PS220 Unit 2 Developmental Theories Comparison Example

Reviewed by Romilly Dunmore, MEd Child and Adolescent Psychology Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Four developmental theories are applied to one composite three-year-old in this PS220 Unit 2 developmental theories comparison: Piaget's preoperational stage explains Maya's grandmother bear in pretend play, Vygotsky's account of learning through relationships explains why she speaks Spanish with her grandmother and English with her teacher, Erikson's turning points explain the pride she takes in being understood, and Bronfenbrenner's systems place her in a home, a preschool, her mother's hospital shifts and New Mexico's bilingual history. The paper argues the theories complement each other. Purdue Global PS 220, Child and Adolescent Psychology, assigns this comparison in the BS in Psychology course. Each gets credit for what it explains best.

CoursePS220 Child and Adolescent Psychology
UnitUnit 2
Paper typeDevelopmental theories comparison
LengthAbout 520 words, 4 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Psychology
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PS220 Unit 2

1

Four Theories at One Kitchen Table: A PS220 Unit 2 Developmental Theories Comparison Applied to a Bilingual Three-Year-Old

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS220: Child and Adolescent Psychology

Unit 2 Developmental Theories Comparison

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Maya and her family are composite; the theories and sources cited are real.

What this part is doingApplying all four theories to one behavior in the lead shows the comparison is grounded in a child, not in definitions.
2

The Child

Maya is three and lives in Albuquerque with her mother, a nurse, and her grandmother, who speaks only Spanish to her. She attends an English-language preschool. She switches languages by person, mixes words occasionally, and in pretend play gives her stuffed grandmother bear Spanish lines.

Piaget: A Child Constructing Rules

Piaget described children as active builders of knowledge who move through stages of thinking (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). At three, Maya is in the preoperational stage: she uses symbols, words and pretend objects, but her reasoning is tied to appearances and her own point of view. Piaget's theory explains her pretend play, where the bear stands for her grandmother, as the symbolic function at work. It explains less about her language switching, because Piaget treated language mainly as a product of thinking rather than of social interaction.

Vygotsky: Learning Through Others

Vygotsky argued that children's thinking develops through interaction with more skilled people and through the tools of their culture, especially language (Vygotsky, 1978). His zone of proximal development, the stretch of skills a child manages only with someone's support, fits Maya's language growth: her grandmother and teacher each support her in a different language, and she learns each through those relationships. Vygotsky's view explains the switching better than Piaget's, since the rule is social: each language belongs to a person.

Piaget explains how Maya pretends; Vygotsky explains how she learned whom to speak Spanish with.

Erikson: The Emotional Task of Three

Erikson pictured growing up as eight emotional turning points spread across life (Erikson, 1963). At three, Maya is between autonomy versus shame and doubt and initiative versus guilt. Her insistence on choosing which language to speak in pretend play, and her pride when her grandmother understands her, reflect a child testing what she can do on her own. Erikson's theory does not explain how language develops, but it explains why using two languages competently could matter to her sense of self.

What this part is doingShowing what each theory explains and leaves out keeps the comparison balanced.
3

Bronfenbrenner: The Systems Around Her

Bronfenbrenner placed the child within nested systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Maya's microsystems, home and preschool, each have a language. The mesosystem, the connection between them, includes her mother's conversations with the teacher about bilingualism. Her exosystem includes her mother's hospital shifts, which determine how much time she spends with her grandmother. The macrosystem includes New Mexico's long bilingual history, which makes Spanish at home ordinary rather than unusual. This theory explains why Maya's situation is common in her community.

What the Comparison Shows

No single theory explains Maya. Piaget accounts for her symbolic thinking, Vygotsky for how she learns through relationships, Erikson for what competence means to her, and Bronfenbrenner for the setting that makes her bilingualism possible. A combined view, with each theory applied where it is strongest, explains more than choosing one.

What this part is doingConcluding with what each theory contributes, rather than a winner, follows from the comparison.
4

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

PS220 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms

In PS220's second unit, the paper typically asks you to compare developmental theories and apply them to a child's behavior. Choose a specific child and behavior, then explain each theory accurately in your own words before applying it. Say what each theory explains well about the behavior and what it leaves out; that balance is the comparison. Include a theory focused on cognition, one on social or emotional development and one on context where the prompt allows. Avoid declaring a single winner unless the evidence supports it; most strong papers show how theories fit together. Cite the theorists' original works or a standard text. A short conclusion should state what the combined view explains that no single theory could.

How the PS 220 Unit 2 example is put together

The paper introduces Maya at three in a bilingual home and an English preschool. Piaget's section explains symbolic play and notes the theory's limited account of language as social. Vygotsky's section applies the zone of proximal development to two caregivers in two languages, under a highlighted line contrasting how she pretends with how she learned whom to address in Spanish. Erikson's section places her between autonomy and initiative and explains why competence with two languages could matter to her. Bronfenbrenner's section works through microsystems, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. The conclusion assigns each theory the part of Maya it explains best. Every section returns to the same kitchen-table behavior, which keeps the four theories comparable rather than parallel.

Where the points sit in the PS220 Unit 2 rubric

Instructors grade theory comparisons on accurate explanation and genuine application. Each theory should be described correctly, then used to explain something the child does, not left as a definition. The comparison earns credit when it shows what each theory captures and misses about the same behavior. Including cognitive, socioemotional and contextual perspectives shows breadth. A conclusion that integrates the theories, rather than ranking them arbitrarily, reflects current developmental thinking. Original works or a respected text should be cited. A single child running through the paper keeps it concrete and shows the student can move between abstract theory and observed behavior. Showing where two theories overlap, as Vygotsky and Bronfenbrenner do on context, is a mark of a thoughtful paper.

PS220 Unit 2 help from the desk

Many comparisons describe four theories in turn and add the child only in the last paragraph. Another frequent slip misstates stages, placing a three-year-old in Piaget's concrete operational stage or confusing Erikson's crises. Students often treat Vygotsky as simply saying children learn from adults, missing the zone of proximal development. Bronfenbrenner's systems are sometimes listed without examples from the child's life. Some papers pick a favorite theory and dismiss the rest. Before submitting, check each stage or system against your source, apply every theory to the same behavior, name one thing each theory cannot explain and finish with a combined account. That sequence keeps the child at the center of the paper.

Get a PS220 Unit 2 example written to your instructions

Share the theories and the instructions with the rubric. A custom paper compares them and applies each to a specific child. Turnaround is 24-48h, free the first time. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

Request this unit free All PS220 units Finished samples

More PS220 papers and BS in Psychology samples

PS220 Unit 2 questions, answered

Which theories are commonly compared?

Piaget's cognitive stages, Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, Erikson's psychosocial stages and Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems.

What is the zone of proximal development?

The range between what a child can do alone and what the child can do with guidance.

Should the paper pick a best theory?

It should say what each explains best rather than declare one winner.

Where can I find a free PS220 Unit 2 sample paper?

The full PS220 Unit 2 comparison is on this page, applying Piaget, Vygotsky, Erikson and Bronfenbrenner to a composite bilingual three-year-old.

Which theory best explains language switching in the PS220 Unit 2 sample?

Vygotsky's, because the rule is social: each language belongs to a person who supports Maya's learning in it.