Psychology Of Children, Parental Involvement

Psychology of Children:
Define the term parental involvement and explain the rationale for such involvement with reference to children’s learning and development.

Today’s economic climate and the changing demands of the workplace have presented mothers with the opportunity to work part time. This, coupled with the increase in the divorce rate over recent years has required many single parents to place their children into the care of others. Such changes in the social environment and structure of the family have re-fuelled the interest in the rationale for parental involvement in children’s learning and development [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

An area of research this essay will attempt to explain. The essay begins by offering a definition of parental involvement followed by an overview of the implications of the different parenting styles proposed by Diana Baumrind. While discussing the rationale of parental involvement, alternative theories such as those proposed by Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, Sigmund Freud and John Bowlby will be discussed. The essay reaches a close by explaining the rationale for parental involvement when considering the stance of various learning theorists such as that of Burrhus Fredrick Skinner and Albert Bandura. The term ‘parental involvement’ is not unlike the many other terms used in psychology in that there is rarely only one definition available. However for the purposes of this essay the definition proposed by Epstein in 1991 will be used. Epstein defines parental involvement to be inclusive of “…parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making and collaborating with the community” [1, p.27]. This definition will be utilised given it’s holistic qualities in that it refers not only to parenting per se but explicitly links parenting to contact with the community, communication and learning at home. When discussing parenting styles with others, it is not so difficult to identify a number of different parenting styles. But to what extent have these differing styles influence the growth of the child and the developing adult? Measuring or defining these differences and quantifying their potential implications was a task set-upon by Diana Baumrind in 1967 [6,7]. Based on Baumrind’s initial research which included one hundred pre-school Californian children, three different parenting styles were proposed; authoritarian, permissive and authoritative [7] each reflecting a level of love and concern for the child.

A further two parenting styles were later identified by subsequent researchers. These are entitled ‘neglectful parenting’ and ‘indulgent parenting’. Both styles, as may be indicated by their labels, are underpinned with abuse and harm [8].

Table 1: The effects of different parenting styles on the characteristics of the child

[Adapted from: 27, 15, 8., pp.310-311, 15,]

Baumrind’s research clearly shows the potential influence of parental involvement on childhood development in that the type of parenting style can provoke certain characteristics in the child [13].
With this in mind, the essay will now explain the stance of developmental theorists and the rationale for parental involvement. The first theorist to be introduced will be Jean Piaget with his theory of cognitive development, followed by Erik Erikson who discusses socioemotional development. The essay will then describe Sigmund Freud’s controversial depiction of child development before introducing John Bowlby’s attachment theory. For the most part, the aforementioned theories are stage theories [7] where the developing child is faced with particular challenges and is required to overcome these via their age related capabilities prior to progression to the next stage [7].
Piaget defines development as:

“The continuous alteration and re-organisation of the ways in which people deal with their environment” Piaget, 1970 [as cited in 7., p.33] Piaget’s theory of cognitive development emerged from observations, dialogues, and small-scale experiments he used while trying to explain ‘how a child comes to understand their world’ [4]. Piaget’s stage theory is not as rigid those to be introduced later in the essay in that Piaget purport’s no sharp dividing line between the stages and claims that progression differs from one child to another. Despite this relative flexibility, Piaget’s does argue that the order in which children progress is immalleable [4].
Diagram 1: Piaget’s theory of cognitive development
[Adapted from 8., p.45]

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is grounded in two basic concepts: organisation and adaptation. Organisation is the ability to organise information in a way that makes the knowledge useful. And adaptation: the ability to adapt or adjust to ones environment accordingly [8]. According to Piaget, it is the ability to organise and adapt that facilitates progression from ‘disequilibrium’ forward to a new level of cognitive development or ‘equilibrium’. Piaget claims cognitive development can be depicted as progression through four basic stages. These are:

and many more...........

• REFERENCE LIST:
  
• Epstein, J. (1991). A checklist for an effective parent-school partnership: In Project Apple seed. [Online] available at: www.a-zuc.com/org/apples/chklst.html. On 21st June 2003.
• Fulcher, J., & Scott, J. (2001). Sociology. Oxford University Press: UK.
• Mulhern, M., Rodriguez-Brown, F., & Shanahan, T. (1994). Family literacy for language minority families: Issues for programme implementation. [Online] available at: www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig17.htm. On 21st June 2003.
• Smith, P, K., Cowie, H., Blades, M. (2003). Understanding Children’s development. Blackwell Publishers: UK.
• Bradley, R, H. (2002). Socio-economic Status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol.53. pp.371-399.
• Reber, A, S., & Reber, E. (2001). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, Third Edition. Penguin Books: UK.
• Kaplan, P, S. (1993). The Human Odyssey: Lifespan Development. West Publishing Company: USA.
• Berger, K, S. (2003). The Developing Person through Childhood. Worth-Publishers: USA.
• Bernstein, D, A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Roy, E, J., Wickens, C, D. (1997). Psychology, Fourth Edition. Houghton-Mifflin Co: USA.
• Pines, M. (1997). The Civilising of Genie. [Online] available at www.kccesl.tripod.com/genie.html. On 19th June 2003.
• Quinn, P, J., O’Callaghan, M., Williams, G, M., Najman, J, M., Andersen, M, J., Bor,. (2001). The effect of breast-feeding on chid development at five years: A cohort study. Journal of Paediatric Child Health. Vol.37. pp.465-469.
• NMSA. (2002). NMSA Research Summary no.18: Parental Involvement and Student Achievement at Middle Level. National Middle School Association. [Online] available at www.nmsa.org/research/ressum18.htm. On 20th June 2003.
• Lane, S. (2001). Childhood Neglect and Cognitive Development in Extremely Low birth Weight Infants: A Prospective Study. Paediatrics. Vol.108 pp.142-151.
• Tizzard, J, Schofield, W, N., & Hanson, J. (1982). Collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children’s reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology vol.52. pp.1-15. [online] available at www.literacytrust.org.uk/database/parentover.html on 20th June 2003.
• Stormshank, E, A., Bierman, K, L., McMahon, R, J., Lengua, L, J. (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive behaviour problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Vol.29 pp. 17-29.
• Cross, T. (2001). Gifted Children and Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development. Gifted Children Today Magazine. [Online] available at: www.findarticles.com on 20th June 2003.
• Hewstone, M & Stroebe, W. (2001). Introduction to Social Psychology: A European Perspective. Blackwell Publishers; UK.
• Wells, G. (1987). The Meaning Makers. Hadder & Soughton: UK.
• Tizzard, B., Blatchfor, P., Burke, J., Farquar, C., Lewis, I. (1988). Young Children in the inner city. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: UK.
• Shelly, W, U. (2003). Freud’s Psychosexual Stages of Development. What you need to know about psychology. [Online] available at: http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa111500b.htm on 24th June 2003.
• Loeber, R. (1990). Risk Factors and the Development of Disruptive and Anti-Social Behaviours in Children. Clinical Psychology Review. Vol.9 [Online] available at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e033/e033k_e.shtml on 24th June 2003.
• O’Conner, T, G., Rutter, M., Beckett, L., Keaveny, L., Kropper, J, M. and the Romanian Adoptees Study team. (2000). The effects of global severe deprivation on cognitive competence: extension and longitudinal follow up. Child Development. Vil.71 pp.376-390.
• Rutter, M. and the English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) team. (1998). Developmental catch-up & deficit following adoption after severe global early deprivation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Vol.39 pp.465-476.
• Bandura, A., Ross, A., Ross, S, A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression through imitation of Aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol.63 pp.575-582.
• Engler, B. (2003). Personality Theories: An Introduction, 6th Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company: U.S.A.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall: U.S.A.
• Lerner, R., Ree, N, E., Wilson, S. (1998). The parenting of Adolescents and Adolescents as Parents: A developmental Contextual Perspective. [Online] available at: http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Lerner/Lerner.html on 25th June 2003.