This blog will look at three key approaches to child development; constructivist, social constructivist and behaviourist, and at the implications of these for teaching.
The Constructivist theory of development pioneered by Jean Piaget (1964) suggests that a child’s age determines the way in which they learn and develop. He states that children develop schemas based on their current experience, and then build on these as they learn; these schemas will get more complex as a child matures. Piaget states that there are 4 stages of cognitive development. Sensorimotor (0-2 years), where a child understands the world around them using their senses. Preoperational (2 -7 years), where language skills develop, but the child is still egocentric. Concrete (7 – 11 years) where they can think logically about events that have happened but they have not experienced (e.g. World War II), but cannot comprehend concepts that are abstract (e.g. love) or hypothetical (e.g. time travel). Formal operational (12 years +) in which children can start to use deductive logic to problem solve and understand abstract and hypothetical concepts.
Much of Piaget’s research was quantitative observations of his own three children, with the rest of his sample coming from the same socioeconomic background. The limited sample size suggests that it would be a little ignorant to generalise these stages to the vast majority children. Individual experiences will also alter a child’s cognitive development. For example, if a loved one dies when a child is in the second stage of development it is likely that they will come to understand the abstract concept of death quicker than a child who has not experienced this. Similarly, it is likely they will start to think about the effect that this death has had on their other relatives, something that Piaget claims they would not do. Therefore a critique of this theory as a teacher is that we may not have high enough expectations of what our students are capable of. Movement away from this theory can be seen in current teaching methods and in the importance placed on differentiating in schools (TS1 and TS5). I see this as a positive change, it suggests to me that the teaching profession gives more credence to encouraging individual development than labelling a child’s abilities based on their age.
Another interesting theory of development is Vygotsky’s Social Constructivist theory (1978). Vygotsky suggested that learning is a social process and that a child’s understanding of concepts is developed through individual experience and interaction with others (both peers or adults). Vygotsky discussed the concept of a child’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZDP). The ‘zone’ is the amount that a child can learn through interaction and experience independently, compared to the amount that a child can learn when they are being prompted, questioned and lead (scaffolded), by a more experienced and informed person, usually their teacher. I have seen application and use of the concept of a ZPD in schools, for example on a child’s Individual Educational Program (IEPs) and in The Teachers Standards (TS1 and TS5). To me as a teacher it is important to be aware of each child’s individual ability to learn and the amount of support they will need for this.
The Behaviourist Theory, pioneered by Skinner (1938) suggests that the type of response a child receives from their class teacher determines development and behaviour. Skinner states that if a type of behaviour is reinforced then this type of behaviour will increase. He identifies two types of reinforcement, positive reinforcement (awards, stickers or privileges for hard work), and negative reinforcement (a child finishes their work before break because otherwise they have to miss break to finish it). In the second example, missing break is the negative reinforcer. His research concludes that in the long term, positive reinforcement increases ‘good’ behaviour more than negative reinforcement. I agree with this, as it means that the child’s behaviour leads to a positive outcome, rather than from them avoiding something they do not want. I have seen the effective use of this in school, and as child grows older, the positive reinforcements change and become internalised. For example, doing well on a practice SATs paper can encourage a child to continue to revise for their SATs, because the test results act as a positive reinforcer. However, the type of positive reinforcement given by a teacher is likely to affect the child’s development and ability to learn.
Dweck and Mueller’s (1998) research concludes that the type of praise (positive reinforcement) given to a child determines the child’s development. They suggest that if a child is told they are ‘good’ at something, e.g. ‘you are great at maths’, then that child will only want to do maths that they understand, because if they try to learn something more complex and find it difficult, they won’t be ‘succeeding’ anymore. However if a child is given praise in terms of what they have achieved, for example ‘that’s great, you found using the compact method of addition really hard at first, but now you can use it even for difficult sums’, this will foster a love of learning, rather than of succeeding. If what is ‘good’ is not understanding the maths (although this is important), but the process of learning something that was complex, it will encourage the child to become a resilient learner and take on challenges. As a teacher I think it is really important to be aware of the type of positive reinforcement you give a child. This reinforcement needs to encourage them to use strategies that they have developed to learn, rather than to get the answers right. If you do not do this, when your pupils come across something that they find hard to understand, those who have previously always succeeded will give up quicker than those who are resilient learners. Whereas the resilient learners will implement all of the strategies they have in place to help them tackle and understand a difficult concept. I think encouraging and supporting this ability is important for every child, to help them grow into independent, confident learners.
References:
Department for Education (2012) Teachers’ Standards.
Dweck, C & Mueller, M (1998) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1, 33 – 52.
Piaget, J (1964) Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 3, 176 – 186.
Skinner, B. F. (1938) The Behaviour of Organisms: An experimental analysis.
Vygotsky, L. L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Child Development 
I have also seen evidence of each of these child development theories being applied in school. I think that small focuses from constructivism, social constructivism and behaviourism should be applied within a teacher’s pedagogy to benefit both teacher and pupil. Within Piaget’s theory, I agree that pupils achievement may be limited if teachers do not raise their expectations for them through being restricted by the stages of cognitive development. As you mentioned, children learn at different speeds as a result from different experiences, but it is important to acknowledge these stages so not to set expectations too high of individual children.
Similarly, with Skinners theory of behaviourism, using negative reinforcement too often could potentially have a reverse effect. For example, if a child had worked hard to complete tasks and activities but did not manage to complete them, then was continuously made to stay in at break time, this child may give up trying if they were to be sanctioned for a teacher not recognising the work effort. I have noticed this with one child in my school and have resulted with him having low self-esteem.
Teachers need to recognise the benefits and areas for development within these child development theories before applying them to their pedagogy and I do not think that any one theory should be acted upon solely without acknowledging another.