A Prominent Contribution to the Construction of Modern Childhood - Piagets Ideas - Coursework Example

Outline and critically analyse a prominent contribution to the construction of modern childhood, illustrating your argument with contemporary examples. Jean Piaget is one of the proponents of a developmentalist view of childhood, where he believes that children have a different developmental path compared to adults. He says that this development is not inferior to adults, but only different in qualitative terms (Blundell, 2014). By qualitative, Piaget is saying that children are thinking about their experiences and ideas on a different level from adults. I want to focus on Piaget’s contribution to the theory of cognitive development. Piaget has helped understand how children make sense of abstract concepts through using a mixture of traditional and novel methods that treat children as independent, creative human beings. Despite this view, I think he also discounts the power of individual differences and social factors too much, as he places central importance on children’s innate abilities. Modern childhood, after all, is not only about internal processes, but how children also respond to and are affected by the people and conditions that they interact with and experience, respectively. Piaget has provided scholars with a new framework about children during his time, the framework that they can also think creatively and critically, although in different ways compared to adults. If before, some people put pressure on children to be exemplary citizens or saw them as empty vessels that must be filled up, Piaget offers an alternative view of children. He stresses that children have their own knowledge. Siegler and Ellis (1996) emphasises that Piaget helped scholars think of how children make sense of complex, abstract concepts, such as morality, causality, time, and the mind, among others (p.211). If children can think about these concepts, some scholars realized that they can also study how children discriminate against different concepts or attain generalisations based on tasks or experiences (Siegler and Ellis, 1996). I think this is an exciting breakthrough because some scholars explore questions that are based on their assumptions and biases. If I assume that children hardly know how to think for themselves, I would not even consider conducting studies on how they can treat people from different racial groups differently. However, if I begin from the standpoint that children are creative and reflective beings, I would be interested in knowing if they already have racial biases, and if not, this could mean that their society is the one that teaches them about race and racism. Piaget has pushed scholars to reconsider the capacity of the child’s mind to think, especially when placed in conditions where they are allowed to think and flourish as free thinkers. In connection to the cognitive qualities of children, Piaget has influenced scholars to have interest in how and why children make errors. On the one hand, one of the criticisms on Piaget’s theory on childhood is that he tends to concentrate on children’s errors (Prout and James, 1997). On the other hand, I find this an incomplete analysis of his theory because Piaget believes that children can think about abstract terms through concrete actions or examples in their lives. I think Piaget has contributed to our idea of understanding the process of making errors and how to correct them. I will give an example of a dyadic interaction between a mother and her five-year old daughter. She was teaching her child the difference between a verb and a noun. The child kept on making mistakes. In my mind, I thought she was just being lazy and was no longer interested in an abstract concept. Perhaps she thought, why do I need to know if this is a noun or verb, as long as the people understand me? The mother kept on drilling her child with questions, until she herself got frustrated and shouted at the little girl for not listening to her. The girl cried, and the mother stopped. Using Piaget, I would think that this is an example of forcing children to learn something that they are not yet ready to learn. They are making errors because they do not want to think about the subject being taught to them yet. Piaget may have explained that children make errors by not finding motivation in their learning activities. My point is that Piaget inspires educators to not simply think in a limited way about children making errors. They should consider what is going in on the child’s mind, instead of forcing her to learn. Furthermore, in relation to children’s cognitive development, Piaget has contributed to the combination of various old and new ways of studying children’s learning processes. Piaget shows that experiments cannot fully capture the naturalness of children’s learning environments. He espouses the use of observation because children are in their natural settings. I think what he wants is that we should not greatly change the actual environments where children learn. Experiments tend to change these environments, so results may apply only in these experimental environments. Piaget has made an important contribution to how we study children when he promotes an observation approach to research design (Gray and MacBlain, 2012). What is novel here is the thinking that scholars should find it acceptable to learn about children’s thinking through their behaviours in natural environments. They do not need to manipulate or change many or all environmental conditions to learn about a child’s mind. Furthermore, Piaget contributes something new to the data-collection methods on childhood development research through his addition of interviews for children (Siegler and Ellis, 1996). Others would have seen children as too young to be interviewed or too incoherent to provide valid answers to questions. Piaget, however, believes that children can reasonably explain their actions and choices, which can even provide more concrete information on their thinking processes (Siegler and Ellis, 1996). I think that the success of the interview also depends on many factors. An essential factor is the experience of children with being interviewed or asked. I believe that the interview should be as conversational as possible, so children would not be too self-conscious of their answers. I also think that the children should also trust and like the interviewer, so that they would be open in sharing ideas to them and not be afraid of being wrong and chastised. The setting must also be natural, and children should feel relaxed and not feel hungry, thirsty, or tired. They must not be distracted too much by other things or people around them. I think these conditions tend to be forgotten when adults talk to children, which make them think that children cannot pay attention to questions. My idea is that Piaget has helped me think about children as people with basic needs to be met, before they can be interviewed properly. Another method that Piaget used in studying children is high-level cognition tasks, which is an important contribution to the construction of childhood because it shows that children can think about complex processes and ideas (Siegler and Ellis, 1996). In this regard, Piaget shows that children are not merely empty vessels, or that they are basically illogical. This is an essential contribution because it inspires scholars to ask questions that are not asked before and to test children using more complex tasks that were otherwise not applied to them. Again, these tasks must not go beyond what children can do. My question is, how do we know the limits of children’s cognitive skills and knowledge? I think we cannot answer this until we conduct the experiments. For instance, I cannot know if my student knows how to solve problems, if I have not provided a problem where he can think about solutions and test them out. In addition, I also believe that we can equip children with complex cognitive skills. For instance, scaffolding is an essential aspect of childhood learning. I can support my student’s problem-solving process by providing hints. Or, I can already teach the process of problem-solving and scaffold in teaching him about it. I believe that children are indeed creative and analytical, and the more that we nourish these thinking skills if we start early. I am not saying that we should assume that they are all interested in thinking creatively and analytically, but I think that we would be undermining them if we assume that children cannot think creatively and analytically. Piaget wants scholars to open their minds to the ways children can think, even in ways that may seem unthinkable for adults because they could be thinking differently (qualitatively) about children’s minds. After discussing Piaget’s contributions to childhood, I want to criticise them too, first of which, is his universalist way of analysing childhood development. Some scholars accuse Piaget of focusing on European boys, in particular (Blundell, 2014). Indeed, I cannot generalise Piaget’s findings because he has a limited sampling. He did not study multicultural groups and classroom. He did not compare potential differences in his students too, such as gender, age, and thinking abilities (Gray and MacBlain, 2012). Piaget neglects the reality that individual children are different, so we cannot generalise that one child’s high cognitive development is the same for another child. For instance, his findings cannot be applied to children with learning disabilities. These children also learn differently and would need other strategies and techniques, to first understand how they learn from their external environment, before we test the different ways needed to help them learn basic knowledge and skills. Furthermore, Piaget does not consider inter-group differences (Gray and MacBlain, 2012). For example, I observed a class that was doing quite well in science, while another class was not. They were in the same school and basically use the same learning resources. I thought about their differences and that many of the doing-well class have a mixture of bright and slow learners, while the other class had many slow learners. I realized that it was not good to mix slow learners with people like them, probably because they cannot learn fast when they have poor peer models. At the same time, students who may do well may fare worse in these classrooms if they are not given enough cognitive stimulation, or if they feel the need to go along with their classmates to avoid being different. Piaget does not consider how these group differences can also impact individual learning. The construction of childhood does not involve individual and internal processes only, but also of social interactions. Furthermore, I want to criticise Piaget’s idea on the centrality of internal processes to childhood development because I support that internal and external variables interact in the construction of childhood. I think that children can think creatively and they can even be taught to think analytically, but we can do this because we are social variables that can manipulate social conditions to attain specific cognitive and emotional developmental changes. Piaget’s theory does not propose that a child learns in an environment that can have a strong effect on his mental development (Gray and MacBlain, 2012). For instance, the presence of a caring and skilled teacher who can change teaching strategies according to the learning styles of her students can be more effective in teaching than a detached teacher who believes that she does not need to change her teaching methods (the one size fits all thinking) to fit her students’ diverse learning styles. Piaget should have also considered that if he is the one teaching and he believes that children are creative and analytical in their own ways, then this assumption can brush on children, as if a form of labelling theory. Positive ideas about children that come from teachers can also have positive effects on children’s learning attitudes and outcomes. Teachers can have a significant role in motivating children to learn (Gray and MacBlain, 2012). In addition, Piaget does not study how other factors can impact learning, such as culture, age, gender, race, and motivation (Matusov and Hayes, 2000). Children develop their mental abilities alongside their identities. If they study hard, they may come from a culture where studying hard is a virtue. If they dislike thinking critically, they may come from a culture where authorities and parents dislike people who question their power. As a future educator and researcher, I want to combine studying these internal and external variables. I would be interested in knowing how children learn with respect to their identity and social variables. References Blundell, D., (2012), Education and constructions of childhood, London: Continuum. Blundell, D., (2014), Childhood and education, in Isaacs, S., Blundell, D., Foley, A., Ginsburg, N., McDonough, B., Silverstone, D. and Young, T. (eds), Social problems in the UK: an introduction, London: Routledge. Carpendale, J.I.M., (2009), ‘Piagets theory of moral development, in U. Müller, J.I.M. Carpendale & L. Smith (eds), The Cambridge companion to Piaget, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 270-286. Gray, C. & MacBlain, S., (2012), Learning theories in childhood, London: SAGE. Matusov, E. & Hayes, R., (2000), ‘Sociocultural critique of Piaget and Vygotsky,’ New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 18, pp.215-239. Prout, A. & James, A., (eds) (1997), Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood, London: Falmer. Siegler, R.S. & Ellis, S., (1996), ‘Piaget on childhood,’ Psychological Science, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 211-215. What contribution does spatiality make to the construction of modern childhood and its institutions, and in what ways might understanding this support social constructionisms aim to rethink childrens lives? Spatiality refers to the role of place in the construction of childhood, where it believes that children develop in and through the social spaces they live in (Holloway and Valentine, 2000). It refers to new ways of studying children, or particularly, new social studies of childhood, because it shows how social forces shape children’s thoughts and behaviours (Blundell, 2012, 2014). Spatiality affects the construction of modern childhood through its contribution on how space affects childhood and how certain understandings of space affect children’s social spaces too. Spatiality supports social constructionism’s aim to rethink children’s lives because it gives society the responsibility to analyse social spaces and to provide the kinds of social spaces that would help children have good health and positive behaviours. One of the contributions of spatiality to the construction of modern childhood and its institutions is that it shows how global and local dichotomies of space impact childhood development. Holloway and Valentine (2000) show that global and local spatial beliefs and systems impact children in different ways. I believe than an example is how Eurocentrism can affect the teaching models of once-colonised territories. Developing countries that have been colonised before usually adapt the educational and political systems of their colonisers, with some local changes. Nevertheless, if the underlying beliefs and values are Western, there tend to be problems as local cultural values conflict with Western beliefs. Another illustration would be American individualism that conflicts with Asian collectivism. In school, a student might do his best to become the top athlete, but his teacher and peers would say that he is too individualistic and is not a game player. The point is that global ideas about space can conflict with local spatial ideas, which can result to either the domination of global over local ideas or the continuous clash between different cultural ideals and goals. Another example of how spatiality works in a dichotomy is in a new educational program. For instance, a country decides to create changes in its science and math curriculum because of new world labour market demands. The government instructs schools to invest more resources on science and math without providing additional budget for the reconstruction of priorities. Schools may add advanced science and math classes, while reducing budget or eliminating social sciences and arts subjects and programs. Teachers and students of the latter subjects would get upset and demand equal treatment of all subjects. This example shows how global ideas about space can directly shape local spatial arrangements. The government and businesses work together in controlling the local spaces of children, so that the latter would grow up according to the needs of the business world. Apart from the global/local dichotomies, spatiality underscores the importance of everyday social spaces to rethinking childhood and children. Social constructionism argues that space is never politically neutral because space has political agents and conditions (Holt and Costello, 2011). Holt and Costello (2011) reviewed studies on everyday spaces and learned that schools and education places serve as sites of power because particular discourses shape how proper civilised identities are produced (p.302). Schools are social and political structures that operate according to their normative assumptions about how children ought to be (Holt and Costello, 2011). This study is essential in showing that schools are not neutral in teaching children. What schools choose to teach, and not to teach, would reflect in the learning spaces of their students. If they want to focus more on science and math, even their kindergarten classrooms would be filled with topics and objects about science and math. If they want to focus more on play and creativity, they would fill their classrooms with tools for art and exploration. Spatiality shows that we can control these everyday learning social spaces in ways that fit our specific agenda. Besides schools, neighbourhoods are also important ways of organising space and constructing childhood. Chambliss (1973) studied two high school gangs, The Saints and the Roughnecks, in their natural settings for two years. The Saints came from the upper middle class, had cars and good grades, and were active in different school activities. The Roughnecks came from lower-class families, and they had poor grades and no cars, while also being inactive in extra-curricular activities. Chambliss (1973) also interviewed parents, teachers, and the police. He learned that these adults see the Saints differently, because they stressed that they were only kids doing pranks. They saw the Roughnecks as good for nothings and could be criminals because of their violent behaviours. Chambliss (1973) analysed that how society saw these kids affected their future. Adults saw these kids differently because the Roughnecks were poor and were not mild-mannered and they were then more lenient with the Saints than the Roughnecks. All of the Saints’ members finished college and became part of the upper middle class, while only two of the Roughnecks finished college and had middle-class jobs. The rest became criminals or were jailed. This example shows that how people in the neighbourhood treat children can affect the latter’s development (Jones and Cloke, 2005). Definitely, not all people from poor neighbourhoods become poor or criminals too. The point is that how these spaces are organised impact how children see themselves and how they become in the future too. Besides the neighbourhood, the home is an essential factor of spatiality because it is part of the social spaces that children interact with or are exposed to daily. Disordered spaces in homes may lead to disordered behaviours too, specifically when parents are into habitual fighting or are not present enough to regularly supervise their children (Jones and Cloke, 2005). I believe that spatiality contributes to social constructionism’s aim to rethink children’s development because it puts children in their social context. Children live through their homes, apart from their social spaces. If they have positive or negative behaviours, their homes can provide clues on how they are brought up. A good example is the difference between authoritarian and authoritative parents that I personally know of. The authoritarian parents like to control their children’s activities as much as possible. They have strict rules and punish their children when these rules are broken. They are also not demonstrative in showing their love for their children. Their children appear disciplined at home, but I know they act out their rebellion at school, where they get into fights. The only way they get away with it is because the children they bully are too afraid to tell their teachers, and probably because they are not very aggressive fights (e.g. a little pushing and use of bad words). The authoritative parents, on the contrary, also have rules, but they are more loving towards their children. They explain the logic behind their rules. They also let their children make decisions in some aspects of their lives, such as letting them choose which among certain foods can be eaten. These children are disciplined in and outside their homes. They are active in school activities. I see them as creative and respectful of adults and their peers. Spatiality shows that how parents organise their homes through rules and social interactions mould how children see themselves and interact with other people. Spatiality supports social constructionism’s aim to rethink children’s lives because it gives society the responsibility for their children’s development. If society wants to understand why juvenile delinquency is high, for instance, spatiality provides a framework for understanding local and global spaces. It asks about the neighbourhood: How are children interacting with their peers and other adults in their neighbours? How do the police treat children from low-income families? How are the physical structures in the neighbourhood? Are the sewerage systems working? Are the hospitals able to provide timely and sufficient health care services? Are there spaces for studying, arts, sports, and other forms of rest and recreation? Spatiality also asks about the family: Are parents able to teach good values and behaviours? Do they spank their children hard and frequently without explaining the punishment? Spatiality also inquires about the global space: Do children feel the gap between their social conditions and what they see in the media? Do the youth think that other children have better lives than them and they cannot do anything about it? If the answers to all these questions show that society is not doing a good job in developing good children in safe and clean environments, then it is not entirely impossible why the youth feel detached from their society and would rather engage in delinquent activities. Moreover, spatiality shows that society has a responsibility in providing the kind of social spaces that would help children achieve their aspirations in life. Social constructionism wants society to be accountable for its ability to shape children’s lives. If it wants to resolve children obesity, for instance, it should start with the environment. Spatiality supports that society should not blame children or their families only for their behaviours. Society, including the government, should think about what they are doing wrong that results to negative childhood experiences. An example would be childhood obesity. The government should check zoning laws and determine if it is too lenient in allowing fast food restaurants to proliferate in communities and what it can do to limit them. It should also determine how it can promote the practice of buying and preparing healthy food, especially for low-income families. In other words, spatiality asserts that the government can and should take a large responsibility in shaping daily social spaces. It cannot rely on parents and the media to control social spaces. I think that another aspect of spatiality that supports social constructionism is the power of the media, which basically comes from the power of big corporations that control the media. Spatiality is not only about physical orders, but also of mental relationships between things and perceptions. Spatiality supports social constructionism because it analyses how the media can impact how children see themselves and their bodies and identities. There is a huge gap between the media teaching children to be healthy and teaching them that fast food is delicious and cheap. This is why I believe that spatiality can help understand why the media interact with actual fast food locations in promoting unhealthy eating or diet among children and adults alike. The media possesses power in influencing how people think, and even more significantly, how children think, since they tend to be more easily influenced than adults. If children grow up in an environment where they are the main targets of fast food advertising, they may develop strong fast food preference early in life. They can even develop positive emotions with it, especially when they eat with their friends and they all find fast food as cool to eat. Spatiality supports social constructionism which underlines the role of the environment, particularly the media, in affecting people’s lives. Given these examples, spatiality supports social constructionism in its analysis of social issues and promotion of social solutions. I think that spatiality brings back the government and social institutions to their roles of producing the kind of environments that would promote certain attitudes and behaviours that benefit children’s health and wellbeing. I believe that spatiality argues that society has a central role in children’s lives. Society can either be good or bad for children. I think that some people would think that this thinking automatically means more welfare for the poor or the elimination of parental responsibility and personal responsibility. I argue that spatiality actually connects the individual to his environment in ways that benefits us all. Spatiality pushes us to examine our weaknesses and wrongdoings, so we could create long-term solutions to long-standing social problems. If a child is obese, we cannot simply stop at blaming the child and his parents. If many more children are obese, clearly, we have a social issue with spatial dimensions. If we want to produce comprehensive social analysis and effective social solutions, we should then use spatiality as a crucial dimension in resolving social problems and issues. References Blundell, D., (2012), Education and constructions of childhood, London: Continuum. Blundell, D., (2014), Childhood and education, in Isaacs, S., Blundell, D., Foley, A., Ginsburg, N., McDonough, B., Silverstone, D. and Young, T. (eds), Social problems in the UK: an introduction, London: Routledge. Chambliss, William J. 1973. “The Saints and the Roughnecks.” Society 11(1): 24-31. Holloway, S.L. & Valentine, G., (2000), ‘Spatiality and the new social studies of childhood,’ Sociology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 763-783. Holt, L. & Costello, L., (2011), ‘Beyond otherness: exploring diverse spatialities and mobilities of childhood and youth populations,’ Population, Space and Place, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 299-303. Jones, O. & Cloke, P., (2005), ‘‘Unclaimed territory: childhood and disordered space(s),’ Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 311-333. Read More