Motor Development Theories - Report Example

Motor Development Theories Student’s Name Institution Tutor’s Name Course Date Motor Development Theories Introduction There are a number of motor skills that infants should learn as they grow. Some of these skills include sitting, crawling, talking, and walking. The development of motor skills in children is considered a very crucial thing as it determines the way various aspects develop in them as they grow (Butatko & Daehler 2012, p. 7). The way motor skills develop in children is well explained by the various motor development theories. There are three major motor development theories, including maturation, information processing and dynamic theories (Slater 2010, p. 36). Maturation, the first motor development theory, was developed in the 1940s by Arnold Gessel who was a renowned paediatrician, educator and psychologist. Gasell was able to come up with the theory after making several observations of children. The maturation theory asserts that the developmental changes that occur on a child’s body result from the aging process and not from life’s experiences. The theory is rooted on the power of biological forces, which are seen to provide momentum for the physical development that occurs in children (Slater 2010, p. 37). The information processing theory, the second motor development model, also offers another way of examining how motor skills develop in children. The information processing theory, which is also known as the biological model, was developed between the 1960s and the 1970s. The theory relates children’s mental development processes to the way computers process, encode, and decode information stored in them. The theory argues that by ages 2 to 5 years, an average child should be able to focus his mind for an extended period, remember old information and relate it to the present (Butatko & Daehler 2012, p. 9). The dynamic system model, the last motor development theory, explains how children learn about new motor skills. The theory argues that the new motor skills come as a result of a continual and dynamic interaction of three main factors: the biomechanics and capabilities of the child’s body, the child’s nervous system development, and the environmental constrictions and support. The interaction of the three factors determines how children learn to do things, such as crawling, walking and kicking, on their own (Slater 2010, p. 39). Although the three major motor development theories are important in explaining how motor skills develop in children, this paper only tackles one of the theories: the dynamic systems model. The paper addresses various aspects of the dynamic system theory including the person who was behind the development of this hypothesis. The paper uses a number of movement/motor examples from partnership setting to explain how the theory was developed. Lastly, the paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the dynamic systems theory in relation to the maturation theory. The Dynamic Systems Theory It is evident that children develop skills differently from one another. For instance, there are infants who learn to walk without crawling; however, a good number of them crawl first before they can learn how to walk (Hollenstein 2011, p. 256). The children, who walk without crawling, learn the walking skills on their own. They, in most cases, sit for a longer period after which they stand and walk. The children who crawl first also learn the crawling skills on their own. They begin by shuffling on their bellies, followed by crawling on hands and knees (Slater 2010, p. 39). The dynamic systems theory involves a lot of physical observations on the infants as they learn new motor skills. However, there are also studies that experimenters of the theory undertake to allow them to observe children from the time they begin to learn a new skill until they can do it perfectly. These observations are referred to as micro-genetic studies of motor development (Butatko & Daehler 2012, p. 9). The studies show that the way infants acquire new motor skills is very much similar to the way the new motor skills are learned during adulthood. The acquisition and learning of a skill are marked by numerous trials and errors. The infant or the adult has to put great concentration to be able to learn a new motor skill. The skills are practiced through repeated trails and errors until the person becomes an expert on those particular skills. A child uses the knowledge he acquires in a particular motor skill to develop yet another new one (Hollenstein 2011, p. 256). The dynamic systems theory seeks to disapprove the maturation theory, which argues that motor skills develop in children as they mature. The dynamic systems theory asserts that the development of these skills is affected by an active and recurrent interaction of a number of factors. These factors are three and they include biomechanics and capabilities of the child’s body, the development of the child’s nervous system, and environmental support and limitation. The dynamic systems theory has been illustrated by a number of theorists using the various motor examples that have been stated below (Butatko & Daehler 2012, p. 10). Motor Examples Explaining Dynamic Theory Development There are a number of studies that have been conducted to explain the dynamic systems theory. The first study illustrated the theory by investigating the act of kicking in infants. The theorist behind this study was Esther Thelen, who used about 24 3-month-old babies to support the theory (Hollenstein 2011, p. 257). This study was conducted with each baby being placed in a crib in a supine position. A soft elastic ankle cuff was then attached to one leg of each infant and connected to a brightly coloured overhead mobile using a chord. The infants were expected to kick, which would in turn make the mobile dance (Slater 2010, p. 40). The infants quickly learned how to make the mobile dance by kicking. They found the experience exciting and did it repeatedly. The other leg that was not attached to the cuff moved alternately with the one attached to the mobile. The researcher then altered the arrangement by attaching the cuffs to both legs. She attached both legs to two separate ankle cuffs, which were in turn attached to the mobile movements. She then joined both legs of each infant using a strip of Velcro (Hollenstein 2011, p. 257). The result of the second arrangement was startling. The infants first tried to kick both legs separately, but that attempt failed. The children were expected to kick both legs alternately because this is the more natural way of doing it. However, the children slowly learned to kick both legs together, which made the mobile move. Consequently, Thelen’s study shows that motor development in children can be induced. The infants in the study were able to move their two legs at the same time to solve the motor task imposed on them in the experiment (Slater 2010, p. 40). Another study, which supports the dynamic systems theory, was conducted by Thelen and Spencer to investigate the development of successful reaching in infants. The study was a follow up of the first study that investigated the kicking in infants. The objective of this longitudinal study was to explore the interrelationship between various motor structures. The results of this study showed that there exists such an interrelationship (Slater 2010, p. 40). The results showed that the aspect of reaching in infants occurs systematically. Infants first establish a stable control over their heads before they begin working towards the aspect of reaching. Afterwards, infants begin to develop muscle patterns, which assist them to stabilize both their shoulder and head. The reorganization, which results in the stabilization of the head and shoulder, is what enables infants to continue reaching until they achieve perfection on the aspect. Consequently, the results of the study show that infants can only attain successful reaching after they acquire a stable posture (Hollenstein 2011, p. 258). Lastly, a different study has been conducted to investigate how the aspect of walking develops in infants. It is a well known fact that infants are very heavy on the top as a result of big heads and weak legs. However, this mass imbalance is corrected as infants grow as the body weight is redistributed with time. The centre of mass is slowly pushed downwards up to the time it rests around the navel. In this case, the adjustment is achieved by the infants’ bodies, which are observed and believed to grow to counteract the weight of the head (Slater 2010, p. 41). The theorists behind the development of this study are Avolio and Adolph. The theorists suggested that as infants grow, there has to be an adjustment in their bodies that in turn can enable them to adapt their motor systems to match the changes that occur in their bodies. This, consequently, shows that the motor system is dynamic and keeps on adjusting to accommodate the physical changes that occur on the body of an infant as he grows (Hollenstein 2011, p. 258). A study conducted by theorists Avolio and Adolph showed that infants can make adjustments to their motor systems over a short duration. The theorists used a number of 14 months-old babies to carry out the study. They attached saddlebags over each shoulder of the infants. The saddlebags were seen to increase the chest circumference of the infants by the same size in each of the two situations: the lead-weight negligible mass of 2.5 kg, and the feather-weight of negligible mass of around 120g. The two conditions increased the weights of the infants by about 25%, which raised the centre of mass of the infants; this, in turn, made the children more stable (Slater 2010, p. 41). The infants who had lead-weights appeared to be more cautious than their counterparts who had feather-weights. The former were seen to make lengthened tentative movements. They only attempted to walk down a slope after first trying to sway, touch and then lean. This shows that the infants were interested in testing the new change they had detected in their bodies. They were making adjustments before they could decide on what they could do. This study supports the dynamic systems theory as it shows that children have the dynamic flexibility and can make necessary adjustments to allow them to address any motor challenges they face. This implies that children do not have a fixed understanding of their motor abilities as many people may think (Slater 2010, p. 41). Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dynamic over Maturation Theory Strengths The dynamic theory is seen as an advancement of the maturation theory and so the former is more elaborative than the latter. Firstly, the dynamic systems theory seeks to explain the way movement in children is controlled by the self-organizing features of their bodies (Hollenstein 2011, p. 258). The theory explains that children’s bodies are built by several cooperative and complex systems such as the skeletal and muscular systems. Each of them develops at different rates, which bring about the complexity of coordinated movement in children. It is the coordination of these systems that in turn brings about movement in infants and not the physical growth as asserted by the maturation theory (Butatko & Daehler 2012, p. 9). The dynamic systems theory uses both muscular forces and mechanical interactions in children to explain how motor skills develop in children. Unlike the maturation theory, which only relies on muscular forces to explain the development aspect, the dynamic systems theory uses both mechanical interactions and muscular forces to explain how children learn new motor skills as they grow (Butatko & Daehler 2012, p. 11). According to the dynamic systems theory, the way the two factors contribute to motor skills development depends on other factors such as the centre of body mass and body position. Consequently, it is easy to understand that development of motor skills in children requires more than just the physical growth that take place in them (Spencer, Perone, & Buss 2011, p. 263). Weaknesses The dynamic systems theory has a number of weaknesses in relation to the maturation theory. The former does not give priority to biological or genetic factors as the main forces that influence the abilities of infants to learn new motor skills as they grow. It is recognized that biological or genetic inheritances are some of the main factors that influence the development of motor skills in infants. In many cases, the biological factors determine how infants learn how to coordinate various parts of their bodies to achieve various motor skills such as kicking and walking (Spencer, Perone, & Buss 2011, p. 265). The dynamic theory asserts that factors, other than the biological ones, also primarily determine how children learn various motor skills. However, any factors apart from the biological forces are secondary and only influence the biological ones. It is believed that children are born with natural forces that help their bodies to accommodate various changes caused by the development of motor skills (Hollenstein 2011, p. 259). Conclusion This paper outlines the three principal theories of motor development in children. It is evident from the studies that have been conducted in the last two decades that the development of motor skills in human beings begins at the infancy stage and continues throughout their lives. The development is not only influenced by biological factors, but also an interaction between several factors. The factors that have been proven to have great influence on motor development in children include the biomechanics and capabilities of the child’s body, the development of the child’s nervous system, and environmental factors. The interaction of the three factors and their influence on motor development in children are well explained by the dynamic systems theory. References Butatko, D, & Daehler, MW 2012, Child development: a thematic approach, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Hollenstein, T 2011, ‘Twenty years of dynamic systems approaches to development: significant contribution, challenges, and future directions’, Child Development Perspectives, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 256-259. Slater, A 2010, An introduction to developmental psychology, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Spencer, JP, Perone, S, & Buss, AT 2011, ‘Twenty years and going strong: a dynamic systems revolution in motor and cognitive development’, Child Development Perspectives, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 260-266. Read More