Module 8-10 Handouts

St. Camillus College of Manaoag Foundation, Inc.
Licsi, Manaoag, Pangasinan

First Semester / Academic Year 2021-2022
CHILD AND ADOLESCENT LEARNERS AND LEARNING PRINCIPLES
Instructor: ZAREX ANDREE E. CABATBAT, PhD
Module 8 Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in principle but
wanted to develop his ideas further.
He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In each case, he
presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some authority and the needs of
some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated.
One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in
Europe.
Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The
drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist
was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could
afford.
Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the
chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money
later.
The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The
husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug.
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to discover
how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16
years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).
Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was mainly interested
in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons given for the decision. He
found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.
Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-
conventional. Each level has two sub-stages.
People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning
typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality
Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 1

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t have a
personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the
consequences of following or breaking their rules.
Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.
• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid
being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.
• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right
view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.
Level 2 - Conventional morality

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of
valued adult role models.
Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which
the person belongs.
• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a
good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.
• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of
society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.
Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights
and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.
Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional
morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority
think through ethical principles for themselves.
• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while
rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against
the interest of particular individuals.
The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is more
important than breaking the law against stealing.
• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines
which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.
E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles
even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and
having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people
reached this stage.
Problems with Kohlberg's Methods

1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity)
Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all very well in the
Heinz dilemma asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife.

However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never
been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story. How should they know whether Heinz
should steal the drug?
2. The sample is biased

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a
male definition of morality (it’s androcentric). Mens' morality is based on
abstract principles of law and justice, while womens' is based on principles of compassion and care.
Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminded of the significant gender debate still
present in psychology, which when ignored, can have a large impact on the results obtained through
psychological research.
3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)
In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and sometimes very
unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real
situation? We just don’t know.
The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s response to an artificial dilemma
brings a question to the validity of the results obtained through this research.
People may respond very differently to real life situations that they find themselves in than they do with
an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment.
4. Poor research design
The way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the
best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression.
His research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see what level
of moral development they were at.
A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would have been to carry out
longitudinal research on the same children.
However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg’s theory has since been carried out by Colby et al. (1983)
who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg’s original study. She tested them six times in the span of 27
years and found support for Kohlberg’s original conclusion, which we all pass through the stages of
moral development in the same order.
Problems with Kohlberg's Theory
1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?
Kohlberg claims that there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion. For example, a
person who justified a decision on the basis of principled reasoning in one situation (post-conventional
morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another
story.
In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more upon the situation than upon
general rules.
What is more, individuals do not always progress through the stages and Rest (1979) found that one in
fourteen actually slipped backward.
The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak, and some would argue that
behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other
cultures and societies.

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?
Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one to one correspondence between thinking and acting
(what we say and what we do) but he does suggest that the two are linked.
However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take account of:
a) habits that people have developed over time.
b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation.
c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way.
d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.
Overall Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It is also to do
with social factors.
3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is
equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has been often in
advance of that of females.
Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice girl orientation) whereas boys
are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan (p. 484) replies:
“The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to
the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development”.
In other words, Gilligan is claiming that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s theory. He neglects the feminine
voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the socialization of girls.
Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems
from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the
fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.
Module 9 Lev Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory
The work of Lev Vygotsky (1934) has become the foundation of much research and theory in
cognitive development over the past several decades, particularly of what has become known as
sociocultural theory.
Sociocultural theory views human development as a socially mediated process in which children
acquire their cultural values, beliefs, and problem-solving strategies through collaborative dialogues with
more knowledgeable members of society.
Vygotsky's theories stress the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of
cognition (Vygotsky, 1978), as he believed strongly that community plays a central role in the process of
"making meaning."
Unlike Piaget's notion that childrens' development must necessarily precede their learning,
Vygotsky argued, "learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally
organized, specifically human psychological function" (1978, p. 90). In other words, social learning tends
to precede (i.e., come before) development.
Vygotsky has developed a sociocultural approach to cognitive development. He developed his theories at
around the same time as Jean Piaget was starting to develop his
ideas (1920's and 30's), but he died at the age of 38, and so his theories are incomplete - although some of
his writings are still being translated from Russian.

No single principle (such as Piaget's equilibration) can account for development. Individual development
cannot be understood without reference to the social and cultural context within which it is embedded.
Higher mental processes in the individual have their origin in social processes.
Vygotsky's theory differs from that of Piaget in a number of important ways:

1: Vygotsky places more emphasis on culture affecting cognitive development.
This contradicts Piaget's view of universal stages and content of development (Vygotsky does not refer to
stages in the way that Piaget does).
Hence Vygotsky assumes cognitive development varies across cultures, whereas Piaget states cognitive
development is mostly universal across cultures.
2: Vygotsky places considerably more emphasis on social factors contributing to cognitive development.
(i) Vygotsky states the importance of cultural and social context for learning. Cognitive development
stems from social interactions from guided learning within the zone of proximal development as children
and their partner's co-construct knowledge. In contrast, Piaget maintains that cognitive development
stems largely from independent explorations in which children construct knowledge of their own.
(ii) For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what
they think about.
3: Vygotsky places more (and different) emphasis on the role of language in cognitive development.
According to Piaget, language depends on thought for its development (i.e., thought comes before
language). For Vygotsky, thought and language are initially separate systems from the beginning of life,
merging at around three years of age, producing verbal thought (inner speech).
For Vygotsky, cognitive development results from an internalization of language.
4: According to Vygotsky adults are an important source of cognitive development.
Adults transmit their culture's tools of intellectual adaptation that children internalize. In contrast, Piaget
emphasizes the importance of peers, as peer interaction promotes social perspective taking.
Effects of Culture: - Tools of intellectual adaptation

Vygotsky claimed that infants are born with the basic abilities for intellectual development called 'elementary
mental functions' (Piaget focuses on motor reflexes and sensory abilities).
Elementary mental functions include –
1. Attention
2. Sensation
3. Perception
4. Memory
Eventually, through interaction within the sociocultural environment, these are developed into more
sophisticated and effective mental processes which Vygotsky refers to as 'higher mental functions.'
Each culture provides its children tools of intellectual adaptation that allow them to use the basic mental
functions more effectively/adaptively.

Tools of intellectual adaptation is Vygotsky’s term for methods of thinking and problem-solving
strategies that children internalize through social interactions with the more knowledgeable members of
society.
For example, memory in young children this is limited by biological factors. However, culture determines
the type of memory strategy we develop. For example, in western culture, children learn note-taking to
aid memory, but in pre-literate societies, other strategies must be developed, such as tying knots in a
string to remember, or carrying pebbles, or repetition of the names of ancestors until large numbers can
be repeated.
Vygotsky, therefore, sees cognitive functions, even those carried out alone, as affected by the beliefs,
values, and tools of intellectual adaptation of the culture in which a person develops and therefore socio-
culturally determined. The tools of intellectual adaptation, therefore, vary from culture to culture - as in
the memory example.
Social Influences on Cognitive Development

Like Piaget, Vygotsky believes that young children are curious and actively involved in their
own learning and the discovery and development of new understandings/schema. However, Vygotsky
placed more emphasis on social contributions to the process of development, whereas Piaget emphasized
self-initiated discovery.
According to Vygotsky (1978), much important learning by the child occurs through social interaction
with a skillful tutor. The tutor may model behaviors and/or provide verbal instructions for the child.
Vygotsky refers to this as cooperative or collaborative dialogue. The child seeks to understand the actions
or instructions provided by the tutor (often the parent or teacher) then internalizes the information, using
it to guide or regulate their own performance.
Shaffer (1996) gives the example of a young girl who is given her first jigsaw. Alone, she performs
poorly in attempting to solve the puzzle. The father then sits with her and describes or demonstrates some
basic strategies, such as finding all the corner/edge pieces and provides a couple of pieces for the child to
put together herself and offers encouragement when she does so.
As the child becomes more competent, the father allows the child to work more independently.
According to Vygotsky, this type of social interaction involving cooperative or collaborative dialogue
promotes cognitive development.
In order to gain an understanding of Vygotsky's theories on cognitive development, one must understand
two of the main principles of Vygotsky's work: the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) and the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD).
More Knowledgeable Other

The more knowledgeable other (MKO) is somewhat self-explanatory; it refers to someone who has a
better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, with respect to a particular task, process, or
concept.
Although the implication is that the MKO is a teacher or an older adult, this is not necessarily the case.
Many times, a child's peers or an adult's children may be the individuals with more knowledge or
experience.
For example, who is more likely to know more about the newest teenage music groups, how to win at the
most recent PlayStation game, or how to correctly perform the newest dance craze - a child or their
parents?
In fact, the MKO need not be a person at all. Some companies, to support employees in their learning
process, are now using electronic performance support systems.

Electronic tutors have also been used in educational settings to facilitate and guide students through the
learning process. The key to MKOs is that they must have (or be programmed with) more knowledge
about the topic being learned than the learner does.
Zone of Proximal Development

The concept of the More Knowledgeable Other is integrally related to the second important principle of
Vygotsky's work, the Zone of Proximal Development.
This is an important concept that relates to the difference between what a child can achieve independently
and what a child can achieve with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.
For example, the child could not solve the jigsaw puzzle (in the example above) by itself and would have
taken a long time to do so (if at all), but was able to solve it following interaction with the father, and has
developed competence at this skill that will be applied to future jigsaws.
Vygotsky (1978) sees the Zone of Proximal Development as the area where the most sensitive instruction
or guidance should be given - allowing the child to develop skills they will then use on their own -
developing higher mental functions.
Vygotsky also views interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills and strategies. He
suggests that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less competent children develop with help
from more skillful peers - within the zone of proximal development.
Evidence for Vygotsky and the ZPD

Freund (1990) conducted a study in which children had to decide which items of furniture should be
placed in particular areas of a dolls house.
Some children were allowed to play with their mother in a similar situation before they attempted it alone
(zone of proximal development) while others were allowed to work on this by themselves (Piaget's
discovery learning).

Freund found that those who had previously worked with their mother (ZPD) showed the greatest
improvement compared with their first attempt at the task. The conclusion being that guided learning
within the ZPD led to greater understanding/performance than working alone (discovery learning).
Vygotsky and Language

Vygotsky believed that language develops from social interactions, for communication purposes.
Vygotsky viewed language as man’s greatest tool, a means for communicating with the outside world.
According to Vygotsky (1962) language plays two critical roles in cognitive development:
1: It is the main means by which adults transmit information to children.
2: Language itself becomes a very powerful tool of intellectual adaptation.
Vygotsky (1987) differentiates between three forms of language: social speech which is external
communication used to talk to others (typical from the age of two); private speech (typical from the age
of three) which is directed to the self and serves an intellectual function; and finally private speech goes
underground, diminishing in audibility as it takes on a self-regulating function and is transformed into
silent inner speech (typical from the age of seven).
For Vygotsky, thought and language are initially separate systems from the beginning of life, merging at
around three years of age. At this point speech and thought become interdependent: thought becomes
verbal, speech becomes representational. When this happens, children's monologues internalized to
become inner speech. The internalization of language is important as it drives cognitive development.
'Inner speech is not the interior aspect of external speech - it is a function in itself. It still remains speech,
i.e., thought connected with words. But while in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner
speech words dies as they bring forth thought. Inner speech is to a large extent thinking in pure meanings.'
(Vygotsky, 1962: p. 149)
Vygotsky (1987) was the first psychologist to document the importance of private speech. He considered
private speech as the transition point between social and inner speech, the moment in development where
language and thought unite to constitute verbal thinking. Thus private speech, in Vygotsky's view, was
the earliest manifestation of inner speech. Indeed, private speech is more similar (in its form and function)
to inner speech than social speech.
Private speech is 'typically defined, in contrast to social speech, as speech addressed to the self (not to
others) for the purpose of self-regulation (rather than communication).' (Diaz, 1992, p.62)
Unlike inner speech which is covert (i.e., hidden), private speech is overt. In contrast to Piaget’s (1959)
notion of private speech representing a developmental dead-end, Vygotsky (1934, 1987) viewed private
speech as:
'A revolution in development which is triggered when preverbal thought and preintellectual language
come together to create fundamentally new forms of mental functioning.' (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005:
p. 1).
In addition to disagreeing on the functional significance of private speech, Vygotsky and Piaget also
offered opposing views on the developmental course of private speech and the environmental
circumstances in which it occurs most often (Berk & Garvin, 1984).
Through private speech, children begin to collaborate with themselves in the same way a more
knowledgeable other (e.g., adults) collaborate with them in the achievement of a given function.
Vygotsky sees "private speech" as a means for children to plan activities and strategies and therefore aid
their development. Private speech is the use of language for self-regulation of behavior. Language is,
therefore, an accelerator to thinking/understanding (Jerome Bruner also views language in this way).

Vygotsky believed that children who engaged in large amounts of private speech are more socially
competent than children who do not use it extensively.
Vygotsky (1987) notes that private speech does not merely accompany a child’s activity but acts as a tool
used by the developing child to facilitate cognitive processes, such as overcoming task obstacles,
enhancing imagination, thinking, and conscious awareness.
Children use private speech most often during intermediate difficulty tasks because they are attempting to
self-regulate by verbally planning and organizing their thoughts (Winsler et al., 2007).
The frequency and content of private speech are then correlated with behavior or performance. For
example, private speech appears to be functionally related to cognitive performance: It appears at times of
difficulty with a task.
For example, tasks related to executive function (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005), problem-solving tasks
(Behrend et al., 1992), schoolwork in both language (Berk & Landau, 1993), and mathematics (Ostad &
Sorensen, 2007).
Berk (1986) provided empirical support for the notion of private speech. She found that most private
speech exhibited by children serves to describe or guide the child's actions.
Berk also discovered than child engaged in private speech more often when working alone on challenging
tasks and also when their teacher was not immediately available to help them. Furthermore, Berk also
found that private speech develops similarly in all children regardless of cultural background.
Vygotsky (1987) proposed that private speech is a product of an individual’s social environment. This
hypothesis is supported by the fact that there exist high positive correlations between rates of social
interaction and private speech in children.
Children raised in cognitively and linguistically stimulating environments (situations more frequently
observed in higher socioeconomic status families) start using and internalizing private speech faster than
children from less privileged backgrounds. Indeed, children raised in environments characterized by low
verbal and social exchanges exhibit delays in private speech development.
Childrens’ use of private speech diminishes as they grow older and follows a curvilinear trend. This is
due to changes in ontogenetic development whereby children are able to internalize language (through
inner speech) in order to self-regulate their behavior (Vygotsky, 1987).
For example, research has shown that childrens’ private speech usually peaks at 3–4 years of age,
decreases at 6–7 years of age, and gradually fades out to be mostly internalized by age 10 (Diaz, 1992).
Vygotsky proposed that private speech diminishes and disappears with age not because it becomes
socialized, as Piaget suggested, but rather because it goes underground to constitute inner speech or
verbal thought” (Frauenglass & Diaz, 1985).
Classroom Applications
Vygotsky's approach to child development is a form of social constructivism, based on the idea
that cognitive functions are the products of social interactions.
Vygotsky emphasized the collaborative nature of learning by the construction of knowledge
through social negotiation.
He rejected the assumption made by Piaget that it was possible to separate learning from its social
context.
Vygotsky believed everything is learned on two levels. First, through interaction with others, and
then integrated into the individual’s mental structure.

Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and
later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child
(intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation
of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals. (Vygotsky,
1978, p.57)
Teaching styles based on constructivism mark a conscious effort to move from ‘traditional,
objectivist models didactic, memory-oriented transmission models’ (Cannella & Reiff, 1994) to a more
student-centred approach.
A contemporary educational application of Vygotsky's theory is "reciprocal teaching," used to
improve students' ability to learn from text. In this method, teachers and students collaborate in learning
and practicing four key skills: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. The teacher's role in
the process is reduced over time.
Also, Vygotsky theory of cognitive development on learners is relevant to instructional concepts such
as "scaffolding" and "apprenticeship," in which a teacher or more advanced peer helps to structure or arrange a
task so that a novice can work on it successfully.
Vygotsky's theories also feed into the current interest in collaborative learning, suggesting that
group members should have different levels of ability so more advanced peers can help less advanced
members operate within their ZPD.
Critical Evaluation
Vygotsky's work has not received the same level of intense scrutiny that Piaget's has, partly due
to the time-consuming process of translating Vygotsky's work from Russian. Also, Vygotsky's
sociocultural perspective does not provide as many specific hypotheses to test as did Piaget's theory,
making refutation difficult, if not impossible.
Perhaps the main criticism of Vygotsky's work concerns the assumption that it is relevant to all
cultures. Rogoff (1990) dismisses the idea that Vygotsky's ideas are culturally universal and instead states
the concept of scaffolding - which is heavily dependent on verbal instruction - may not be equally useful
in all cultures for all types of learning. Indeed, in some instances, observation and practice may be more
effective ways of learning certain skills.
Module 10 Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model Of Development

Synonyms
Bioecological systems theory; Ecological systems theory; Ecological theory of development; Ecological-
transactional model of development
Definition
The bioecological theory of development was formulated by Urie Bronfenbrenner and suggests that
human development is a transactional process in which an individual’s development is influenced by his
or her interactions with various aspects and spheres of their environment.
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model is a theory of educational psychology that studies human

development over time.
Urie Bronfenbrenner was a Russian-American developmental psychologist whose bioecological

model was integral to the formation of American Headstart pre-kindergarten programs. [1] He was
influenced by fellow developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky. The model suggests the interactions
between the individual and their environment, categorized into various systems, shape their
development over time.

Contributors
 Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005)
Key
ConceptsN
ested
Systems
Bronfenbrenner conceptualized four ecological systems that an individual interacted with, each nested
within the others. Listed from closest to the person to furthest:
1. Microsystem — The prefix “micro” comes from the Greek for “small,” and is the first and most
immediate layer of the nested systems. It encompasses an individual’s human relationships,
interpersonal interactions and immediate surroundings. An example of this system would be the
relationship between an individual and his or her parents, siblings, or school environment.
2. Mesosystem — The second layer from the individual, surrounding the microsystem and
encompassing the different interactions between the characters of the microsystem. For example, the
relationship between the individual’s family and their school teachers or administrators. In order for
an interaction to be considered part of the mesosystem, it has to be a direct interaction between two
aspects of the microsystem that influences the development of the individual.
3. Exosystem — The exosystem is the third layer, and contains elements of the microsystem which
do not affect the individual directly, but may do so indirectly. For example, if a parent were to lose
their job or have their hours cut back, this would affect their child in an indirect way such as financial
strain or increased parental stress.
4. Macrosystem — The prefix “macro” comes from the Greek for “large,” and is used because this
system was thought to be all-encompassing. The fourth and outermost layer of the bioecological
model, it encompasses cultural and societal beliefs and programming that influence an individual’s
development. Examples of this would include gender norms or religious influence.
Criticism of the early model
Bronfenbrenner’s early model of the bioecological system has sometimes been criticized for not
emphasizing the active role of the individual in his or her own development. As such, sometimes the
individual’s own biological and identifying characteristics, such as age, health, sex or gender are
considered the unofficial first layer of the nested systems.
In later iterations, a fifth stage is considered part of the bioecological model, called the chronosystem. This
system focuses on the interaction between the various systems and how
they affect one another over time. One instance of this would be parents scolding a child for disobedience,
which is an instance of microsystem-macrosystem interaction. While the parents are members of the
microsystem, they are reinforcing a cultural belief that children should always listen to their parents. The
assumption is that over time, the child would grow up to be obedient.
Later Models

Process — Person — Context — Time (PPCT)

This model was later adapted to include the chronosystem, based on four establishing principles and their
interactions which were Bronfenbrenner’s original basis for the bioecological theory:
Process — The developmental processes that happen through the systematic interactions mentioned
above. What Bronfenbrenner referred to as proximal processes functioned as the primary mechanism of
an individual’s development.
Person — This principle was establish to indicate the role of the individual and their personal
characteristics in social interactions and their individual development. These characteristics include age,
sex, gender, physical or mental health, and others. Some of these characteristics are more visible than
others (such as age) and as such, are more easily measured over time.
Context — The (now five) systems of the bioecological model serve as the context for an individual’s
development — the micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-, and chronosystems.
Time — The most essential element of the bioecological model. Because this model measures an
individual’s development, these interactions occur on a measurable, chronological scale. Time influences
the systemic interactions within an individual’s lifespan as well as across generations, such as in the case
of “family values,” a set of morals or beliefs that are passed down between generations and shape
development. This would be an example of microsystem interaction over time.

Module 8-10 Handouts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Module 8-10 Handouts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 8-10 Handouts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St. Camillus College of Manaoag Foundation, Inc.

Licsi, Manaoag, Pangasinan

Module 8 Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 1

Level 2 - Conventional morality

Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

Problems with Kohlberg's Methods

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 2

2. The sample is biased

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 3

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?

3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 4

Vygotsky's theory differs from that of Piaget in a number of important ways:

Effects of Culture: - Tools of intellectual adaptation

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 5

Social Influences on Cognitive Development

More Knowledgeable Other

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 6

Zone of Proximal Development

Evidence for Vygotsky and the ZPD

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 7

Vygotsky and Language

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 8

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 9

Module 10 Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model Of Development

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 10

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model is a theory of educational psychology that studies human

Urie Bronfenbrenner was a Russian-American developmental psychologist whose bioecological

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 11

 Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005)

Criticism of the early model

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 12

Process — Person — Context — Time (PPCT)

Child and Adolescent Learners and Learning Principles 13

You might also like