HDF 652
1
HDF 652: Theories of Human Development, Fall 2015
Stone 246, Thursdays, 1.00-3.50
Office: 155 Stone. Email: jrtudge@uncg.edu
In this class we shall focus on some of the major developmental theories. A guiding presupposition of the
course is that theories fit into one of three worldviews or metatheoretical perspectives (mechanism,
organicism, and contextualism), and we will examine various theories in their metatheoretical contexts.
Although we will only focus on one mechanist theory (that of Bandura) and one organicist theory (that of
Piaget), more of our attention will be given to contextualist or relational developmental theories.
Increasingly, scholars are accepting the fact that these latter types of theories are the most appropriate to
study the complexity of human development. The current problem, however, is to find methods and
statistical analyses that make sense, given the theories’ complexities. In other words, although research
methods can be studied in their own right, and can be evaluated in terms of how well they are applied in
practice, methods should be closely tied to theory. We will therefore examine the methods to determine the
extent to which they are appropriately related to the theory. In a single-semester class there are clearly
theories that we will not cover; the purpose is not to cover each and every theory of human development.
Instead, the goal is for you to understand the paradigmatic nature of some major theories and the necessity for
ensuring that the methods and analyses make sense given each theory’s paradigmatic presuppositions.
Required book: APA (2009), Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
Washington, DC: APA. Required papers are here are all found in Canvas, in “files.”
Course requirements
1. Paragraphs and questions. Every week, except weeks in which you are presenting, you need to produce
one or more paragraphs (maximum of 250 words total) and one question on the reading(s) for that week. If
two papers are assigned, your paragraphs must be based on both papers. Your lowest score will not be
counted—that means that you can either skip one week or drop your lowest score. The paragraphs need to
present what you think is an important concept or issue about which the author(s) wrote, and why you
think it is important. You are welcome either to defend or critique the concept or idea in your paragraph.
You also need to formulate a question for discussion, focusing on something you feel is important in one or
both of the readings but isn’t clear, would benefit from discussion, etc. You need to use APA style, including
title page, appropriate headings and running header and page numbers, appropriate quotations and/or
citations, references, etc. If you need help on any of these, you’ll need to refer to the APA Publication
manual, 6th edition. The paragraphs and questions need to be sent as an email attachment to
jrtudge@uncg.edu by 9 a.m. on Wednesday (a point will be removed for each hour late). The paragraphs and
questions, together, are worth 20% of your final grade.
Each of the paragraphs and questions will be graded using the following rubric:
Excellent
Good
Weak
Major idea
Question
APA and
grammar
You chose an important
concept and nicely
explained its
importance, or critiqued
it well. (5)
The question is about
an important issue and
should lead to a good
class discussion as it
can be answered with
reference to the
readings. (3)
Writing fully conforms
to APA norms and there
are almost no
typographical or
grammatical errors. (2)
Nonexistent
A central idea or
concept, but you didn’t
explain its importance
well, or a marginal idea,
well explained. (3-4)
The question might lead
to an interesting
discussion, as it relates
to the readings, but the
topic is not particularly
important. (2)
You chose an unimportant issue
to write about and/or didn’t
explain it well, or summarized.
(1-2)
Nonexistent, or
plagiarized. (0)
Unlikely to lead to an
interesting discussion in class,
either because the topic is
unimportant or because it
cannot be answered with
reference to the reading(s). (1)
Irrelevant or
nonexistent.
(Score 0)
Writing either partly
conforms to APA
norms or there are many
typographical or
grammatical errors. (1)
The writing only partly
conforms to APA norms and
there are many typographical or
grammatical errors (0)
HDF 652
Grades for each of the paragraphs (including related questions) will be: A = 9-10; B = 7-8; C = 5-6; D = 0-4.
2
HDF 652
3
2. Discussion. This class is largely based around discussion that is heavily based on the readings. You are
therefore expected to contribute, in appropriate ways, to this discussion, for example by asking questions,
raising issues, making counter arguments, defending your ideas, and so on, primarily basing your arguments
on what you have read in this class. Please take into account that this is not a competitive endeavor; you will
actually be marked down for being disrespectful to others, or by talking too much (making it difficult for
others to talk). Greater understanding of the issues will come about more easily by being mutually
supportive. Contribution to the discussion is required, so come prepared to make your contribution.
Discussion is worth approximately 10% of your final grade. What this means, in essence, is that making
it difficult for others to talk or talking very little will result in at least one reduction of a grade (e.g., from Ato B+). NOTE: When your question is being discussed, be prepared to lead the discussion of it. It will also
help greatly to read, and think about, other people’s questions, which I’ll make available to you before class.
3. Presentations. Two formal presentations, of 20 minutes each, with one on one of the starred (*) readings
and the other on a non-starred reading (but not one related to the same theory). These presentations should
be thought of as preparations for conference presentations; questions from the audience should be kept for the
end of the presentation (except for minor questions about clarification).
The purpose of the presentations is not simply to cover what is in the reading for that week, which
people will have read. You may summarize the main issues, but you need to go beyond what is in the
readings, for example by making links to other theories (discussing similarities or differences), or by linking
to one or other of the basic paradigms, or by linking to research that might support or attack the theory. The
grades for the presentation will be based on the extent to which you:
 present coherently and clearly, showing that you have understood the topic and at least some of the key
issues and arguments that the author(s) make(s) [0-3 points];
 include relevant and interesting “outside” material [0-2 points];
 “talk” to your audience (as opposed to reading from the paper), with good eye contact [0-1 point];
 don’t talk looking back over your shoulder at the material that appears on the overhead [0-1 point];
 use appropriate overheads or slides (visible, not too much information on any one overhead) [0-1 point];
 keep to your time limit (no less than 16 minutes, no more than 21 minutes) [0-1 point];
 have both an appropriate introduction (informing your audience what you plan to cover) and conclusion
(some type of summarizing statements) [0-1 points].
It will help you to restrict your notes to a minimum (so that you are not tempted to read them) and to practice
a couple of times prior to the actual presentation. Make sure that your overheads use a font that is clear and
large enough to be seen, and that you do not try to get too much information on any one overhead. You
should prepare a version of your presentation for all class members (using the “handout” facility in
PowerPoint). If your presentation has a lot of dark background, copy it to a plain background before printing
and copying. If you are presenting with someone else, make sure that you co-ordinate so that you don’t
present very similarly. Each presentation is worth approximately 15% of your final grade, and A = 9-10, B
= 7-8, C = 5-6.
4. Final paper. A final paper should cover one of the theories of your choice. You should summarize the
theory, taking no more than 50% of your paper. The remaining space should be devoted to (a) explaining
how it fits into one or other of the major paradigms, (b) empirical support for or critique of the theory (i.e.,
relevant research that used paradigm-appropriate methods), and (c) weaknesses of the theory. As with the
brief discussion papers, you need to use APA style (see above) and be careful not to plagiarize (see below).
The final paper is worth 40% of your final grade.
Be careful not to plagiarize, using someone else’s words as your own. Note that slightly modifying the
original words (changing a word here or there, leaving out a clause from a sentence, etc.) still constitutes
plagiarism. Sometimes this happens by chance if you take fairly extensive notes on some text, and then
simply use those words in your own paper—but it is still plagiarism. If you use an author’s words you
must put them in quotation marks and cite your source (author’s name, date, and page number), and if
you summarize you must also cite your source (author’s name and date only). Plagiarism is a serious
HDF 652
4
issue. The minimum penalty, for a first offence, is F on the assignment, and a report filed with the
appropriate office on campus.
The rubric for grading the papers is as follows:
Excellent
Good
Summary of
the theory (no
more than
half the
paper).
A good, clear, and accurate
summary of the major
components of the theory.
(5-6)
Fit with
paradigm,
empirical
support, and
weaknesses
You have shown why the
theory fits the appropriate
paradigm, and have
described well both support
for and critique of the
theory (taking the paradigm
into account) and its
weaknesses. (5-6)
The writing fully conforms
to APA norms and there
are no (or almost no)
typographical or
grammatical errors. (2)
APA and
grammar
Weak
Unmentionable
Many, but not all of the
major components of the
theory, described
accurately, or all of the
components, with some
inaccuracy. (3-4)
Two of these three aspects
were appropriately and
well discussed, but the
other one was not.
(3-4)
Not all of the major
components are
discussed and those that
are described do not
seem to be well
understood. (1-2)
One of these three
aspects was
appropriately and well
considered, but the
other two were not.
(1-2)
Not worth
considering, or
plagiarized.
(Score 0)
The writing either partly
conforms to APA norms
or there are typographical
or grammatical errors. (1)
The writing only partly
conforms to APA
norms and there are
typographical or
grammatical errors. (0)
Hmmm, perhaps
you ran out of
time before you
could write this
section. (0)
Grades for your paper will be: 12-14 A; 8-11 B; 5-7 C; D 0-4
Calendar
August 20: Introduction to the semester
August 27: Paradigms and theories
Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of human development: Integrative perspectives. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Co. Chapter 1, Prologue, and Chapter 2, How we are: The mechanist world view.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Additional readings relevant to this topic (only if you want to go further into this topic. Please note that not
all these readings are easily available; if you can’t find them, feel free to ask me.)
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [This
chapter is particularly important as a way to think about “critiques from within” the mechanist (positivist
or post-positivist) paradigm.]
Eckensberger, L. H. (1979). A metamethodological examination of psychological theories from a crosscultural perspective. In L. H. Eckensberger, W. J. Lonner, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Cross-cultural
contributions to psychology (pp. 255-275). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Eckensberger, L. H. (2002). Paradigms revisited: From incommensurability to respected complementarity. In
H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga, & A. Schölmerich (Eds.), Between culture and biology: Perspectives on
ontogenetic development (pp. 341-383). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuczynski, L., & Daly, K., (2003). Qualitative methods as inductive (theory-generating) research:
Psychological and sociological approaches. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent–child
relations (pp. 373-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Overton, W. F. (1984). World-views and their influence on psychological theory and research: Kuhn–
Lakatos–Laudan. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 191226). New York: Academic Press.
HDF 652
5
Overton, W. F., & Reese, H. W. (1973). Models of development: Methodological implications. In J. R.
Nesselroade & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Lifespan developmental psychology: Methodological issues (pp. 6586). New York: Academic Press.
Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Winegar, L. T. (1997). Developmental research and comparative perspectives: Applications to developmental
science. In J. Tudge, M. Shanahan, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Comparisons in human development:
Understanding time and context (pp. 13-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.
September 3: Organicism and contextualism
Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of human development: Integrative perspectives. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Co. Chapter 3, on organicism, and Chapter 4, on contextualism.
Your goal, in this week’s paragraph, is to explain the key similarities and differences between these
two paradigms.
September 10: No class (I’m at a conference)
September 17: Mechanism? Bandura
Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of human development: Integrative perspectives. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Co. Chapter 6, Bandura’ social cognitive theory
*September 24: Bandura on Bandura
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bandura, A., Barbaranellli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of
children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development 72(1), 187-206.
Additional readings relevant to this topic (only if you want to go further into this topic)
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1989b). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development, Vol. 6 (pp. 160). Creenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1992). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing gender development. Child
Development, 63, 1236-1250.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 361-384.
Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organization performance in complex
decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181-201.
October 1: Organicism: Piaget’s theory—an overview
Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of human development: Integrative perspectives. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Co. Chapter 10, Piaget’s constructivist theory
This chapter is a commentary on Piaget’s theory, but it seemed like the best brief introduction to his ideas
(although obviously, as with all commentaries, the theory viewed from a particular perspective). Other good
commentaries include:
Chapman, M. (1988). Constructive evolution: Origins and development of Piaget's thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lourenço, O. M., & Machado, A. (1996). In defense of Piaget’s Theory: A Reply to 10 common criticisms.
Psychological Review, 103 (1), 143-164.
Müller, U., Carpendale, J. M., & Smith, L. (2009). The Cambridge companion to Piaget. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
*October 8: Piaget
HDF 652
6
Piaget, J. (1973). The child and reality: Problems of genetic psychology. New York: Grossman. Chapter 1:
“Time and the intellectual development of the child” (original work published in 1962).
If you want to understand Piaget’s theory, you need to read his books, and understand how his thinking
changed over time. The fullest brief (but dense) introduction to his ideas is:
Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget's theory. In W. Kessen (Ed.), History, theory, and methods. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 294-356). New York: Wiley. (Original work published in
1970.)
October 15: No class
*October 22: Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 6963–6970). New
York: Elsevier. [Reprinted, in slightly adapted form, and with mis-numbered propositions, in
Bronfenbrenner, 2005.]
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution
from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5(6), 243–258.
Additional readings, if you’re interested in the development of his theory:
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in human development. Research paradigms: Present and
future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in context: Developmental
processes (pp. 25-49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development, Vol 6
(pp. 187-249). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In
R. Wozniak & K. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments
(pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd Ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643-1647). Oxford, England:
Pergamon Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (A helpful compilation of papers written over many years, but
note that many of the entries are edited and shortened, often greatly so.)
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of
human development (6th ed., pp. 793-828). New York: John Wiley.
October 29: Bioecological research (or not?)
Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. (2009). The uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1(4), 198-210.
Tudge, J. R. H., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Cao, H., & Li, J. (under review). Still misused after all
these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development.
*November 5: PVEST: Spencer’s Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory
Swanson, D. P. et al. (2003). Psychosocial development in racially and ethnically diverse youth: Conceptual
and methodological challenges in the 21st century. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 743–771.
Additional readings relevant to this topic (only if you want to go further into this topic)
HDF 652
7
Spencer, M. B. (2006). Phenomenology and ecological systems theory: Development of diverse groups. In W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of
human development (6th ed., pp. 829–893). New York: John Wiley.
Burton, L. M., Price-Spratlen, T., & Spencer, M. B. (1997). On ways of thinking about neighborhoods: Implications for
studying context and developmental outcomes for children. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.),
Neighborhood poverty: Policy implications in studying neighborhoods (Vol. 2, pp. 132–144). New York, NY:
Russell-Sage Foundation.
Ogbu, J. U. (1985). A cultural ecology of competence among inner-city Blacks. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brookins, & W.
R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of black children (pp. 45-66). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dilworth-Anderson, P., Johnson, L. B., & Burton, L. M. (1992). Reframing theories for understanding race, ethnicity, and
families. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family
theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 625-644). New York: Plenum.
Johnson, D. J. (2005). The ecology of children’s racial coping: Family, school, and community influences. In T. Weisner
(Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and
family life (pp. 87-109). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Coard, S. I., & Sellers, R. M. (2005). African American families as a context for racial socialization. In V. C. McLoyd, K.
A. Dodge, & N. E. Hill (Eds.), African American family life: Ecological and cultural diversity (pp. 264-284). New
York: Guilford.
McLoyd, V. C. (2004). Linking race and ethnicity to culture: Steps along the road from inference to hypothesis testing.
Human Development, 47(3), 185-191.
November 12: Evolutionary and systems approaches
Goldhaber, D. (2012). The nature–nurture debates: Bridging the gap. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
(Chapter 5: The new debate, pp. 91–120)
Additional readings relevant to this topic (only if you want to go further into this topic)
Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science, 10(1), 1–11.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook
of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
*November 19: Developmental relational systems theory
Overton, W. F. (2013). Relationism and relational developmental systems: A paradigm for developmental
science in the post-Cartesian era. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 44, 21–64.
Additional readings relevant to this topic (only if you want to go further into this topic)
Lerner, R. M. (2015). Promoting positive human development and human justice: Integrating theory, research, and
application in contemporary developmental science. International Journal of Psychology, 50(3), 165–173.
Lerner, R. M., & Overton, W. F. (2008). Exemplifying the integrations of the relational developmental system:
Synthesizing theory, research, and application to promote positive development and social justice. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 23(3), 245–255.
Overton, W. F. (2015). Process and relational developmental systems. In W. F. Overton & P. C. Molenaar (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method. (7th Ed., Vol. 1, pp. 9–62).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Overton, W. F. & Lerner, R. M. (2012). Relational developmental systems: A paradigm for developmental science in the
postgenomic era. Behavior and Brain Science, 35(5), 375–376.
November 26: Thanksgiving
December 4: Your paper is due by 9 a.m. on Thursday, December 3; one grade removed for every day (or
part of a day) late.