Name: Crooks Emily
Student Number: 5308796
Seminar Number: 38
Seminar Leader’s Name: Mary Spring
Section A| Markers: record grade for Section A Essay. Section A is marked out of 20| Section A| |
Section BStudents: circle the 3 you answered in Section B| Markers: record grade for each question answered. Each of the 3 Section B answers is marked out of 10 | Q1| |
Total grade for Midterm Assignment: ________ /50
Throughout this paper I’ll explore George and Simon’s development through various theoretical lenses. George and Simon are both 8-years old and are unrelated children who have been diagnosed with ADHD. The purpose of this paper is to explain how both George and Simon could have developed ADHD through a genetics lens, a learning theory lens, and through Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical lens. As well, I’ll explain how a Vygotskian theorist would think about supporting Simon and his family such that his developmental path would result in a constructive outcome.
Some research suggests that ADHD may be a genetic disorder. Assuming the evidence that supports this bias is true, I’ll look at how both George and Simon would have developed ADHD through a genetics/biological lens by focusing on biological theories of development. In relation to a biological outlook, intellectual and personality development, as well as physical and motor development carry on according to a biological plan Kail, R.V & Barnfield, A., (2009). For example, Arnold Gesel’s maturational theory suggests that a child’s development reflects a precise and predetermined method or plan within the body. Gesell’s theory strongly encourages parents to allow their children to develop naturally. Interference with this development will obstruct the natural behavioural development of that child. Gesell’s theory also suggest that all children have a predetermined developmental schedule or as he puts it, a “timetable”. With that in mind, this would imply that both Simon and George have a predetermined susceptibility to ADHD. Though Kail admits that experience matters a little, he also theorises that experience does not cause or curve ADHD, but rather it is a result of your genetics. This theory did not gain wide acceptance in the scientific community since it has so little to say about the impact of the environment on a child’s development. However this is not to say that biological theories do not give credit to the impact of the surrounding environment and experiences on the development of children. Kail R.V (2009). In the academic journal; Mental Retardation And Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews (Sarah Durston, 2010), Twin and adoption studies specify that ADHD has a strong genetic component. There’ve been numerous studies connecting candidate genes to ADHD. The purpose of these studies was to focus on the dopamine system and its susceptibility of representing weak risk factors for ADHD. Studies that were looking for the genes coding for other neurotransmitter systems have suggested there may be many other systems involved in the genetic bias of ADHD. In short, although there is compelling evidence that ADHD has a genetic basis, it remains unclear which genes are responsible? Many studies have focused on dopaminergic genes, in line with the evidence from neuropharmacological studies (Sarah Durston, 2010). This evidence is suggesting that Simon and George’s dopamine system plays a role in representing weak risk factors for ADHD, but is not the only factor. There is also some evidence that claims other systems are involved as well (Durston, 2010). Another perspective for looking at George and Simon’s development is with nature and nurture factors. Through a learning theory lens, I’ll explore the interaction of genetics and how the different environments of Simon and George may have an effect on their developmental...