The reading for the week on chapter
2: Theories of development broke down the similarities and differences between
some of the major theories on development. These major theories all can be
categorized into their own specific category. Freud (psychoanalytic), Erikson
(psychosocial), Piaget (cognitive), Vygotsky (cultural), Skinner, Bandura (behavioral),
and Lerner (contextual). Each theorist had a strong position on what they feel
is the core or source of human development. Almost all of the theorists discussed
in this chapter have evidence and data supporting their theory. However, as the
book warned at the beginning of the chapter, each theory is vulnerable to
having gaps in real-life application/scenario.
As
researched and supported as Freud’s theory on development from a psychoanalytic
standpoint is, I find it very difficult to truly consider. I agree that
psychosexual stages are present in human development, however I do not think
they can be attributed to the basis of human development. If anything, Freud’s
five stages could be considered as a supportive element to development, rather
that the foundation.
I
have never taken a psychology class prior to ED Psych last spring through
Trinity. With that being said I found myself trying to not only understand each
theory, but also actually believe it. As foolish as that may sound, I have
never considered any of these theories and concepts, so therefore I find myself
eagerly wanting to find conviction in one of them. This made the reading very
difficult for me because I tried to dissect and apply each theory to how I
think about human development.
In
the end, I related best to Erikson, Pavlov, and Skinner. Erikson’s Psychosocial
Theory of Development seems the most logical to me. He breaks the stages of
human development into 8 stages of life crisis. These stages cover all of the
important parts of each human’s life. Table 2.1 on page 32 lays out his theory
really well and it made a lot of sense to me. The psychosocial crisis is the
“equation” and the psychosocial strength is the “product”. For example,
Initiative vs. guilt = purpose.
The presence of conflict/crisis requires resolution in order for the
individual to move on.
Pavlov
and Skinner’s theories about conditioning just make sense to me. I think
conditioning is something I experienced a lot as a child growing up. My parents
used conditioning in potty training me and enforcing curfew to name a few
examples. I also have used conditioning and reinforcement in the classroom
setting and have seen great results in the behavioral development in a number
of students.
I too am a big fan of Pavlov and Skinner. Glad to see the theorists are making you so introspective. They all do have such different views on development. Pavlov and Skinner are both behaviorists that care very little about thinking and more on how the environment shapes development. It is more of a no nonsense approach. So when it comes to nature vs. nurture the theorists you are drawn to definitely take more of the nurture approach.
ReplyDeleteMr. Jones, I am the same way when it comes to analyzing research and trying to apply it to the way i see my life as well as other human beings. There is just so much knowledge out there and research it's so fascinating!
ReplyDeleteAs for Erikson he is also one I was able to relate with. With every crisis and problem there must be a resolution. Once we figure out how to overcome certain crisis we then become more competent and more knowledgable.
Conditioning. It works so well and it's kinda crazy to think that it works. Conditioning makes me think what we are being conditioned to do throughout our adult lives.