Developmental Psychology and Enquiry to How the Subject Matter Offers Insights into Other Specific Areas - Literature review Example

Student’s name Course code+name Professor’s name University name Date of submission LITERATURE REVIEW ON DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND A THEORETICAL ENQUIRY INTO HOW THE SUBJECT MATTER OFFERS FURTHER INSIGHTS INTO OTHER SPECIFIC AREAS By (insert your name here) Contents Contents 2 1.0.Introduction 3 2.0.Adult Developmental Psychology and Existing Models 4 3.0.Behaviorist Views on Child Developmental Psychology 5 4.0.Constructivist Views on Child Developmental Psychology 7 5.0.Social Constructivist Views on Child Developmental Psychology 8 6.0.Conclusion 9 7.0.References 10 1.0. Introduction This literature review intends to begin with an overview of developmental psychology so as to present the needed context, and then focus more specifically on developmental constructivist or structuralism, behaviorist, maturationist and social constructivist views. These will be the main focus of the review since these views reflect how developmental stages can be mapped out thus offering insight into specific areas of developmental psychology. This review intends to this by first considering the first, the more classical stage of developmental psychology like that of Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning and Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. It then focuses on more recent schools of thought or models and theoretical frameworks such as that of William Torbert and the action logic and Robert Kegan and the order of consciousness. Even more interesting and newer models such as Theo Dawson, Michael Commons and Kurt Fischer which focus on the idea of hierarchical complexity will help build the subject matter. This review will conclude by giving opinion on attempts that have been made to bring connection and coherence between all the above models or views, including controversies, limitations and recommendation for existing and future researches. 2.0. Adult Developmental Psychology and Existing Models Earlier researches such as Bergen (1992) and Eccles and Harold (1993) only focused on child development. The emergence of new models such as hierarchical complexity have brought changes whereby the research has moved to adolescence and recently, adult development. Good explanation regarding interest in adult developmental psychology has been explained by Hoare (2006) in her book, Handbook of Adult Development and Learning. Though she mentions a number of reasons, Freud influence remains conspicuous. Commenting on Freud’s, Hoare cites that Freud maintains that psychosexual development comes to an end when adolescence stage ends. Freud further looks at adult developmental in a negative fashion arguing what adults ought to do what they should not do. Though this perspective has provoked scholars such as Hoare to be concerned with adult developmental psychology, my opinion regarding Freud’s model is that Psychology will soon be failing to study what positive adult developmental entails and what can cause such developments. Furthermore, scholars such as Inglehart and Welzel (2005) and Inglehart et al. (2008) attribute adult developmental psychology as ongoing process that are marked by certain events such as marriage, starting to work, getting children and retiring. This has made contemporary scholars such as Kegan (2010) term these events as ‘qualitative changes’ (p.76) that takes adult developmental psychology towards another level of complexity. Hoare concludes her work believing that the interest in adult developmental psychology has been due to factors such as rise in life expectancy whereby in US for instance, by twentieth century, life expectancy stood at 47 but it now stands at 80. Consequently, researches now focus what constitute adult developmental psychology. Just like with other developmental psychology (child’s notably) Alexander and Langer (1990) bring the idea of hierarchical theory to explain adult developmental psychology. They postulate that adults go through stages of development that are hierarchical and cannot be skipped. Inglehart and Welzel (2005) agree with this theory but bring clear distinction between hierarchical and non-hierarchical theories suggesting that though adult developmental psychology cannot be skipped they are also unidirectional. Protagonists of non-hierarchical theory include Seasons of Adulthood as postulated by Daniel Levinson (Levinson, 1986). Levinson agrees with hierarchical development but dispute the fact that there is ego development and hierarchical development in cognition during adult development. In my view, Levinson tries to integrate constructivist views with the theory of hierarchy because he tends to believe that adults tend to internalise their views as learners and this is based on learning practices and stages of their lives. Talking of constructivist views, Baltes and Freund (2003) bring another aspect of non-hierarchical theory arguing that though constructivist can be used to understand adult developmental psychology, it cannot be assumed that there is unidirectional development overall. 3.0. Behaviorist Views on Child Developmental Psychology On contrary, behaviorist theory disagrees with constructivists, hierarchical and non- hierarchical theories. To them, children developmental psychology is stimulated. That is, children cannot develop on their own (Bergen, 1992; Eccles and Harold, 1993; Hoare, 2006). Hoare for instance argues that children develop as a result of learning sets of what she describes as, ‘relatively passive responses to stimuli from environment’ (p.203). She says parents or guardians are practical example of such stimuli. Eccles and Harold add that developmental psychology in children does not always assume intrinsic motivation. It there stands out that Hoare’s opinion is just an advance of another behaviorist’s theory which is innatist position as explained by Baltes and Freund (2003). Innatist posits that it is the responsibility of adults or people around children to mould behaviours that developmental psychology in children needs (Baltes and Freund). Unfortunately, innatist tend to ignore earlier warnings from developmental psychologists such as Piaget (1964) who warned against teaching or making children reproduce thinking from their adults; instead suggested that teachers or adults to make use of children’s natural ability or curiosity to learn so as to foster their creativity, critical thinking and inventiveness. Kohberg theory or Kohlbergians assumes Piaget’s stance but believe that evidence for the link is not certain (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). Kohlbergians ignore one important aspect; the fact that motivational and emotional components of children play significant role in turning reasoning into action. In a different research, Kegan (2010) tends to disagree with Piaget suggesting that sometimes developmental psychology in children do not need child centered approach. Instead, in some circumstances, children have the ability of learning basic skills such as word recognition and number in a rather didactic (instructional) manner. There seems to be even more controversies regarding Piaget’s ideas (Levinson, 1986; Alexander and Langer, 1990; Baltes and Freund, 2003). These scholars sugges that compared with children from didactic environment, self centered children are highly motivated, perceived competence and more positive towards school activities. What has not been captured by behaviorist views on child developmental psychology is whether parents or teachers using behaviorist theory and making use of didactic mechanisms value interests of children such as competence, motivation and creativeness. 4.0. Constructivist Views on Child Developmental Psychology Researches indicate that teachers’ or parents’ constructivist view on child’s developmental psychology is consistent with that of child centered practices (Inglehart et al., 2008). Some studies also produced compelling findings that development of children is about helping them do what they want to do the most. Beginning with Fowler (1981), he is another constructivist who has expanded this theory with developmental structuralism into both children and adults with what he terms as ‘stages of faith’ (p.46). Fowler being the first protagonists of constructivist theory builds developmental structuralism by arguing that there are six stages in children and adults that follows tacit worldview. Though he does not mention child centered practices as a motivator to his stages, Fowler believes that both adults and children have the six stages which should not be religious. Rather, they are broader and embrace agnostic beliefs. Fowler’s model resembles that of Piaget and Kohlberg in the sense that it underlies structure of faith. As discussed above, constructivist generally agree that development is helping children do what they want to do the most. Fowler’s model goes beyond this as it entails cognitive, self reflection and meaning making. Broader models from Jane Loevinger and Robert Kegan (key development structuralists) also agree with the idea of self reflection and meaning making in the process of development (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). 5.0. Social Constructivist Views on Child Developmental Psychology There exist examples of social constructivist approaches that discuss developmental psychology (see Moll, 1990; Rogoff, 1998). However, this review will restrict itself to distinctive aspects. According to social constructivist view, mind of a child is a product of their interactions and experiences with others and other cultural tools existing within their environment. Broader models from Inglehart and Welzel (2005) indicate that developmental psychology in children depends upon the extent to which an opportunity to solve problem through adult’s guidance present itself to a child. There is an argument regarding zone of proximal development as far as social constructivist theory and developmental psychology is concerned. Proximal development posits that parents or teachers guiding children to develop need to understand children’s domain given thinking. There is one key argument that social constructivist have failed to capture---the importance of language in mediating activity participation amongst children especially in internalising habits. Furthermore, this theory fails to create room for Jane Loevinger’s model of ego development which is broader compared to other theorists mentioned thus far. Loevinger describes the ego or self and its progressive meaning making and re-organisation in response to the changing experience with environment around (Loevinger, 1987). In as much, there are some criticisms from authors such as Inglehart and Welzel (2005) that Loevinger’s ideas are indebted to the psychoanalytic view therefore offers nothing new. Contemporary scholars have been linking this model with maturationist theory. Maturationists argue that developmental psychology in children is biological-based. That is, development in children revolve around their innate knowledge, innate tendencies to explore, natural progression through definite stages and competencies children develop within sensitive or critical periods in their life (Baltes and Freund, 2003). Other studies also lend support regarding the relationship between maturationists and social constructivist arguing that in both cases there is the notion of developmental readiness. Given this belief and the current attempt by pre-schools to emphasise on self-centered learning, it will be interesting to find a research detailing how to teach pre-school learners and how views of these two models will influence views of their teachers. 6.0. Conclusion This review has captured some major theorists of developmental psychology, noting its rich history and available researches. As mentioned, these theories and models have their shortcomings but still handy in future researches especially the broader theories and measures of Loevinger, Kegan and those that have developed recently. This is because their models tend to factor in mistakes done earlier and thus offering well documented view regarding the subject matter. This review also notes that though it has extensively borrowed from Piaget’s model; especially the ‘genetic epistemology’, there are critiques surrounding this notion. For future research, it would be interesting to note how ‘genetic epistemology’ can be integrated with ‘dynamic Kantians’ who see development as a process which is continuous, integrated and differentiated. This review has also realised some disagreements with scholars on some issues. It is hoped that such disagreements and shortcomings will be used as a ladder that can gradually yield further progress through well documented theoretical contemplation and progressive integration of past and current research findings. 7.0. References Alexander, C. N., and Langer, E. J. (1990). Higher Stages of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Baltes, P., B. and Freund, A., M (2003). The intermarriage of wisdom and selective optimization with compensation: Two meta-heuristics guiding the conduct of life. Washington, D. C: American Psychological Association. Bergen, R. (1992). Beliefs about intelligence and achievement-related behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Eccles, J., & Harold, R. (1993). Parent–school involvement during the early adolescent years. Teachers’ College Record, 94, 568–587. Fowler, J. F (1981). Stages of Faith. USA: HarperCollins. Two meta-heuristics guiding the conduct of life. Washington, D. C: American Psychological Association. Hoare, C (2006). Handbook of Adult Development and Learning. New York: Oxford University Press. Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., and Welzel (2008). Development, freedom and rising happiness: A global perspective (1981-2007). Pespectives on psychological science, vol 3, no 4, 264-285. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kegan, R (2010). Interview with WIE magazine on his subject-object theory. Downloaded from: http://www.wie.org/j22/kegan.asp Levinson, D. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, Vol 41(1), 3- 13. Loevinger, J. (1987). Paradigms of personality. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Moll, L. (1990). Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applications of socio- historical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press. Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. Ripple, & V. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered (pp. 7–20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), & D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Vol. Ed.), Cognition, perception, and language: Vol. 2. Handbook of child psychology (pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley. Read More

as made contemporary scholars such as Kegan (2010) term these events as ‘qualitative changes’ (p.76) that takes adult developmental psychology towards another level of complexity. Hoare concludes her work believing that the interest in adult developmental psychology has been due to factors such as rise in life expectancy whereby in US for instance, by twentieth century, life expectancy stood at 47 but it now stands at 80. Consequently, researches now focus what constitute adult developmental psychology.

Just like with other developmental psychology (child’s notably) Alexander and Langer (1990) bring the idea of hierarchical theory to explain adult developmental psychology. They postulate that adults go through stages of development that are hierarchical and cannot be skipped. Inglehart and Welzel (2005) agree with this theory but bring clear distinction between hierarchical and non-hierarchical theories suggesting that though adult developmental psychology cannot be skipped they are also unidirectional.

Protagonists of non-hierarchical theory include Seasons of Adulthood as postulated by Daniel Levinson (Levinson, 1986). Levinson agrees with hierarchical development but dispute the fact that there is ego development and hierarchical development in cognition during adult development. In my view, Levinson tries to integrate constructivist views with the theory of hierarchy because he tends to believe that adults tend to internalise their views as learners and this is based on learning practices and stages of their lives.

Talking of constructivist views, Baltes and Freund (2003) bring another aspect of non-hierarchical theory arguing that though constructivist can be used to understand adult developmental psychology, it cannot be assumed that there is unidirectional development overall. 3.0. Behaviorist Views on Child Developmental Psychology On contrary, behaviorist theory disagrees with constructivists, hierarchical and non- hierarchical theories. To them, children developmental psychology is stimulated. That is, children cannot develop on their own (Bergen, 1992; Eccles and Harold, 1993; Hoare, 2006).

Hoare for instance argues that children develop as a result of learning sets of what she describes as, ‘relatively passive responses to stimuli from environment’ (p.203). She says parents or guardians are practical example of such stimuli. Eccles and Harold add that developmental psychology in children does not always assume intrinsic motivation. It there stands out that Hoare’s opinion is just an advance of another behaviorist’s theory which is innatist position as explained by Baltes and Freund (2003).

Innatist posits that it is the responsibility of adults or people around children to mould behaviours that developmental psychology in children needs (Baltes and Freund). Unfortunately, innatist tend to ignore earlier warnings from developmental psychologists such as Piaget (1964) who warned against teaching or making children reproduce thinking from their adults; instead suggested that teachers or adults to make use of children’s natural ability or curiosity to learn so as to foster their creativity, critical thinking and inventiveness.

Kohberg theory or Kohlbergians assumes Piaget’s stance but believe that evidence for the link is not certain (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). Kohlbergians ignore one important aspect; the fact that motivational and emotional components of children play significant role in turning reasoning into action. In a different research, Kegan (2010) tends to disagree with Piaget suggesting that sometimes developmental psychology in children do not need child centered approach. Instead, in some circumstances, children have the ability of learning basic skills such as word recognition and number in a rather didactic (instructional) manner.

There seems to be even more controversies regarding Piaget’s ideas (Levinson, 1986; Alexander and Langer, 1990; Baltes and Freund, 2003). These scholars sugges that compared with children from didactic environment, self centered children are highly motivated, perceived competence and more positive towards school activities.

Read More