Summary: Piaget’s, Vygotsky’s, Erikson’s Theories of Social Development
Introduction
McLeod (2007) observes that a number of learning theories have been advanced to describe the nature social development, key among them being postulated by Erikson, Piaget and Vygotsky. According to him, the foundations laid by these theoretical approaches to human development have been used in various sectors for purposes of conceptualizing and formulating general as well as particular universal patterns that help to improve our understanding of certain phenomena. Such occurrences are characterized by learning, intelligence development, and social interactions. As a result, a number of suggestions have been proposed based on their findings with the aim of defining the exact nature of human’s social development. It is in this regard that a critical look at such articles would help bring to light critical issue associated with social development.
Vygotsky’s Development Learning Theory. Clinical Supervision
Catherine Nye gives an in-depth criticism with regard to the application of Vygotsky’s Development Learning Theory. In this article, she deals with the efficacy of the development theory for interpreting learning in the supervisory relationship mainly on the issues of dependence and independence. She begins by analyzing the implications of dependence verses independence in a learning relationship and observes that while independence is encouraged and seen as the ultimate goal of development, dependence on the other hand is linked with immaturity and as such is negatively valued. She further notes that dependence beyond a certain age is normally diagnosed as a problem while autonomy and independence are regarded as trademarks for mature, responsible and normal persons (Nye 2007). Models such as Vygotsky’s Development Learning Theory seek to revalue the role of dependence in development. In particular, she identifies three key concepts, internalization, scaffolding and the zone proximal development, which assist in the interactions of a supervisor and supervisee. This enables them create a healthy and dependent learning environment.
Douvan, E. (1997) Erik Erikson: Critical Times, Critical Theory, Child Psychiatry &
Human Development
Elizabeth Douvan’s discusses the work and legacy of Erik Erikson with the help of a brief outline of his career, his theories, and his impact on the fields of psychoanalysis, psychology, history, and the broader culture. She begins by observing that Erikson’s emphasis on the impact of history and culture on development was a critical element in the developing field of ego psychology. According to Elizabeth, Erikson’s critical contributions were his keen and thoughtful analysis of the process by which the individual and society intersected. Moreover, human’s quest to understand how an individual came to represent, in a miniature copy in his life and in ideology, the central preoccupation of a particular society for a given epoch was also a feature that Erikson had extensively dealt with (Douvan 1997). Finally, she observed that Erikson’s artistic prowess had influenced our current awareness of the intimate connection between the power of concepts and their presentation in compelling language.
Stevenson, H.W. (1962). Piaget, Behavior Theory, and Intelligence. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development
Harold Stevenson discusses some of the similarities and differences between the developmental psychologies of Jean Piaget and current approaches to American behavioral theories. Mainly, he offers an account of the development of intelligence within the context of behavior theory. In his attempt to integrate these two approaches, Harold observes that both Piaget and Behavior Theorists are historical theories that reject the possibility of sudden changes in behavior, independent of relevant prior experience (Stevenson 1962). In addition, he notes that they are reinforcement theories which postulate some similar processes. In regard to their differences, he observes that perhaps the major difference between the behavior theorists and Piaget is in the emphasis they place upon the individual’s role in intelligent response (Guthrie 2003). Stevenson goes ahead to explore Piaget’s views mainly on the assimilation and accommodation processes.
According to Stevenson (1962), it is assumed that there are differences among children at birth in intellectual capacity and that the number of stimulus elements required to produce response is negatively correlated with intellectual level. He further explaines that there are several ways in which such differences among subjects could be tested. For instance, the bright subject should make a greater number of responses to a stimulus in a given period of time than a dull subject. He further observed that there were few studies in which the relationship between ease of learning had been related to intellectual level (Schickendanz 2001). In his view, he believed that differences in performance which were related to differences in intellectual level should appear in transfer problems. Consequently, such problems should be seen as sensitive measures to differences in intellectual level (Stevenson 1962).
Discussion
Nye’s article on the application of Vygotsky’s Development Learning Theory in education emphasizes on the importance of guidance and controlled dependence between the supervisor and the supervisee in building a complete and well mentored individual. This presupposes some form of determinism which is contrary to the Biblical teaching of autonomy and free will. According to Genesis 1:26-27, God created an independent human being with the rational mind to make his own decisions and therefore man is free to think and make value judgment about his life. Guthrie James (2003) on the other hand advances Piaget’s theory of behavior by noting that behavior in the early stages of development can be used to predict the intellectual development pattern of an individual. Similarly, Harold explored the possibilities of pre-determined intellectual development. In the predetermined state, as it may suggest, human beings may be born with different intellectual potential. However, in Genesis 2:24, we observe that man was made in the likeness of God and therefore gives no account for individual differences.
It is also worth noting that the three articles differ substantially in terms of the approaches they employed in research. Nye’s article describes the application of Vygotsky’s theory in education by exploring the supervisor-supervisee relationship in regard to independence and dependence. Harold on the other hand, discusses a case study of subjects in their early years in relation to their intellectual development later on in their lives. Elizabeth’s article takes a whole new course by discussing the life and career of a famous personality in a bid to draw similarities between individual’s (in this case Erikson) work and the influences of life experiences in development and learning. Nonetheless, a common ground in the three articles rests in the fact that their postulations are geared towards application in the field of education. In regard to expediency of the issues discussed, Nye’s article presents a stronger argument as it addresses practical issues that affect educational setup and goes further to relate these issues with the theory’s principal assumptions thereby offering practical solutions. This is uncharacteristic to Elizabeth’s and Harold’s articles that are based on theoretical concepts and theoretical analysis of an individual’s behavior.
In conclusion, it has been established that a great rift exists between Christian psychologists and learning theorists concerning an individual’s behavior and development overtime. For example, the Bible emphasizes on an individual’s present conduct by stating that man is judged by what he is at present, but not what he was before and therefore an individual’s past has got nothing to do with his present or future (Isaiah 1:18). Learning psychologists on the other hand study an individual’s behavior in the past and how it may have or will influenced his present or future life. Nonetheless, learning theories have influenced the way through which education policies are formulated and thus have established a practical way of studying human development and behavior.
References
Douvan, E. (1997). Erik Erikson: Critical Times, Critical Theory, Child Psychiatry & Human
Development, 28(1), 15-21. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=119&sid=a781afbe-aaaf-439c-af44-f5ad2ba08126%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=ehh&AN=6323261
Guthrie, James W. (2003) "Piaget, Jean (1896-1980)." Encyclopedia of Education. 2nd ed. Vol.
5. New York, NY: Macmillan
Mcleod, S. A. (2007). Simply Psychology; Vygotsky. Retrieved 28 January 2012, from
http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
Nye, C (2007). Dependence and Independence in Clinical Supervision: An Application of
Vygotsky’s Development Learning Theory. Clinical Supervision, 26(1/2), 81-98. doi:10.1300/J001v26n01.07: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=119&sid=a781afbe-aaaf-439c-af44-f5ad2ba08126%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=ehh&AN=6323261
Schickendanz, Judith A. (2001), Chapter 1 Theories of Child Development and Methods of
Studying Children, Understanding Children and Adolescents (4th ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stevenson, H.W. (1962). Piaget, Behavior Theory, and Intelligence. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 27(2), 113-126: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=119&sid=a781afbe-aaaf-439c-af44-f5ad2ba08126%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=ehh&AN=6323261
