‘Give me a dozen healthy infants, … and I’ll guarantee to … train him to become any type of specialist …’
(Watson, 1924, p. 104, my emphasis)
As such, children learn through two processes. Pavlov’s Classical conditioning describes automatic learning in animals. Here, a stimulus acquires the ability to evoke a response originally evoked by another stimulus because of its learned association to the more powerful original stimulus (Oates et al, 2005, pp.51-2). Watson (1924) extended this to human learning in an ethically questionable experiment creating a phobia in 11-month-old infant ‘Little Albert’. The second process is Skinner’s operant conditioning. It explains how behaviours are learnt from their consequences and shape future occurrence of that behaviour. Using the ‘Skinner box’ he taught animals new ‘unnatural’ behaviours exploiting the operant of reinforcement to strengthen behaviour (Oates et al, 2005, pp.53-5). Employing this technique, Applied Behavioural Analysis has helped autistic children achieve educational successes (Keenan et al., 2000; The OU, 2006). Conversely, punishment can weaken behaviour if it is contingent and consistent such as using of time-out techniques (Klein, 1996). In sum, Behaviourism’s reductionist view accounts for direct social experiences solely in "mechanistic" terms of acquisition. However, ignoring mental processes it cannot explain acquisition of language, cognition and social behaviour, ideas better represented by social learning theory.
Extending Behaviourism, Social learning theory (SLT) considers how vicarious processes of social reinforcement can explain learning. Derived by Bandura, it involves processes of observational learning and modelling whereby:
‘… from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.’
(Bandura, 1977, p. 22)
Crain (2000) augments this point finding Guatemalan girls learn to weave almost exclusively through observation. As such, observational learning is characterized by four interrelated elements: primarily, the child directs ‘attention’ in observing others experiencing reinforcement or punishment; subsequently, this affects their ‘motivation’ to ‘reproduce’ observed behaviours based on mentally ‘retained’ information. The ‘Bobo Doll’ experiment conducted by Bandura (1965) demonstrates this where children imitated an adult’s actions by assuming the role of the observed adult through perceived reinforcement. However, the experiments methods have drawn attention to the powerful influence television violence has on children (Liebert et al, 1977). Bandura (1973) explored this in a follow up study; his findings suggest children imitate aggressive behaviour if the model is similar in age and sex or has desirable characteristics whereby learning progresses through three stages: exposure, acquisition, and acceptance (Oates et al, 2005, pp.61-2). Interestingly, Davidson (1996) reports the amount of television violence watched better predicts adult aggression than socioeconomic or childrearing factors. In contrast, educational television can positively influence a children’s academic achievement (Hutson et al, 1981). In sum, SLT presents social experiences as observations that become internalized through a self-driven, continuous interaction between behaviour, cognition and environment. However, it doesn’t describe the processes of cognitive change hence reflects a bridge between Behaviourism and Constructivism.
Constructivism is a theory of knowledge inspired by Piaget’s ‘natural stages’ of cognitive development. This organismic account portrays children as inherently active and through continually interacting with the environment they shape their own development. Piaget (1955) carried out case studies on his own children discovering children's thinking is qualitatively different than adults. From this, he asserted development occurs in distinct, measurable, and observable stages in relation to cognitive abilities of ‘object permanence’, ‘Centration’ and ‘ego-centrism’ (Oates et al, 2005, p. 66). Fundamentally, all children traverse four sequential stages (sensori-motor, pre-operational, concrete operational and formal operations) characterized by qualitatively different ways of thinking. Piaget determined this by linking particular tasks to a core concept associated with a developmental stage. For example, numerous experiments use ‘conservation’ tasks as they represent an understanding absent at the pre-operational stage (Light and Oates, 1990; The OU, 2006). In moving from one stage to the next, the child’s process of ‘coming to know’ involves adaptation to the environment by constructing and reconstructing schemas. This systematic process comprises the child’s ‘Intrinsic motivation’ or innate desire to fit new experiences to schemas. Hence, the child’s ‘assimilation’ of pre-existing schemas to new concepts introduces new information and the ‘accommodation’ of this information thus alters previous schemas to suit the environment. As such, the child can comprehend the world at progressively higher levels of understanding. These findings have led to support for ‘discovery learning’ where teaching is subordinate to a rich learning environment. As such, environmental exploration, particularly through peer contact stimulates ‘socio-cognitive conflict’ that fosters ‘accommodation’ (Oates et al, 2005, pp. 68-9). In sum, constructivism accounts for social experiences contending the child organizes these environmental cues into a working model of the world. However, in focusing on the individual it ignores the social and cultural context of child development, ideas taken up by Social constructivism.
Social constructivism draws on the work of Vygotsky emphasizing the role culture and social interaction play in the child’s cognitive development. Vygotsky, cited in Oates et al (2005) postulated children’s social and psychological processes are fundamentally shaped through appropriation of cultural tools (p. 71). Vygotsky (1986) considered language as particularly important in serving two functions: external speech for interactive communication and inner speech for mental reasoning. However, each arises separately, children up to 2 years old develop language exclusively as a social function in communicating their needs. From 2 years onwards, particularly in difficult situations, children’s ‘egocentric speech’ reveals the internalization of social experience. Accordingly, Vygotsky (1978, p. 57) argued learning occurs ‘…first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level…’. This convergence of social and psychological worlds can accelerate the child's learning through didactic relationships involving more knowledgeable people. Vygotsky (1978) termed this region of social to psychological transfer the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). It represents the current and potential abilities as to concepts and ideas the child to can understand independently or through collaborative guidance. Wood describes how the child’s learning is supported by ‘scaffolding’ in the ZPD and reduced as the child develops more autonomous thinking (Wood et al., 1976). This notion supports a discovery model of learning that fosters metacognition which Donaldson (1978) argues is a key outcome of formal education. Furthermore, these ideas have developed ideas about inclusive education in the UK (Thomas and Glenny, 2004). In sum, Social constructivism reasons social experiences play a fundamental role in cognitive development as a joint construction between people. However, it doesn’t consider the child’s point of view.
Reviewing the theoretical perspectives, they all co-exist in accounting for social experiences but understand child development as very different types of learning. Simply, Behaviourism explains ‘how’ we learn from direct exposure to social experiences; SLT as ‘what’ we learn by observing social experiences; constructivism as ‘when’ we learn by assimilating social experiences and Social constructivism as ‘why’ learning as a result of culturally shaped social experiences. Considering complementarities between the theoretical perspectives, SLT and Social constructivism identify social experiences as the most distinct influence in child development. In contrast, Behaviourism and constructivism consider universal, structural processes of development. Alternatively, complementarity of constructivism, SLT and Social constructivism considers children are active agents in their learning and self-regulate their social experiences. Furthermore, Behaviourist, constructivist and social constructivist ideas have been successfully applied to support the child’s educational experiences. Determining how the perspectives conflict; constructivism, social constructivism and SLT reflect mediation of social experiences between a stimulus and response thus conflict with Behaviourism. Huesmann et al. (2003) argue this point where development of pro-social behaviour is more likely if the child understands why they are being treated in a certain way. Nonetheless, Behaviourism best supports autistic and anti-social behaviour. Alternatively, Behaviourism and SLT don’t give insight into cognitive processes. Though constructivism and social constructivism do consider these processes, they reflect polar opposites. Piaget sees development precede learning, the individual as the source of learning and learning as a construction. However, Hughes and Grieve (1980) argue Piaget's tests create demand characteristics. Modification of Piaget’s conservation tasks has shown children’s performance changes when a ‘human sense’ element is introduced (Light et al., 1979; The OU, 2006). As a result Donaldson (1978) argues their reasoning is more sophisticated and embedded in a social context. This concurs with Vygotsky’s emphasis of learning as appropriation; learning preceding development and learning emerging out of social processes. In sum, applying Grieg and Taylor’s (1999) illustration, we see Behaviourism and Constructivism take a positivist approach where children are ‘determined, knowable, objective and measurable’ whereas Social constructivism and SLT take a qualitative approach in that children are ‘subjective, contextual, self-determining and dynamic’'.
In conclusion, child development is characterized by learning involving the transmission, acquisition, accretion, and emergence of information. Behaviourism and constructivism are useful in describing the basic processes of child development. However, because development does not occur in a social void the theories are diminished. Therefore, because SLT and social constructivism place emphasis on social interaction they more directly account for the role social experiences play in child development. Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear development is enormously complex and each perspective is integrally linked. Therefore, no one perspective alone can fully account for development; rather, each should be used as a lens to interpret particular areas of developmental phenomena.
Word count: 1993
References:
Bandura, A. (1965), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) pp.60-1.
Bandura, A. (1973) ‘Reading B: Learning through modelling’, in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) pp. 85–6.
Bandura, A. (1977), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 59.
Crain, W. C. (2000), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 59.
Davidson, J. (1996), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 62.
Donaldson, M. (1978), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 70-4.
George, R. Oates, J. and Wood, C (eds) (2006) Methods and Skills Handbook, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.
Grieg, A. and Taylor, J. (1999) cited in George et al. (2006) p. 11.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J., Podolski, C. P. and Eron, L. D. (2003), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 58.
Hughes, M. and Grieve, R. (1980), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 70.
Huston, A. C., Wright, J. C. and Wartella, E. (1981), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 62.
James A, and Prout, A. (1997), cited in Woodhead (2005) p. 15.
Keenan, M., Kerr, K. P. and Dillenberger, K. (2000), ‘Reading A: Applied behavioural analysis and autism’ in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 81-3.
Klein, S. B. (1996), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) pp. 56-7.
Liebert, R. M., Poulos, R. W. and Marmor, G. S. (1977), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 61.
Light, P. and Oates, J. (1990), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) pp.67-8.
Light, P. H., Buckingham, N. and Robbins, H. (1979), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 69.
Oates, J., Sheehy, K. and Wood, C. (2005) ‘Theories of development’, in Oates, J., Wood, C. and Grayson, A. (eds) Psychological Development and Early Childhood, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.
Piaget, J. (1936/1955), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) pp. 63-4.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762), cited in Woodhead (2005) p. 31.
The Open University (2006) Media Kit, ED209: Child Development DVD-ROM (Media Kit Part 1, Video Band 1), Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Thomas, G. and Glenny, G. (2004), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 75.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) pp. 71-2.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) pp. 72-4.
Watson, J. B. (1924), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) pp. 52-3.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S. and Ross, G. (1976), cited in Oates, Sheehy and Wood (2005) p. 73.
Woodhead, M. (2005) ‘Children and development’, in Oates, J., Wood, C. and Grayson, A. (eds) Psychological Development and Early Childhood, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.
by
mmorley (student)
