10 Running Head: LEARNING AND STAGE THEORY IN UNISON Learning and Stage Theory in Unison Human Development Date Introduction This observation applies stage theories and learning theories to describe the estimated level of development of a child. The purpose of this observation is to show that both stage theories and learning theories can be used simultaneously to describe a child’s perceived level of development. These two types of theories are generally seen as opposed to one another, but I believe that they can both shed light on the same subject at the same time, each in important and different ways. I intend to demonstrate that stage theories are more useful in describing where a child is in their development, but that learning theories can be used to better help describe how a child has gotten to this point and how they are continuing to grow into and beyond it. Data Collection The data for this observation was gathered in two distinct stages. The first was by watching a subject’s interactions with his father in a crowded library, the second by watching the subject’s interactions with the same environment while not under direct supervision by his father. I believe the subject’s behavior both under direct supervision and with little show a normal level of development that I attribute to what appeared to be good health, intelligence, and a good family environment. Subject The subject of this observation is a young boy between four and six years of age. During the observation, the subject was energetic and explorative, but was generally well behaved and respectful. The subject’s father brought him to the library and was in close proximity throughout the observation. I do not know the subject or his father, and beyond my short observation of the subject, lasting about fifteen minutes, know nothing about either of them. Developmental Theories Applied I am applying four developmental theories to the subject’s interactions and behaviors to determine his stage of development, how he may have arrived there, and how they may indicate his continued growth. Two of the theories are stage theories, and two are learning theories. I have focused on specific aspects of each theory to arrive at these determinations. The first stage theory is I am applying Jean Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory. Piaget’s theory is based on the idea that children actively construct their understanding of their world through their experiences, and contains four distinct stages that Piaget believed were universal for all people and that must be gone through in an invariant order (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The specific aspects of this theory I will be focusing on for this observation are the preoperational stage of development, when a child becomes able to work things out in his head and is starting to use the imagination, as well as the idea of symbolic capacity, the ability to use one object to represent another (Sigelman & Rider, 200.

1. 10
Running Head: LEARNING AND STAGE THEORY IN
UNISON
Learning and Stage Theory in Unison
Human Development
Date
Introduction
This observation applies stage theories and learning theories to
describe the estimated level of development of a child. The
purpose of this observation is to show that both stage theories
and learning theories can be used simultaneously to describe a
child’s perceived level of development. These two types of

2. theories are generally seen as opposed to one another, but I
believe that they can both shed light on the same subject at the
same time, each in important and different ways. I intend to
demonstrate that stage theories are more useful in describing
where a child is in their development, but that learning theories
can be used to better help describe how a child has gotten to
this point and how they are continuing to grow into and beyond
it.
Data Collection
The data for this observation was gathered in two distinct
stages. The first was by watching a subject’s interactions with
his father in a crowded library, the second by watching the
subject’s interactions with the same environment while not
under direct supervision by his father. I believe the subject’s
behavior both under direct supervision and with little show a
normal level of development that I attribute to what appeared to
be good health, intelligence, and a good family environment.
Subject
The subject of this observation is a young boy between four and
six years of age. During the observation, the subject was
energetic and explorative, but was generally well behaved and
respectful. The subject’s father brought him to the library and
was in close proximity throughout the observation. I do not
know the subject or his father, and beyond my short observation
of the subject, lasting about fifteen minutes, know nothing
about either of them.
Developmental Theories Applied
I am applying four developmental theories to the subject’s
interactions and behaviors to determine his stage of
development, how he may have arrived there, and how they may
indicate his continued growth. Two of the theories are stage
theories, and two are learning theories. I have focused on
specific aspects of each theory to arrive at these determinations.
The first stage theory is I am applying Jean Piaget’s cognitive
developmental theory. Piaget’s theory is based on the idea that
children actively construct their understanding of their world

3. through their experiences, and contains four distinct stages that
Piaget believed were universal for all people and that must be
gone through in an invariant order (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).
The specific aspects of this theory I will be focusing on for this
observation are the preoperational stage of development, when a
child becomes able to work things out in his head and is starting
to use the imagination, as well as the idea of symbolic capacity,
the ability to use one object to represent another (Sigelman &
Rider, 2009).
The second stage theory I am applying is Erik Erikson’s
psychosocial theory. Erikson believed that children mature
through eight psychosocial stages, also described as conflicts,
through their lives (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The specific
aspects of this theory that I will be focusing on are the stages of
trust vs. mistrust, when a child learns to either trust or not to,
autonomy vs. shame, when a child learns either to employ their
own abilities or not, and initiative vs. guilt, when a child learns
either to plan and follow through or not (Sigelman & Rider,
2009).
The first learning theory I am applying is Lev Vygotski’s
sociocultural perspective. This theory is founded on the idea
that the child’s development is guided by his surrounding
sociocultural context and his interactions with other members
within, further stating that the child’s culture provides tools
such as language or mathematical systems that the child uses to
come to understand the world around him (Sigelman & Rider,
2009). The specific aspects of this theory I will be applying are
the ideas of guided participation and the zone of proximal
development, which together state that children can learn more
by being guided through the proximal zone, the gap between
what can be learned independently and what can be learned with
help from a parent or other elder (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).
The second learning theory I am applying is Albert Bandura’s
social cognitive theory. This theory is grounded on the idea
that people are cognitive beings who actively seek out behaviors
that result in rewards and avoid behaviors resulting in

4. punishment, either of which can be self-imposed or internalized
(Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The drive to explore new behaviors
and learn from the lessons resulting is called human agency, the
deliberate exercising of cognitive control of a person on their
own development (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). The aspects of
this theory I will apply are human agency, as seen above, as
well as the idea of observational learning, which states that
people can learn vicariously through the witnessed actions of
others (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).
Subject’s Interactions With His Father
The subject and his father arrived at the library mid-afternoon,
and proceeded to the children’s books section. The child stuck
close to his father, but it did not seem that he did so out of a
sense of fear of either the crowd in the library or of getting into
trouble by his father for not doing so. This was shown by the
child’s unabashed and curious looks at what others were doing
and his general comfort with his father. The child looked to be
very trusting of the environment and his father, demonstrating
that he has surpassed Erikson’s stage of trust vs. mistrust.
The child stood with his father at the bookshelf, looking at the
books his father showed him and either nodding with excitement
when shown a book he liked or shaking his head with what I
took to be a “seriously, dad?” when shown a book he did not
like. The father kept the books the subject liked and put back
the ones he did not. When the subject and his father had picked
out a selection of a dozen or so books, they moved off to one
side and the father flipped through the books with the child, as
if to get a second opinion and be sure of their selections. The
father would point things out and the child would either react
with excitement, confusion, or what I could have sworn was
ennui. When the child acted with confusion, the father would
show the child again and it appeared that he would also re-
explain things to the child as he did. On a few of these
occasions, the child appeared to reconsider and recognize that
the book was worth keeping, or become excited with the book

5. anew. This behavior demonstrates Vygotsky’s principles of
guided participation and the zone of proximal development,
which the father appeared to have guided the child through.
After the subject and his father agreed upon which books to
keep, the father took the others back and walked to the nearby
fiction section. The child was now free to wander about the
kid’s zone.
Subject’s Independent Interaction With His Environment
The child wandered around for about a minute, then looked to
the table where I sat typing on my laptop, another middle-aged
man typing away across the table from me on his laptop. The
child then noticed some computer keyboards on the table and
took one over to a short table for children nearby. The child
proceeded to type on the keyboard, acting very serious as the
other laptop user and I were acting, but occasionally looking
over at us expectantly and with a smile. I feel that the child
was demonstrating autonomy as opposed to shame and was
showing that he had successfully entered and was displaying
actions within Erikson’s stage of autonomy vs. shame by
deciding that he wanted to be a “typer” like the two big guys at
the big table. I also believe that the child was demonstrating
Bandura’s idea of observational learning by emulating what
older members of his culture were doing and picking up the
basic idea of using a keyboard to accomplish whatever task he
imagined we were doing. A third idea I believe the subject was
demonstrating by typing his imaginary paper was Piaget’s idea
of symbolic capacity, which he showed by using a keyboard and
emulating work on a laptop.
Leaving the Library
Soon after the child started typing on the keyboard, his father
found a book and came over to the child to gather him up and
leave. When he arrived at the table, the child excitedly got up
and followed his father out, showing no distress at having to
leave his project mid-stream. I feel that this could have
demonstrated that the child has not yet reached Erikson’s stage
of initiative vs. guilt, as he had not complete anything with his

6. project, but showed no distress over his unfinished work. On
another hand, it may only have been that the child did not set
out to accomplish anything, he may have only wanted to
emulate what the older people near him were doing, further
evidence that he was displaying autonomy but not yet initiative.
Unison
All of the activities, behaviors, and ideas I have presented thus
far can be shown to work in unison to describe the subject’s
perceived level of development, and have helped to explain each
other’s effects on one another. Erikson and Piaget’s stage
theories demonstrate that the child has the capacity to act
independently and imaginatively, as a child in Erikson’s
autonomy vs. shame or Piaget’s pre-operational stage should be
able to do at the collective ages of two to seven. There is also
evidence that the child may not yet be fully in Erikson’s stage
of initiative vs. guilt that should be reached between ages three
to six. These stages all fit the child’s perceived age range of
between four and six years of age.
Vygotsky and Bandura’s learning theories help to explain how
these stages may have been achieved. This is shown through
ideas like Vygotsky’s guided participation, which I believe
requires the trust in the child’s father achieved during Erikson’s
first stage of development. It is also exemplified by the idea
that the autonomy of Erikson’s second stage could be required
for the child to be motivated to demonstrate Bandura’s
observational learning mechanism, and that the child may again
need the trust achieved at Erikson’s first stage to feel that the
actions of strangers are a good thing to be doing in the first
place. Connections are also shown by the child’s necessary
completion of Piaget’s sensorimotor stage and entry into the
preoperational stage to be able to demonstrate symbolic
capacity and imagination in exercising Bandura’s observational
learning through the keyboard emulating the laptops.
One last example shows that unison is already present between
stage and learning theory. This example is the remarkable
similarity between Erikson’s idea of autonomy and Bandura’s

7. idea of human agency. Both describe a person’s ability, more
significantly, a person’s drive, to do things on their own. There
is only a minor difference between the two: Bandura sees the
ability as present at birth but Erikson sees it as a stepping-stone
requiring previous development.
Conclusion
In this paper I have attempted to show how learning and stage
theories can be used in unison to describe the level of a child’s
development. More importantly, I have attempted to show how
learning and stage theories can help explain each other and
collectively allow one to come to these combination-based
conclusions. Based on my observations, I have come to the
conclusion that the child is at a combination of Piaget’s
preoperational stage and Erikson’s autonomy vs. shame stage,
as learned through these two theories alongside Bandura’s
social cognitive theory and Vygotsky’s sociocultural
perspective. I believe that in the coming months, the child will
enter new a stage, Erikson’s initiative vs. guilt, while remaining
partially in another, Piaget’s preoperational. However, I
believe he will only do this with the aid of his society’s tools
and the inspiration found through observing his elders and from
receiving their help to surpass the trying times between stages,
between theories.

8. References
Sigelman, C., & Rider, E. (2009). Life-Span Human
Development. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Running Head: LEARNING AND STAGE THEORY IN
UNISON

9. Learning and Stage Theory in Unison
Human Development
Date
Running Head: LEARNING AND STAGE THEORY IN
UNISON
Learning and Stage Theory in Unison
Human Development
Date