The study of human development is emerging into a new era of theory-predicated methodological innovation in research and application. The Spotlight Series on the Science of Learning and Development (SoLD) involves three core articles: Cantor, et al. (2018), Osher, et al. (2018), and Darling-Hammond, et al. (2019) and, as well, commentaries regarding these articles. Together, the articles and commentaries place developmental science at the frontier of refining conceptions of human development within models informed a dynamic, relational developmental system metatheory (Overton, 2015). The articles present a theoretical approach involving opportunities to enhance the life paths of all individuals, no matter the instances of diversity they represent, including variation in levels of adversity or challenge they may have experienced in childhood, infancy, or even prenatally because of poverty, racism, or health and sociocultural disparities. In addition, the scholarship presented in the SoLD articles and commentaries presents key ways in which developmental scientists are creating innovations in developmental methodology—involving research design, measurement, and data analysis—that, together, couple new tools for research and the use of these tools in creative and heretofore unapproached research and applications aimed at optimizing human development from “birth to maturity” (Kagan & Moss, 1962). Focusing on the mutually influential individual ⬄ context relations that are the fundamental unit of analysis within dynamic conceptions of human development, the SoLD articles integrate data from levels of organization spanning biology through social and cultural contexts to emphasize the plasticity and specificity that characterizes the developmental pathway of each person across the life span. The dynamic relations among variables across all levels of organization integrated within the dynamic developmental system mean that theories (models) that split processes or variables apart (e.g., as in claims that biology, in one form or another, for instance evolution or genes, is the prime determinant of change), as in reductionist models such as sociobiology (Rushton, 2000), behavior genetics (Plomin, 2018), or evolutionary psychology (Buss & von Hippel, 2018), are conceptually flawed (Lerner, 2018). They are also empirically counterfactual in regard to the role of genes in evolution (e.g., Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Woese, 2004) and human development (e.g., Joseph, 2014; Moore, 2015; Richardson, 2017). In short, the SoLD articles and associated commentaries take a holistic and nonreductionist view of the developmental process. The authors emphasize that this holistic approach to the life course must be coupled with dynamic change-sensitive methods, involving measures, research designs, and data analytic procedures. These methods should begin inquiry at the individual level and chart idiographic pathways and, then, aggregate data across people, time, and place when empirically appropriate (Bornstein, 2017; Elder, Shanahan, & Jennings, 2015). Simply, as explained by Molenaar and Nesselroade (2015) and Rose (2016), developmental processes are nonergodic and, therefore, methods that are able to identify such specificity must be the first set of theory-predicated tools used to understand the dynamics of human development (e.g., Ram & Grimm, 2015). Coupled with methods (e.g., idiographic filtering; Molenaar & Nesselroade, 2015) that involve the use of approaches such as the dynamic factor model at the level of the individual, but that then can generate group-differential or nomothetic latent constructs that enable generalization across participants, developmental scientists may capture the nonergodic nature of intraindividual change and, as well, produce generalities about groups that apply equally to the individuals within them.

中文翻译：

---

学习与发展科学：进入人类发展理论、研究和应用的新前沿

人类发展研究正在进入以理论为基础的研究和应用方法论创新的新时代。学习与发展科学 (SOLD) 聚焦系列包括三篇核心文章：Cantor 等。(2018)，Osher 等人。(2018) 和 Darling-Hammond 等人。（2019）以及关于这些文章的评论。这些文章和评论一起将发展科学置于在模型中完善人类发展概念的前沿，该模型形成了动态的关系发展系统元理论（Overton，2015）。这些文章提出了一种理论方法，涉及改善所有个人生活道路的机会，无论他们所代表的多样性实例如何，包括他们在童年时期可能经历的逆境或挑战水平的变化，由于贫困、种族主义或健康和社会文化差异，婴儿期，甚至出生前。此外，SOLD 文章和评论中提供的奖学金展示了发展科学家在发展方法论方面进行创新的关键方式——包括研究设计、测量和数据分析——将新的研究工具和这些工具的使用结合起来旨在优化从“出生到成熟”的人类发展（Kagan & Moss，1962 年）的创造性和迄今为止尚未涉足的研究和应用中的工具。关注相互影响​​的个体⬄语境关系，这是人类发展动态概念中分析的基本单位，SOLD 文章整合了跨越生物学、社会和文化背景的组织层面的数据，以强调每个人一生发展路径的可塑性和特异性。整合在动态发展系统中的所有组织级别的变量之间的动态关系意味着将过程或变量分开的理论（模型）（例如，声称生物学，以一种或另一种形式，例如进化或基因，是变化的主要决定因素），如社会生物学（Rushton，2000）、行为遗传学（Plomin，2018）或进化心理学（Buss & von Hippel，2018）等还原论模型，在概念上存在缺陷（Lerner，2018）。在基因在进化中的作用方面，它们在经验上也是反事实的（例如，贾布隆卡和羔羊，2005 年；Woese，2004 年）和人类发展（例如，Joseph，2014 年；Moore，2015 年；Richardson，2017 年）。简而言之，SOLD 文章和相关评论对发展过程采取了整体和非还原论的观点。作者强调，这种生命历程的整体方法必须与动态变化敏感的方法相结合，包括测量、研究设计和数据分析程序。这些方法应该从个人层面开始调查并绘制出具体的路径，然后在经验合适的情况下汇总不同人、时间和地点的数据（Bornstein，2017 年；Elder、Shanahan 和 Jennings，2015 年）。简单地说，正如 Molenaar 和 Nesselroade（2015 年）以及 Rose（2016 年）所解释的那样，发育过程是非遍历的，因此，能够识别这种特异性的方法必须是第一套用于理解人类发展动态的理论预测工具（例如，Ram & Grimm，2015）。结合使用方法（例如，具体过滤；Molenaar & Nesselroade，2015），这些方法涉及在个人层面使用动态因子模型等方法，但随后可以生成群体差异或规范潜在构造，从而实现跨领域的泛化参与者，发展科学家可能会捕捉到个体内变化的非遍历性质，并且还可以得出关于群体的普遍性，这些群体同样适用于其中的个人。