The topic of this paper focuses on the effects of family addictions on the identity stability in infancy. Family plays a key role on the effects of identity stability, and how it ties into addiction beginning with the birth and infancy. Addiction is a very complex disease, and research continues to evolve concerning how addiction takes control over the individual and their life, whether it starts at infancy, adolescence, or young adulthood, etc. Although there are many theories in in human development that relate to addiction the focus here is on Lev Vygotsky’s theory on cognitive development. An explanation of this theory will later be explained, as well as to how Vygotsky’s theory effects family addiction on the identity stability in infancy. Discussion on the research finding will be explained, and show cause to how it links to the topic at hand. Any flaws related to the research findings, and those findings influence personal behaviors and values. In closing the paper will provide how the findings can be applied in a professional setting. We begin with discussing how important parents, and family roles play in infancy development, and how easily unhealthy family roles can lead to a child’s addiction later in life, by what they observed, or learned during infancy. The Effects Family Addiction Has on Identity Stability in Young Adulthood “Experiences and relationships at home”, or in his or her environment will set the stage for that child will “learn to …show more content…
He deeply” believed” that “community” played “a central role in the process of “making meaning” (McLeod, 2014). Vygotsky, had "argued on Piaget’s notion that a “child’s development must precede” his or her learning”, and he also argued that “learning is a necessary and universal aspect in the process
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory was his main focus and it helped him make sense of a person’s cognitive development through the way they interaced with others and emphasised on one’s social interaction (blabla). Vygotsky focused on how learning consisted of gathering knowledge and skills from the social community and the different attractions a person observes (v2); a process known as internationalization. His theory was based on two key concepts, first that knowledge can be developed through the experiences a child lives (v1), and an example would be a child seeing his parents arguing over their beliefs; he’d learn how he should have his own belief...
The author uses his knowledge of the human brain to emphasize the importance of “Endorphins” when growing up and how the lack of the chemicals “in infancy and early childhood,[creates a greater need] for external sources” (289) such as drugs. Along with his scientific evidence, Mate also uses many of his patients traumatic childhood experiences such as having “dishwashing liquid poured down his throat . . . and was tied to a chair in a dark room to control to his hyperactivity” (289). These patients help create an image for the readers to be able to understand the feelings and the pain addict 's often face in their childhood, that leaves them feeling abandoned and neglected from the rest of the world. Mate even analysis the fact that addict 's can come from home where there is no abuse and the parents try their best to provide a loving and nurturing home. The problem in families like this is often a parent is the one who faced traumatic experience as a child and are not able to transmit the proper love to their child, because they lack the feeling themselves. The author uses the strategy of looking at both the child and the parent experiences to show that the root problem originates from the same outcome, wanting to feel “unconditionally [loved and be] fully accepted even when most ornery”
Piaget and Vygotsky each created their own particular ideas of child development. Piaget differentiated development into four stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, operational, and concrete. Conversely, Vygotsky based his theory of development on the fundamental ideas that children construct knowledge, learning can prompt development, development cannot be differentia...
Lev Vygotsky stages of development were not defined by age or biology. Social and cultural experiences were the basis for his theory. Consciousness was an end product of social interactions (Kearsley, 1994-2010). The history of the child’s society and his own personal history determine how the child thinks. Language is crucial for development as it is with words that a child conceptualizes and makes sense of the world (Schütz, 2004). A precept of Vygotsky’s theory wa...
Even though Piaget didn’t believe in the significance of inputs that could be acquired from the environment, but yet Vygotsky was very confident that children that children where very acknowledgeable of the inputs from their environment around them. Piaget’s cognitive development theory has four stages to it. His first stage was the sensorimotor stages which happens from birth until a child is two years old. This stages infants rely solely on their reflexes like rooting and sucking. Preoperational stage is the 2nd stage and it happen from the age of 2years old up until a child is 7 years of age, and during this stage children feel as if everyone thinks like they do. His 3rd stage is known as the concrete operational stage, that occurs when children are 7-11 years of age and during this stage children will start to feel a lot of improvement in their thinking. Piaget’s last stage was known as the formal operational stage, and at this stage children are able to understand and recognize symbols, and master abstract thinking. Children are also have the ability to solve intricate problems on their own. And even in contrast, Vygotsky assumed that there are no set of phases. And even in contrast Vygotsky thought that there was no set of phrase for children. But he felt that private speech was way more essential to the aid for children when they are thinking about an issue they are having/ going through. Private speech can be internalized sooner or later, but it’s something that never goes away. Unlike Piaget, Vygotsky didn’t think that the development could be detached from social context while children can create knowledge and lead their
Piaget’s theory is developed from the idea that the child constructs their knowledge individually whereas Vygotsky argued that children develop tools of learning by communicating with more knowledgeable others (O. Lourenco 2012). Piaget suggested that children develop through a series of four stages in their thinking – the sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational stages each of which causes broad changes in the child’s intelligence structure and their logic (reference). These four structures are mental operations which are applied to anything in the child’s world these mental operations are referred to as schemas which grow and change from one stage to the next (book). Vygotsky had very different idea on this subject although they both agreed that the child is the active constructor of their own knowledge
This reading reminded me about how Vygotsky’s theory is mostly based on the interactions and influences help children to learn. I really do believe this theory is very accurate, because students can learn from each other. If a teacher is having trouble explaining a complex topic to a student, another student can explain it in more relatable way. Also, I was fascinated when I read about what cultural tools, were and how they related to Vygotsky’s beliefs. Learning about what cultural tools were, helped me to broaden my understanding of how crucial cultural tools are to student’s learning process. Also, the chapter did a great job of elaborating on how these tools can help to advance and grow in the understanding of student’s thinking process. Another aspect of this reading that interested me was the elaboration on private speech and the Zone of Proximal Development. Each of the definitions displayed help me to advance my own thinking on what it was and how it is used in regards to the education of students. The description of what private speech and how it is basically the inner narration of their thinking process helped me to understand how this aspect can help with students learning. Also, the Zone of Proximal Development helped me to make a connection to both what is and how it relates to private speech as well. The Zone of proximal development plays a crucial role in the
THOSE OF US WHO grew up in the 1950s got an image of the American family that was not, shall we say, accurate. We were told, Father Knows Best, Leave It to Beaver, and Ozzie and Harriet were not just the way things were supposed to be—but the way things were
Lastly, there is a zone of proximity that Vygotsky believes in. This goes along with his group aspect of learning. He believes that one learns better through life interactions. (Woolfolk, 2004) Similarities in Piaget and Vygotsky In the article we were supposed to read for class this week it says “there are seven similarities: 1) a genetic, i.e., developmental, perspective; 2) a dialectical approach; 3) a non-reductionist view; 4) anon-dualistic thesis; 5) an emphasis on action; 6) a primacy of processes over external contents or outcomes; and 7) a focus on the qualitative changes over the quantitative ones.”
It stated that, "Sociocultural approaches to learning and development were first systematized and applied by Vygotsky and his collaborators in Russia in the 1920s and 1930s. They are based on the concept that human activities take in cultural contexts, are mediated by language and other symbol systems, and can be best understood when investigated in their historical development (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). " At the core of this theory, "Vygotsky focused on the way that a child co-constructs meaning through social interaction, and the role word meaning plays in the development of thinking(Mahn, 1999). " It seems as though Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory is continuous. This theory is continuous due to the emphasis it places on the need for social interaction in the growth of humans mentally, linguistically, and socially.
Educators produce a wide variety of experiences, perceptions, prospects, learning and abilities to their education (DEEWR, 2009, p. 9). In my career and through my studies, my philosophy and pedagogy have been closely linked with the constructivist theory from Piaget. Being able to focus on a child’s interests and creating learning activities that are implemented as fun is a big part of my motivation as an educator and teacher. The educational environment needs to sustain every single child along with inspiring significant work that can result in more advanced thinking (Evanshen and Faulk, 2011, p. 225). Following Piaget’s ideas while implementing the EYLF has made for a simple straight forward way of supplying quality learning experiences for children from birth to 12 years old and it has helped me widen the scope of each experience to allow for multiple levels of developmental stages. Using a constructivist approach to learning allows for the breaking down of the experience as a whole into smaller parts which brings the focus around to the process of learning (Evanshen and Faulk, 2011, p. 667). Overall I believe Piaget’s Theory to be one of the most important influences in modern teaching, allowing scaffolding of learning in a place that that
In regards to child development, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are both highly regarded and well known for their theories. Some educators view themselves as Piagetian while others view themselves as Vygotskians. They see Piaget and Vygotsky as being vastly different. Then there are others who see similarities between the two and hold both Piaget and Vygotsky as correct in their theories. The purpose of this paper is to examine the similarities and differences between Piaget and Vygotsky and determine what can be gained by better understanding these theories.
The main similarities between the two theories are development perspective, a dialectical approach, non-reductionist view, a non-dualistic thesis, an emphasis on action, a primacy of processes over external contents or outcomes, and a focus on qualitative changes over the quantitative changes. The first similarity between the two theories is the dialectical approach (Lourenco, 2012). The next paragraph will discuss two of the main similarities of Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories including the development perspective and a dialectical
Piaget and Vygotsky’s biggest differences is their assessments of a child’s progression of development. Piaget believes that development is individual; Vygotsky believes development heavily relies on social aspects. Piaget insisted that learning happens after development, while Vygotsky believed that learning takes place before development can occur. Piaget’s theory has four phases; Vygotsky assumed there were no set stages, only three components. Piaget and Vygotsky both believe that development can be a result of a cognitive conflict. They agree that children are active learners; children learn quickly and development declines with age. In both theories, teachers serve as facilitors and guides.
The organismic view of human nature is based on a living system rather than a machine (Miller, 2011). It sees humans as an active and organized whole that is constantly changing. The organismic view in Piaget’s theory can be seen through his stages of development. As children progress through each stage they gain new knowledge, hence the constant change. The contextualist view is based on how any one behavior has meaning and can only be explained through a social-historical context (Miller, 2011). The contextualist view in Vygotsky’s theory is seen through the emphasis of culture on the development of children. Although Piaget and Vygotsky had different worldviews they both used a wholistic approach and believed that children were active beings. Piaget emphasized the whole as a sum of its parts (Miller, 2011). He believed that an individual could only be understood by looking at them as a whole, rather than their parts alone. Vygotsky not only emphasized the whole rather than its parts, but also believed that the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (Miller, 2011). He believed that human nature could only be understood through a cultural context in order to have meaning. Once the