According to Karpov, one shortcoming of this approach is that Vygotsky did not explain how new motives in adolescence develop. In Vygotsky’s view, the change in the motives of adolescence comes about due to the growth of sexual desires and needs which are as a result of their ability to think logically. The mistake here is that, he did not elaborate on how that growth occurs, and more over, this view on motive development does not concur with some of the previous views that Vygotsky had stated earlier (206).
For instance, he did not agree with some researchers’ failure to differentiate between growth of ‘motive thinking processes’ and ‘thinking processes’. In the same case, he himself made a similar mistake by not making a clear distinction on how the ‘motive’ and ‘ability’ for self-reflection in adolescents grow, rather, he explains argues that both of these are as a result of logical thought.
Vygotsky also disapproved of those researchers who said that when a new behavior is formed, a new driving force is formed at the same time. His view was that, when a need is formed, the logical thinking that helps to satisfy the need are not yet formed, thus his conclusion was that a motive has to develop first before the skill to do it does (Karpov 206). In his theory, however, Vygotsky said that formal-logical thinking in adolescents leads to formation of motive and ability to self-reflect. This could mean that both motive and ability here develop at the same time and hence, he should not have faulted the above theory.
Another shortcoming of Vygotsky’s approach is that “adolescents’ transition to formal-logical thought by itself is not sufficient to explain such an achievement of this period as self-consciousness” (Karpov 207). Earlier in his book, Vygotsky had noted that adolescents develop self-consciousness as they interact with other people in the society, but he failed to distinguish between the two, since his arguments were basically centered on how school contributes to growth of formal-logical thinking.
During adolescence, adolescents learn to interact with their peers and according to Vygotsky, this is the leading activity at this period. When such leading activities are formed, adolescents use the society’s behavioral norms and observations from the adults as the basis of their behavior. This leads to self-awareness, a major accomplishment that prepares them for adulthood.
When involved in these leading activities, the adolescents develop new abilities and motives that are of a higher level than the current leading activity. This helps them to move to the next leading activity which is associated with development in that specific period. At this stage, the adolescents are able to think logically and they feel like the world has opened a whole new life to them. They start to analyze themselves. Their feelings and the surroundings they are in and the society at large.
In their interaction with their peers, adolescents involve themselves in discussions on moral issues and this leads to development of moral reasoning. Adolescents interaction with their parents also promote moral reasoning but in a slightly different way as compared to that of their peers.
When children are involved in discussions with their parents, the reasoning at this particular point is of higher level since the parents provide a model and experiences that are different from that of their peers. On the other hand, when discussions are in relation with their peers, the talks are basically majored on sharing ideas and views based on their own experiences, which in this case are almost similar and of the same level (Karpov 216).
Failure in leading activities leads to engagement in risky behavior by adolescents. They do this to overcome to cope with depressing issues and to overcome the feeling of being inadequate (Karpov 224). Consequently, the ability to self-reflect by the adolescents make them realize the differences and flaws in the kind of person they currently are and what they aspire to be, bringing about mood disruptions. Adolescents at this stage start feeling that their parents are too demanding and that their rules are infringing on their freedom. This often leads to conflicts with their parents, especially over minor issues and they tend to throw tantrums at the slightest provocation.
The Humanistic Education Movement failed due to several reasons. First, it was opposed by religious groups who felt that this would undermine religion and religious morals in schools. Another reason was that some of the values were not well interpreted by the concerned people in the school setting to enable teachers use instructional materials as required. Some parents were not also for the idea of introduction of discussion of values in schools.
Humanistic education was geared to introducing a structured form of education where teachers were to be responsible for directing student on activities to be carried out during classroom instruction. In this case, curriculum maker had to be involved in making such perceived plans. This made teachers lack confidence to face students without a lesson plan.
The reintroduction of 3Rs brought was viewed as to bring about conflicts of human relationships in classroom. This was due to the assumption that affective development and relationships in a classroom setting did not go well with cognitive development. Some parents therefore felt that this would affect their children’s academic performance.
Works Cited
Yuriy Karpov. The Neo-Vygotskian approach to child development. Oxford Univ.Press. 2006 p.p.203-228.