The FEAR Blog, subscribe here
Theory of Developmental Perspectives
Development Perspectives of John BowlbyJohn Bowlby was the first attachment theorist to explain attachment as a “lasting psychological bond between human beings” (Bolwby, 1969 p.194). His belief was that the earliest bonds formed by children had a crucial impact on a child’s emotional state of well being, and behaviour. He believed that this initial bond would affect the rest of the child’s life. (psychology.about.com). Bowlby was influenced by ethological theory, and specifically by Konrad Lorenz’s (1903-1989) study (1935), with newly hatched ducklings. Lorenz showed that the first moving figure the ducklings saw after hatching would be who they attached to as a primary figure.These ducklings followed their mother because they were biologically programmed to follow the first moving object they saw after hatching, concluding that “ following her was the first step in imprinting, creating an emotional bond with the mother”, (Children, a Chronological approach, p7). Lorenz also discovered a critical period in which this imprinting occurred. This was within a day of hatching, and if imprinting did not occur within this time, there was no bond. Bowlby’s developmental perspectives fit into the Biological perspective because he believed attachment behaviours “are instinctive and activated when there are conditions which seem to threaten the achievement of proximity, such as separation, insecurity and fear.” (Simply psychology) Bowlby also believed that both infant and mother have this biological need to stay in contact with each other, and it seemed to be more for care and responsiveness, than primarily for food. This developmental perspective of attachment acted as a secure place from where the child would be able to explore their surroundings while feeling security due to their proximity. An important key factor to Bowlby’s theory, came from his own research with delinquent children. (Study of 44 Thieves, Bowlby, 1944) (Bowlby interviewed juveniles in detention along with other children who were not), and based on his findings concluded that the primary relationship would in most cases be the mother, who acted as a “prototype for all other future attachments, and social relationships.” Most of the children he interviewed had their primary relationships severed at a very young age, (through death, separation, or dysfunction). Most of this separation was during the first 5 years of life, which he felt was the critical period. A critical feature when comparing the developmental perspectives of Bowlby is that he believed this could have an irreversible and very severe consequence on the Child's development. He believed this would affect how they dealt with all other future attachments and most importantly, this disconnection, which would be based on the severity of that detachment, resulted in irreversible delinquency, affection-less psychopathy and reduced intelligence. Another critical feature to Bowlby’s developmental perspectives is that the mother and child attachment and the relationship between a mother and child were very different to any other future attachments. (Study of 44 Thieves, Bowlby, 1944) Developmental Perspectives of Urie BronfenbrennerUrie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005) believed that the developing child was “embedded in a series of complex and interactive systems” ( p13). Bronfenbrenner divided developmental perspectives theory into four levels of environmental influences. All four levels affect the child’s development either directly or indirectly, and they can be bi-directional, meaning that the environment can affect the child, and vice versa. He called these levels the micro system, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macro system. They are always continuous, and at any point in life, the micro system includes people and objects in the child’s immediate surrounding, such as parents and siblings, the classroom, teachers, peer groups, day care, neighbours, and churches, or any other form of extended family. From his developmental perspectives, Bronfenbrenner believed that because of this diversity, all Microsystems would need to be observed individually. Some children, would have daycare in their immediate micro system, others would have extended family, and so on. The meso-system represents the fact that what happens in one micro system would influence and affect the others. A bad day at school could cause a grouchy and moody reaction at home or a bad day a home would cause reactions at school. This shows how school and home are interconnected emotionally, and it would show that all systems are working together. The exosystem represents social settings that would not be experienced first hand by the child yet would still affect the child. An example used in the text is a mother’s work environment, which would be part of the child’s exosystem. If the mother had less work, she may pay more attention to the child and if she had more work, she may pay less attention. The influences of this exosystem would be second hand, yet Brenbrenner believes the effects on the developing child can be quite strong. (This feature again implies the importance of the overall effect, which is seen as a critical feature in all three theorists. This again, would be based on our interpretation, yet it shows how the environment is highly influenced either directly or indirectly) The key element in Bronfenbrenners theory as I see it pertaining to the overall developmental perspectives, is how the interaction of structures within the layers and between the different layers is always on going, continuous and always changing. This could imply that how a child adapts to these changes has much to do with how they witness others adapting and role modeling. It should also be noted that Bronfenbrenner’s theory also considers the child’s own biological environment when looking as these systems.Developmental perspectives of William GlasserThe third and final theorist to form my theory on the developmental perspectives, and for this paper is William Glasser. His theory would fit into the Social learning perspective where the behaviour is influenced by a child’s feelings, their school environment, their home environment and the behaviour of others. His theory is now called Reality and Choice theory. (1996) of. Glasser believes that all behaviour is influenced by our wants and needs at that particular time. Instinctively all we do is behave. All behaviour is chosen, and that we are driven by our genes to satisfy what he has classified as the 5 basic needs. These needs are survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun. According to Glasser, 95% (Choice Theory, 1998) of all behavioural problems in the classrooms are because students are attempting to fulfill the need for power. In his book “Control Theory (1986), he expresses his view on current classroom management as being far too concerned with discipline. Far too concerned with how to ‘make’ students follow rules, and not enough concern with providing the satisfying education that would make our over concern with discipline unnecessary, (p12). Glasser sees the most important need as being the need to be loved and to belong. In order for his theory to be effective, this is the most important need that has to be met by the teachers. Glasser sees all student choices based on the five basic needs and considers these needs universal needs. (wik.ed.uiuc.edu). Glasser's Theory in discussing the developmental perspective, maintains seven habits that he believes teachers should always have in the classroom. He refers to them as the seven caring habits. They are supporting, encouraging, listening, accepting, trusting, respecting, and negotiating the differences. Along with these seven caring habits, he also lists the seven deadly habits, which he believes must be avoided at all times. These seven deadly habits are criticizing, blaming, complaining, nagging, threatening, punishing and bribing or rewarding to control. With the developmental perspectives of Glasser, it is important to note that when these deadly habits are used, they destroy the ability of one or both individuals to find satisfaction in the relationship, which creates the breakdown from each other.This break down is the source of almost all human problems such as mental illness, drug addiction, violence, crime, school failure, just to mention a few. (wglasser.com) Glasser sees the primary goal of education as being one, which prepares the students for the real world, and one, which teaches students the necessary skills to live in the real world. In choosing Glasser's developmental perspectives, these skills are interpersonal and group problem solving, in order to help the students move away from the importance of external control and into internal control. Glasser mentions that even though our experiences shape our lives, we have the choice to base our actions on current situations by taking responsibility for our actions and our choices. We learn to focus on the here and now, and can take control of our present day situations by taking responsibility for our current actions. With the implementation of his Reality and Choice theory, Glasser believes that education would move away from teaching memorization skills and allow the students to engage in learning critical thinking skills, which would be more of a problem-based way of learning. The developmental perspectives outlined above, can empower the students, by seeing results of their own action. This would continue to encourage students to continue with the tools they need to survive in the real world, by seeking help and helping one another as needed. He believes that by using this approach teachers in the elementary setting would be able to teach his theories with skits and also provide successful role modeling. By the secondary level, students would be allowed the freedom of choice and the teachers would be seen as supportive role models, there to help the students make a better choice. Teachers would continue reaffirming that we can only control our own behavior and this would continue to model the reality theory, and this important developmental perspectives. Classroom meetings, contacts between teacher and students and direct dialogue about these basic needs and the necessity we all have in fulfilling these needs would continue to foster an environment of caring and respect for all. Self-awareness and self-esteem is at the core of the theory, and Glasser believes this would continue to ensure that the student’s self-awareness and esteem would continue to make the student want to keep making better choices. The teacher’s role would be a positive role model as they continue to share with the students and that the responsibility lies within each of us. All three theorists mention the biological aspect as having an influence on a child’s development. All three theorists mention the instinctive nature of this biological theory, and the importance of specific and necessary means of fulfilling these natural and instinctive needs.The key elements, which I consider crucial as an educator when looking at these theories would be to keep an open mind and recognize how our opinions could affect our approach.My conclusion of the developmental perspectivesAll three theories differ only in the way we interpret these theories. For example, Bowlby’s theory and Glasser’s theory, have very important information for the educator, yet if we read his theory as believing that the damage to a child’s future development would be irrevocably damaged possibly beyond repair, we could form a biased belief that children once damaged could not be helped.Glasser’s theory shows that as long as we continue using the approaches, we are currently using in our schools, where discipline is key, our schools will fail our children. His theory however, also gives children, no matter what environmental experiences influenced their behavior, the possibility to control and make choices, which can be learned under the atmosphere of acceptance, and responsibility. This theory as an educator would place the onus on us as the role model, to ensure this type of environment existed in order to offer a positive goal to work towards as a group.All three theorist’s mention the importance of a sound base, a solid and safe home base. They all mention the need for love and belonging, which is a biological need in everyone, and the critical aspects this has in a child’s development is crucial. This biological connection as an educator can change the way we look at the behavior of children. We should always consider the behavior as fulfilling a need, which is never intentional. All behavior serves a purpose. If we the educator can understand this, based on Bowbly’s theory, that fear of proximity is triggering this biological defense for survival, or that according to Glasser’s theory, the child is fulfilling one of the 5 basic needs at every specific moment, I do believe we can begin to look at behavior in a new way.We can begin to take control of the situation, by looking at our own ways of dealing with these so called "problem children", and seeing how we can form attachments and security based on trust, respect, and dignity for all children. Our own reactions would be our responsibility to control, and we would be able to make choices accordingly by what it is we are seeing, rather than what we perceive from our own assumptions.These three theorists, all lead me to Dr. Gordon NeufeldDr. Gordon Neufeld, takes the fear, out of parenting, and put parents back in control. As we look at areas in our own lives where we may be stuck in our own developmental stages, we begin to change ourselves, and see our children differently.Modern Age Developmental Perspectives Back to Home Page
|
