| concepts info evaluation | ||
| brain development | Forebrain
Midbrain
Hindbrain
Cerebellum
Medulla
|
|
| piaget’s stage theory | Sensorimotor stage – 0-2 years – Object permanence – Learning via sensesPre-operational stage – 2-7 years – Animism – Symbolic play – EgocentrismConcrete operational stage – 7-11 years – Decentration – Conservation – Reversibility Formal operational stage |
|
| piaget’s schema theory | Schemas – mental framework of knowledge gathered based of past experiences, which affect the way we perceive the world around us
Assimilation – same schema, can fit new information into existing schemas Accommodation – change or create new schema, in order to make sense of new information Equilibrium – a state of mental balance, where our schemas can explain the world around us |
Strengths – Evidence supporting – Piaget and inhelder found that those in pre-operational stage are egocentric and those in concrete operational stage can take on viewpoints other than their own Weaknesses |
| dweck’s mindset theory | Growth mindset Ability is changeable and can be improved through practice and effort Fixed mindset Ability is fixed and effort is pointless |
Strengths – Suggests people have free will and control over own behaviour – have ability to change through their own effort– Yeager and Dweck found that adolescents with growth mindsets could deal better with not fitting in. Being taught that ability was changeable led to better school performances Weaknesses |
| willingham’s learing theory | – Factual knowledge precedes skill – Factual knowledge essential to developing new skills – with regular rehearsal and forms of testing – With more factual knowledge, can increase speed at which new info is learnt – So more space in working memory for decision-making – Practice and effort are very important when learning and developing new skills Cognitive strategies Physical strategies Social strategies |
Strengths – Practical applications in education and other situations to promote child’s development positively – Yeager and Dweck found that adolescents with growth mindsets could deal better with not fitting in. Being taught that ability was changeable led to better school performances. Weaknesses – Theory based of many aspects of neuroscience, memory and cognitive development. Idea not one singular theory that can be tested simply be gathering evidence. Lack of evidence supporting theory so not completely sure if it works or not. – Evidence suggesting ability and intelligence are at least biologically determined – Bouchard and McGue found a correlation between genetic relatedness and IQ |
| K E Y S T U D I E S | ||
| piaget & inhelder 1956
sample – 100 children task |
Findings – 4-6 year olds – could only select pictures or rearrange boards reflecting their viewpoint only – 7-9 year olds – attempted to reflect viewpoint of doll but not always consistent – 9-12 year olds – mastered skill in communicating both own and doll’s viewpoint Conclusions |
Strengths – Gathered qualitative data– which is in depth and detailed, providing a valid picture of child’s viewpoint and behaviour – high in validity – Standardised procedure – high in reliability, as data collected in consistent, reliable way – can be replicated Weaknesses |
| gunderson et al
sample – 53 children (+parents) from Chicago age – |
Methods of gathering data – Parent’s praise – care-giver – child interactions videotaped in 90 minute sessions (asked to go about typical day) – Child’s motivational framework – 7-8 year old, child asked to compete 2 questionnaires on what they thought led to a person’s intelligence and morality (acting morally or not)Conclusions – Clear relationship between parents’ use of process praise and child later viewing ability as changeable – No link between parents’ use of person praise and child later viewing ability as fixed – Boys tend to receive more process praise than girls – More boys tend to have an incremental motivational framework (seeing ability as changeable) than girls |
Strengths – High ecological validity – conducted in naturalistic environment so behaviour observed likely to be reflective of behaviour in real-life Weaknesses |
| Issues + Debates – Kohlberg‘s Theory of Morality | ||
| A01 Morals – standards of what’s right and wrong Morality – understanding the difference between right and wrong Moral development – Child’s growing understanding of what’s right and wrong Pre-conventional morality – Conventional morality – Post-conventional morality – |
A03 Strengths – Practical applications – knowledge of this can help us decide whether people should be held accountable/punished for their actions – children may have committed crime without fully understanding consequences Weaknesses |
|
| EXAMPLE ANSWER Assess how well moral development theories can account for Lara and John’s ideas. Moral development refers to children’s expanding and developing awareness of what is right and wrong. Kohlberg suggested that people’s morality develops in stages. Pre-conventional morality is developed and existent throughout ages 0-9, where right and wrong are identified based on whether they’ll be punished or rewarded. Conventional morality (the stage of most young adults and people) is where right and wrong are determined by what others will think of you – whether they’ll view you positively or negatively. Finally, Kohlberg conveyed that post conventional morality (with only 10% of people reaching this stage) is where right and wrong are established by your own unique moral codes and ideas.From this scenario, Lara is demonstrating pre-conventional morality; she thinks coming back to class before the bell rings is right as she wishes to avoid the teacher’s punishment. Whereas John would be placed in the conventional morality stage as he believes that being late to class is sometimes right and acceptable, depending on whether he’s perceived as a good member of the school, in order to be viewed in a positive manner.A problem with using Kohlberg’s theory as an explanation for Lara and John’s thinking is that his sample consisted of only males; therefore, his theory only applies to male morality. Because of this, his study lacks population validity and can’t be generalised to a wider group of people due to it not being representative of the target population (typically 50% female). John’s thinking can be explained by Kohlberg’s ideas; however, Lara’s thinking and thought process can’t, as his concepts aren’t generalisable to females. But a strength of Kohlberg’s theory is that it has practical applications and can help establish whether people (like Lara and John) should be held accountable for their actions, depending on their stage of moral development. This can help us consider if people can actually comprehend the repercussions of their behaviors and whether their reasoning is justifiable. |
||
