Critically evaluate piaget’s theory of cognitive development Essay

Piaget has been described as the father of cognitive psychology (Shaffer, 1988) and his stage possible action as the foundation of growingal cognitive psychology (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002). It is non possible to describe Piagets empirical findings and possible action in scarcely if 1,500 words. Instead, I give briefly review the theorys scope, comprehensiveness, parsimony, applicability, heuristic value and methodological underpinning. I will then evaluate in more detail the theorys utility in describing and explaining cognitive increase.Historically, Piagets ontological approach was ground-breaking with its focus on the qualitative nature of cognition and its constructivist perspective. The theory itself is wide-scoped (universal), comprehensive (covering a broad spectrum of cognitive achievement) and elegantly coherent (from neonate to adult). It remains profoundly influential on cognitive psychology and continues to be widely applied in nestlingcare and educational settings . Piagets theory is parsimonious in its commonality of approach to a broad range of complex phenomena with key interlinking concepts. Inevitably, such an ambitious theory has generated a wealth of research, some supporting, some supplementing, some extending and some disputing aspects of Piagets theory.Some of the weaker aspects of Piagets theory appear to arise from his clinical method of using observational behavioural data to infer conclusions about childrens underlying cognitive competences. Longitudinal data, ideally suited to monitoring progression, was only recorded for his own three children. Certain of his techniques were in qualifiedly sensitive to identify the underlying causes of performance variations, especially with very young infants, where more recent habituation techniques have shown that Piaget considerably underestimated their arrest and ability (Bower, 1982, Baillargeon & DeVos, 1991). This whitethorn have led him to overlook other relevant interpretations f or varying levels of performance, eg limitations on memory capacity (Bryant & Trabasso, 1971, Kail, 1984, Diamond, 1985), motor-co-ordination (Mandler, 1990), availableness of memory strategies(Siegler, 1991) and verbal understanding (Sternberg, 1985). However, Piagets clinical method, his flexible and ecologically valid approach did reveal original insights into childrens view, which a more standardised, scientific approach may have overlooked entirely.Piagets theoretical framework describes the structure of cognitive development as a fixed sequence of quatern discontinuous and qualitatively different periods (for ease of understanding, referred to as stages) of all childrens intelligence across reachs, tasks and contexts.Invariance is a core feature of Piagets abstract structure, in contrast with contemporary perspectives, which question rigid conceptual structures, eg post-modernism and chaos theory. Piaget emphasised the invariance of progression through stages, so that a ch ild neer regresses to thinking methods from an earlier stage of cognitive development. This is empirically unconvincing, eg, as an adult, I have easily switched from formal-operational to concrete-operational thinking when presented with flat-pack furniture and an incomprehensible set of instructions. Research (Beilin, 1971, Case, 1992) has too contradicted the assumption that within a given stage of development, children demonstrate only stage-appropriate levels of performance, eg 4-year-olds make the same mistakes as 1-year-olds on some hidden-object problems by looking at locations where they have found the object previously (Siegler, 1998).Structural, qualitative discontinuity between stages a key feature in the theorys description of cognitive development is as well as questionable. Although much research has shown that children can do things at ages earlier than Piaget considered possible (Baillargeon, 1987, Mandler, 1998, Diamond, 1991), Piaget focussed on the sequence o f progression from one stage to another(prenominal) rather than the respective ages of cognitive achievement. However, because cognitive achievements have often been shown to emerge earlier (and occasionally later if at all, eg certain formal operations) than Piagets stages indicate, only when these stages begin and end cannot be clearly established. This blurring of boundaries between stages, suggests a spiralling structure of gradual, continuous cognitive development ratherthan a stepped structure of discontinuous stages.Piagets focus on competence as opposed to performance contributes to the difficulty of determining when one stage becomes qualitatively different from another. What we may be equal to(p) of doing optimally (competence) may often differ from what we do actually much of the time (performance) (Davidson & Sternberg, 1985). Even if we accept Piagets stages as distinguishing when competences are fully create and functional not necessarily when they introductory appe ar (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002), thither is still insufficient evidence that qualitative leaps in cognitive competence can be distinguished between one stage and another. Indeed, Piaget (1970) adjusted his position on the discontinuity of stages, acknowledging that transition from concrete-operational to formal-operational reasoning occurs gradually over a span of several years.Siegler (1998) suggests that denouement theory (a mathematical theory which examines sudden changes) explains both the continuous and discontinuous appearance of cognitive development. The forces that lead to the collapse of a bridge may retrace up over a period of years, however the bridges visible collapse appears as a sudden event. Analogously, a child may suddenly solve a problem that she could not solve the day before, but her progress may be due to do it and improved understanding acquired over preceding months. Thus cognitive development may be viewed both as a continuous process of small, imperceptible amendments or as a discontinuous shift from one state to another depending on when and how closely viewpoints are taken. Bloom (2002) provides a similar argument in defensive measure of spurts in word learning.Piaget initially argued that his stages are universal, ie that they apply to everyone irrespective of their individual experience. Recent research suggests that cultural practices are related to childrens technique on tasks (Rogoff, 1990). Piaget (1972) always acknowledged the impact of social and cultural contextual factors on cognitive development but came to revise his claim that his stages are universal, eg by recognising that achieving formal operations is dependent on exposure to the specific type of thinkingfound in science classes and on individual motivation to start out certain types of task.Piagets revised stance on universality and the discontinuity of stages also calls into question the theorys implicit structural premise of cognitive development being domain- general. Piaget refers to stages as holistic structures, with coherent modes of thinking that apply across a broad range of tasks, ie are domain-general. However children do not appear to develop consistently and evenly across all cognitive tasks or even within specific types of cognitive functioning, eg conservation. Piaget explains unevenness of progression, eg, within the domain of conservation, mass is conserved much sooner than volume, by horizontal decalage, which occurs when problems that appear quite similar in the requirements of underlying knowledge actually differ in the complexity of schemata required. An alternative explanation for perceived unevenness in cognitive development is domain-specificity, ie that specific types of cognitive processing develop separately and at differing rates from others.One example of domain-specificity for quarrel vs number acquisition occurs in deaf infants symbolic-representational ability allowing them to learn American Sign expression as early as 6-7 months, while childrens symbolic-representational ability for number appears months later (Mandler, 1990, Meier & Newport, 1990). Subsequent research (Chomsky, 1986, Fodor, 1983, Chi, 1992 cited in Pine, 1999) has suggested domain-specificity for language, mathematics and logico-spatial reasoning involved in chess Horizontal decalage is described, at best, as a peripheral element and, at worst, as undermining the theorys holistic stage structure and domain-generality.To summarise the descriptive utility of Piagets theory, it certainly describes the general sequencing of childrens broad intellectual development, although stage-like discontinuity may be a reflection of perspective only. However, the theory appears little accurate in its description of cognitive development as universal, functionally invariant and domain-general. More recent research (Fischer, 1980, Flavell, 1985) suggests that cognitive development occurs gradually and consecutive withinparticular i ntellectual domains.Turning to the theorys explanation of cognitive development, Piagets theory explains cognitive development as the result of physiological maturation and two basic biological, invariant functions organisation and adaptation (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002). Organisation is seen as the tendency to organise physical and psychological processes into purposeful, efficient systems. Adaptation occurs via equilibration, to wit the seesaw-like balancing of (1) assimilation, ie how children transform incoming information to fit their existing modes of thinking (schemata) and (2) accommodation, ie how children adapt their schemata in response to new experiences. Equilibration integrates physical maturation, experience with the environment and social influences (Miller, 2002).Whilst Piagets focus on the active constructivist mechanism of individual/environmental interaction has been highly influential, it does not provide a sufficient explanation of cognitive development. There is little explanation of the physical maturational aspects that are key to cognitive development, such as that provided by subsequent researchers on age-related neural processing improvements (Diamond,1991). More importantly, the processes of adaptation and organisation do not explain how a childs logical ability is derived from interaction with the environment, eg there is no explanation of how sensorimotor activity is transformed into mental images which are in turn transformed into words. Crucially, Piagets theory does not provide any(prenominal) explanation of the mechanism of cognitive transition from one qualitative stage to another.Piagets explanation of cognitive development thus appears impoverished. It has been supplemented by social theory, which explicates the component part of social interaction in the childs development (Vygotsky, 1934/1978) and is supported by research into the innate social characteristics of young infants (Meltzoff & Moore, 1994 amongst others cited in Smith, Cowie & Blades, 1998). Information-processing theorists (Case, 1985,) have also explained the contribution of specific areas of cognitive development, such as memory and attention. Other theorists (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992) haveincorporated a combination of approaches into a more holistic explanation of cognitive development.In conclusion, Piagets theory appears only broadly accurate in its description of cognitive development. Its explanation of cognitive development is inadequate only acknowledging but not fully examining the role of social, emotional and contextual factors, underestimating the existence of innate cognitive abilities (Flavell, Miller & Miller, 1993), and ignoring the complex role of language in cognitive development.Nonetheless, Siegler (1998) describes Piagets work as a testimony to how much one person can do. The theorys heuristic power is necessary recent studies of cognitive development have focussed on previously unsuspected cognitive strengths in chi ldren and on a broader range of childrens thinking than that investigated by Piaget (Kohlberg, 1984). The theorys longevity is certainly warranted for its originality and inspiration to others. According to Piaget the principal goal of education is to create adults who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done who are creative, inventive, discoverers (Piaget, 1977 cited in Shaffer, 1998). By this standard, Piaget and his theory of cognitive development must be judged a triumph for current cognitive psychology.ReferencesBaillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 31/2- and 41/2-month old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23, 655-664Baillargeon, R. & DeVos, J. (1991). Object permanence in young infants Further evidence. infant Development, 62, 1227-1246Beilin, H. (1971). Developmental stages and developmental processes. In D.R. Green, M.P. Ford & G.B. Flamer (Eds.) Measurement and Piaget. (pp 172-196) New YorkMcGraw-HillBloom, P. (2 002). How children learn the meaning of words. New York Oxford University concentrateBower, T.G.R. (1982 ). Development in Infancy 2nd Ed. San Francisco WH freewomanBryant, P.E. & Trabasso, T. (1971). Transitive inferences and memory in young children. Nature, 232, 456-458Case, R. (1985). Intellectual Development Birth to adulthood. Orlando, Fl Academic Press.Case, R. (1992). The minds staircase Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of childrens thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesChi, M.T.H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R.Giere (Ed.) Cognitive Models of Science atomic number 25 studies in the philosophy of science. MinneapolisUniversity of Minnesota PressChomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language Its nature, origins and use. New York PraegerCole, M. & Cole, S.R. (2001). The Development of Children (4th Ed.). New York Worth PublishersDavidson, J.E. & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Competence and performance in intellectual development. In E. Neimark, R deLisi & J.H. Newman (Eds.), Moderators of competence (pp 43-76) Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesDiamond, A. (1985). Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants performance on AB. Child Development, 56, 868-883Diamond, A. (1991). Frontal lobe involvement in cognitive changes during the first year of life. In K.R. Gibson & A.C. Petersen (Eds.) Brain maturation and cognitive development comparative and cross-cultural perspectives. New YorkAldine de GruyterFischer, K.W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development the control and anatomical structure of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477-531Flavell, J.H. (1985). Cognitive Development (2nd Ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJPrentice-HallFlavell, J.H., Miller, P.H. & Miller, S.A. (1993). Cognitive Development (3rd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJPrentice-HallKail, R. (1984). The development of memory in child ren (2nd Ed.). New YorkFreemanKarmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond Modulatiry A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA MIT Press. Precis accessed at http//bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.karmsmith.htmlKohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol 2). New York Harper & course of studyLutz, D.J & Sternberg, R.J. (2002). Cognitive Development. In M.H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds.) Developmental Psychology An advanced textbook (4th Ed.). Mahuah, NJLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMandler, J.M. (1990). Recall of events by preverbal children. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 608, 485-516Mandler, J.M. (1998). Representation . In D. Kuhn & R.S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th Ed.) Vol 2 Cognition, perception and language. New York WileyMeier, R.P. & Newport, E.L. (1990). Out of the hands of babes on a possible sign advantage in language acquisition. Language, 66, 1-23Meltzoff, A.N. & M oore, M.K. (1994). Imitation, memory and the representation of persons. Infant Behaviour and development, 17, 83-99Miller, P.H. (2002). Theories of Developmental Psychology (4th Ed.). New YorkWorth PublishersPiaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1-12Piaget, J. (1970). Piagets theory. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.) Carmichaels manual of child psychology (Vol 1). New YorkWileyPiaget, J. (1977). The role of action in the development of thinking. In W.F. Overton & J.M. Gallagher (Eds.) Knowledge and development (Vol 1). New YorkPlenumPine, K. (1999). Theories of Cognitive Development. In D. Meuer & S.W. Millar (Eds.) Exploring Developmental Psychology From infancy to adolescence. LondonArnoldRogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New YorkOxford University PressShaffer, D.R. (1988). Developmental Psychology Childhood & Adolescence. Belmont, CA Brooks/ColeSiegler, R.S. (1991). Childrens thinking (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJPrenti ce-HallSiegler, R.S, (1998). Childrens thinking (3rd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJPrentice-HallSmith, P.K., Cowie, H. & Blades, M. (1998). Understanding childrens development. Blackwell OxfordSternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ A triarchic theory of intelligence. New York Cambridge University PressVygotsky, L.S. (1934/1978). Thinking and speech. In T.N. Minick (Ed.) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol 1). Problems of general psychology. New YorkPlenum Press