Brief Lecture Notes for Unit 1
These brief lecture notes are no substitute for attendance at lecture, believe me! However, they can serve as rough lecture outlines and as guides for exam review. Key terms to know are presented in bold font; note also the study questions at the end of each unit.
What is meant by "child development"?
Child development can be defined as (a) the scientific study (b) of developmental changes in the (c) child's (d) biological, social, cognitive, and affective behavior, (e) and the processes that underlie and help explain those changes. Note the five parts of that definition and their importance:
1. Not all studies of children qualify as "scientific" (e.g., a parent's informal observation of her child's behavior). Such information (usually called anecdotal) is not unimportant, but in this course, we'll be focusing on formal scientific studies of child behavior. For more on what does, or does not, qualify as scientific, and for a detailed exposition of the scientific method, see Unit 2.
2. Not all changes are "developmental" in character. By development, we mean (a) long-term change over time (b) in which the child's maturational processes play a major role. Learning (through experience or training), for instance, is not a "developmental" change as such, though maturational factors can influence how children learn... see Unit 8 for more on that.
3. Surprisingly, we need to think about who exactly is, or is not, a "child"... since, throughout history and across cultures, societies have defined childhood in different ways. If we define the limits of childhood biologically, we get one kind of answer; if we define them psychologically, we may get a different answer; if sociologically (or legally), perhaps yet a third answer. Whether childhood is seen by society as a special, distinct, unique period depends on cultural and historical factors. Even though this course focuses primarily on the pre-adult years (it's not a course in lifespan development), for the sake of continuity we will dip occasionally into theories that cover the entire human lifespan.
4. The fourth part of the definition highlights the fact that we are interested in the whole child in all his or her aspects... biological, social, cognitive (mental, intellectual, or thought processes), and affective (emotions and feelings). (In fact, these four categories may not cover the waterfront; what about the child as a product of culture? Or the child as a spiritual being -- something about which Harvard psychiatrist Robert Coles has spent decades studying? But these four terms are the traditional ones.) A danger is that, in focusing on any single aspect of the child (as we will often do in this course), we'll lose sight of the child as an integrated, whole person... though I'll try to help us avoid that common pitfall.
5. The fifth part of the definition reminds us that science always involves a balance between theory (the "why" of behavior), observation (the "what" of behavior), and application or practice (the "how" of behavior). All three have their place. Like many social science courses, this one will be heavy on theory, but I'll work hard to maintain an adequate focus on the other two elements as well. That's one reason why you have the option of a field observation assignment (see the course requirements page for more on that).
Why study children at all?
There are many possible answers to that question, but two basic categories are (a) for their own sake (because we are interested in children from a public policy standpoint, or because we are parents, teachers, or others who deal with children on a regular basis), or (b) as a simpler or easier means to the more general end of understanding human psychology in the abstract. This latter purpose raises the question of the extent to which we can meaningfully think of children as "miniature adults". (See the "change and continuity" exercise presented in class for more about that.)
Key themes and controversies in child development
Psychologists have an annoying habit of not agreeing with one another about much of anything. There's a technical reason for that... it's because psychology is a so-called nonparadigmatic science. (A paradigm is a set of core assumptions that all individuals in a given field of study share or take for granted: for more, read Thomas Kuhn's famous book.) Thus, we'll find lots of interesting disputes about debatable issues in this course: here are five of the most important of them.
1. Nativism vs. empiricism
Which is more important in determining a child's behavior and personality: inborn, innate, genetic, hereditary factors (the nativist point of view), or situational, environmental factors related to learning or upbringing (the empiricist point of view)? Both obviously impact most aspects of the child, but which takes precedence in a given situation or context? More about that in Unit 3.
2. Active vs. passive child
To what extent are children self-determining, active agents? It's obvious that adults influence children; but to what extent do children also influence adults? Some perspectives in child development view the child as a largely passive recipient of external influences. Others see the child as appreciably shaping his or her own destiny by the choices s/he makes.
3. Continuity vs. discontinuity
When we get to a discussion of stage theories in this course, of which there will be many (e.g., Units 6, 7, and 10), we'll learn more about this controversy in detail. But, in brief, some developmentalists think of children turning into adults in a gradual, imperceptible, linear way, while others think in terms of "quantum leap" changes... fits and starts... stages of development that differ dramatically from one another. (This is related to the question, above, of the extent to which children are "miniature adults", and why or why not. It's also related to the notion of critical periods or sensitive periods in development, about which more will be said later.)
4. Idiographic vs. nomothetic perspectives
Some developmental psychologists take a nomothetic approach to the field, meaning that they emphasize ways in which all children are alike, searching for general laws or principles of behavior which are universally applicable (to children of a given age at least). Others take an idiographic approach, emphasizing ways in which each child is unique, or focusing on the differences between children. Idiographic theorists, for instance, are more likely to talk about distinct "types" of children or definable subgroups of children of different temperaments, mental styles, and so forth.
5. Cultural universalism vs. particularism
As our society becomes increasingly pluralistic and multicultural, this issue takes on increasing importance. Cultural universalists minimize (though they don't dismiss entirely, of course) the role of culture, suggesting that children are pretty much the same the world over (a theory of child development generated in one culture should have good general applicability to all cultures). Cultural particularists (although they admit that there are some transcultural or universal themes in child behavior) maximize the role of culture, suggesting that culture is one of the most important influences on children and that most theories of child development are quite culture-specific or culturally embedded. (Some writers use the term "cultural relativism" to mean the same as cultural particularism. But to me the term "relativism" implies something else... the idea that values, including ethical and moral values, are products of culture, and therefore that one culture can't meaningfully sit in judgment on another culture. That's a much thornier issue, and is really the province of the philosophy department... so I'll avoid that hornet's nest by sticking to the more neutral and safer term "cultural particularism".)
And what do you think? As we go through the course, you should be developing some informed opinions about the issues above... since, while having an uninformed opinion may often mean the lack of thought, having no opinion at all (not even a tentative one subject to revision as you learn more) always indicates the lack of thought. For the record (just to make my own biases explicit, as intellectually honest educators ought to do), I'm a qualified empiricist (though the older I get, the more I recognize the operation of nativist influences on human behavior), an active child theorist, a discontinuity theorist, an idiographic theorist, and a moderate cultural particularist (though I do believe firmly in the existence of transcultural moral absolutes). You can disagree with all the above and ace this course, but please do form the habit of developing thought-out opinions about important debatable matters in this and other courses you take! (A mind is a terrible thing to waste, though as my nutritionist tells me, it's equally true that a waist is a terrible thing to mind.)
Theoretical perspectives or "schools of thought"
One of the most famous and influential books in the philosophy of science is Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which in my view is one of the 5 books every undergraduate should read before being issued a diploma. (Email me if you want a list of the other 4.) One of Kuhn's ideas is that science can never take place in a mental vacuum; it must be governed and informed by a particular point of view (a paradigm). Because psychology is pre-paradigmatic, different psychologists start from different vantage points; these are the competing "schools of thought". At least six defined schools of thought exist within the field of developmental psychology:
1. The behavioral school focuses on the influence of the environment, on basic learning processes, on outwardly observable behavior, on nomothetic principles of behavior.
2. The cognitive school focuses on how the child thinks, or her "active constructions of mental reality"; on stages of intellectual and cognitive development; on concept formation.
3. The psychodynamic school focuses on motivation, particularly unconscious conflict and the resolution of intrapsychic conflict; on the existence and influence of opposing forces or influences (dynamics) within personality.
4. The ethological school focuses on biological and genetic influences, particularly having to do with the similarity between human behavior and that of other species, as well as "precultural" influences on human behavior.
5. The ecological school focuses on the cultural contexts within which development occurs, and the levels or layers of culture (micro, meso, macro) that influence children.
6. The lifespan school focuses on the integration of unique historical events (age cohort influences) within the maturational timetable, and the historical context of child development including changing conceptions of what childhood means.
Look for specific examples of theories, concepts, and ideas drawn from these various schools of thought as we continue through the course.
Study Guide
1. Define child development. Discuss the importance of, or any controversies related to, the different components of this definition.
2. Discuss some reasons for studying child development and what theoretical or practical implications these might have.
3. Discuss five key themes in the study of child development -- controversies that divide theorists in the field. Be prepared to discuss your own opinions or perspectives on these and to offer reasons for them.
4. Compare and contrast six theoretical approaches to the study of child development. What is the core focus of each? Be able to recognize examples of each. Offer some reasons why it might be unreasonable to expect universal agreement among developmental psychologists regarding the core assumptions that underlie the different schools of thought.