same subject at the same time, each in important and different ways. I intend to demonstrate that stage theories are more useful in describing where a child is in their development, but that learning theories can be used to better help describe how a child has gotten to this point and how they are continuing to grow into and beyond it.

Data Collection

The data for this observation was gathered in two distinct stages. The first was by watching a subject’s interactions with his father in a crowded library, the second by watching the subject’s interactions with the same environment while not under direct supervision by his father. I believe the subject’s behavior both under direct supervision and with little show a normal level of development that I attribute to what appeared to be good health, intelligence, and a good family environment.

Subject

The subject of this observation is a young boy between four and six years of age. During the observation, the subject was energetic and explorative, but was generally well behaved and respectful. The subject’s father brought him to the library and was in close proximity throughout the observation. I do not know the subject or his father, and beyond my short observation of the subject, lasting about fifteen minutes, know nothing about either of them.

Developmental Theories Applied

I am applying four developmental theories to the subject’s interactions and behaviors to determine his stage of development, how he may have arrived there, and how they may indicate his continued growth. Two of the theories are stage theories, and two are learning theories. I have focused on specific aspects of each theory to arrive at these determinations.

The first stage theory is I am applying Jean Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory. Piaget’s theory is based on the idea that children actively construct their understanding of their world through their experiences, and contains four distinct stages that Piaget believed were universal for all people and that must be gone through in an invariant order (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The specific aspects of this theory I will be focusing on for this observation are the preoperational stage of development, when a child becomes able to work things out in his head and is starting to use the imagination, as well as the idea of symbolic capacity, the ability to use one object to represent another (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).

The second stage theory I am applying is Erik Erikson’s psychosocial theory. Erikson believed that children mature through eight psychosocial stages, also described as conflicts, through their lives (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The specific aspects of this theory that I will be focusing on are the stages of trust vs. mistrust, when a child learns to either trust or not to, autonomy vs. shame, when a child learns either to employ their own abilities or not, and initiative vs. guilt, when a child learns either to plan and follow through or not (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).

The first learning theory I am applying is Lev Vygotski’s sociocultural perspective. This theory is founded on the idea that the child’s development is guided by his surrounding sociocultural context and his interactions with other members within, further stating that the child’s culture provides tools such as language or mathematical systems that the child uses to come to understand the world around him (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The specific aspects of this theory I will be applying are the ideas of guided participation and the zone of proximal development, which together state that children can learn more by being guided through the proximal zone, the gap between what can be learned independently and what can be learned with help from a parent or other elder (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).

The second learning theory I am applying is Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. This theory is grounded on the idea that people are cognitive beings who actively seek out behaviors that result in rewards and avoid behaviors resulting in punishment, either of which can be self-imposed or internalized (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The drive to explore new behaviors and learn from the lessons resulting is called human agency, the deliberate exercising of cognitive control of a person on their own development (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The aspects of this theory I will apply are human agency, as seen above, as well as the idea of observational learning, which states that people can learn vicariously through the witnessed actions of others (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).

Subject’s Interactions With His Father

The subject and his father arrived at the library mid-afternoon, and proceeded to the children’s books section. The child stuck close to his father, but it did not seem that he did so out of a sense of fear of either the crowd in the library or of getting into trouble by his father for not doing so. This was shown by the child’s unabashed and curious looks at what others were doing and his general comfort with his father. The child looked to be very trusting of the environment and his father, demonstrating that he has surpassed Erikson’s stage of trust vs. mistrust.

The child stood with his father at the bookshelf, looking at the books his father showed him and either nodding with excitement when shown a book he liked or shaking his head with what I took to be a “seriously, dad?” when shown a book he did not like. The father kept the books the subject liked and put back the ones he did not. When the subject and his father had picked out a selection of a dozen or so books, they moved off to one side and the father flipped through the books with the child, as if to get a second opinion and be sure of their selections. The father would point things out and the child would either react with excitement, confusion, or what I could have sworn was ennui. When the child acted with confusion, the father would show the child again and it appeared that he would also re-explain things to the child as he did. On a few of these occasions, the child appeared to reconsider and recognize that the book was worth keeping, or become excited with the book anew. This behavior demonstrates Vygotsky’s principles of guided participation and the zone of proximal development, which the father appeared to have guided the child through. After the subject and his father agreed upon which books to keep, the father took the others back and walked to the nearby fiction section. The child was now free to wander about the kid’s zone.

Subject’s Independent Interaction With His Environment

The child wandered around for about a minute, then looked to the table where I sat typing on my laptop, another middle-aged man typing away across the table from me on his laptop. The child then noticed some computer keyboards on the table and took one over to a short table for children nearby. The child proceeded to type on the keyboard, acting very serious as the other laptop user and I were acting, but occasionally looking over at us expectantly and with a smile. I feel that the child was demonstrating autonomy as opposed to shame and was showing that he had successfully entered and was displaying actions within Erikson’s stage of autonomy vs. shame by deciding that he wanted to be a “typer” like the two big guys at the big table. I also believe that the child was demonstrating Bandura’s idea of observational learning by emulating what older members of his culture were doing and picking up the basic idea of using a keyboard to accomplish whatever task he imagined we were doing. A third idea I believe the subject was demonstrating by typing his imaginary paper was Piaget’s idea of symbolic capacity, which he showed by using a keyboard and emulating work on a laptop.

Leaving the Library

Soon after the child started typing on the keyboard, his father found a book and came over to the child to gather him up and leave. When he arrived at the table, the child excitedly got up and followed his father out, showing no distress at having to leave his project mid-stream. I feel that this could have demonstrated that the child has not yet reached Erikson’s stage of initiative vs. guilt, as he had not complete anything with his project, but showed no distress over his unfinished work. On another hand, it may only have been that the child did not set out to accomplish anything, he may have only wanted to emulate what the older people near him were doing, further evidence that he was displaying autonomy but not yet initiative.

Unison

All of the activities, behaviors, and ideas I have presented thus far can be shown to work in unison to describe the subject’s perceived level of development, and have helped to explain each other’s effects on one another. Erikson and Piaget’s stage theories demonstrate that the child has the capacity to act independently and imaginatively, as a child in Erikson’s autonomy vs. shame or Piaget’s pre-operational stage should be able to do at the collective ages of two to seven. There is also evidence that the child may not yet be fully in Erikson’s stage of initiative vs. guilt that should be reached between ages three to six. These stages all fit the child’s perceived age range of between four and six years of age.

Vygotsky and Bandura’s learning theories help to explain how these stages may have been achieved. This is shown through ideas like Vygotsky’s guided participation, which I believe requires the trust in the child’s father achieved during Erikson’s first stage of development. It is also exemplified by the idea that the autonomy of Erikson’s second stage could be required for the child to be motivated to demonstrate Bandura’s observational learning mechanism, and that the child may again need the trust achieved at Erikson’s first stage to feel that the actions of strangers are a good thing to be doing in the first place. Connections are also shown by the child’s necessary completion of Piaget’s sensorimotor stage and entry into the preoperational stage to be able to demonstrate symbolic capacity and imagination in exercising Bandura’s observational learning through the keyboard emulating the laptops.

One last example shows that unison is already present between stage and learning theory. This example is the remarkable similarity between Erikson’s idea of autonomy and Bandura’s idea of human agency. Both describe a person’s ability, more significantly, a person’s drive, to do things on their own. There is only a minor difference between the two: Bandura sees the ability as present at birth but Erikson sees it as a stepping-stone requiring previous development.

Conclusion

In this paper I have attempted to show how learning and stage theories can be used in unison to describe the level of a child’s development. More importantly, I have attempted to show how learning and stage theories can help explain each other and collectively allow one to come to these combination-based conclusions. Based on my observations, I have come to the conclusion that the child is at a combination of Piaget’s preoperational stage and Erikson’s autonomy vs. shame stage, as learned through these two theories alongside Bandura’s social cognitive theory and Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective. I believe that in the coming months, the child will enter new a stage, Erikson’s initiative vs. guilt, while remaining partially in another, Piaget’s preoperational. However, I believe he will only do this with the aid of his society’s tools and the inspiration found through observing his elders and from receiving their help to surpass the trying times between stages, between theories.

References

Sigelman, C., & Rider, E. (2009). Life-Span Human Development. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Running Head: LEARNING AND STAGE THEORY IN UNISON

Learning and Stage Theory in Unison

Human Development

Date

Running Head: LEARNING AND STAGE THEORY IN UNISON

Learning and Stage Theory in Unison
Human Development
Date