Critically evaluate piaget’s theory of cognitive development Essay

Piaget has been described as the father of cognitive psychology (Shaffer, 1988) and his form surmisal as the foundation of organic evolutional cognitive psychology (Lutz & vitamin A Sternberg, 2002). It is non potential to describe Piagets empiric findings and opening in but 1,500 joints. Instead, I will briefly review the surmisals scope, comprehensiveness, parsimony, applicability, heuristic value and methodological underpinning. I will then prize in more(prenominal) detail the hypothesiss utility in describing and explaining cognitive learn.Historically, Piagets ontological come near was ground-breaking with its steering on the qualitative disposition of intuition and its constructivist perspective. The hypothesis itself is wide-scoped (universal), comprehensive (c everywhereing a immense spectrum of cognitive achievement) and elegantly coherent (from newborn to adult). It remains profoundly influential on cognitive psychology and continues to be wide applied i n tykecargon and educational evolvetings. Piagets surmisal is parsimonious in its commonality of approach to a grand clasp of complex phenomena with learn interlinking concepts. Inevitably, such an ambitious speculation has generated a wealth of look into, slightly supporting, some supplementing, some ext terminateing and some disputing aspects of Piagets possible action.Some of the weaker aspects of Piagets theory appear to arise from his clinical method of using observational behavioural data to infer conclusions about squirtrens underlying cognitive competencys. Longitudinal data, ideally suited to monitoring cultivation, was only put down for his own three infantren. Certain of his techniques were insufficiently sensitive to identify the underlying causes of surgical operation variations, especially with very one-year-old infants, where more recent habituation techniques digest shown that Piaget intimately underestimated their soul and ability (Bower, 1982 , Baillargeon & angstrom DeVos, 1991). This whitethorn ache led him to overlook opposite relevant commentarys for varying levels of writ of execution, eg limitations on stock capacity (Bryant & angstrom Trabasso, 1971, Kail, 1984, Diamond, 1985), motor-co-ordination (Mandler, 1990), availability of repositing strategies(Siegler, 1991) and verbal understanding (Sternberg, 1985). However, Piagets clinical method, his flexible and ecologically valid approach did reveal original insights into childrens opinion, which a more standardised, scientific approach may have overlooked entirely.Piagets hypothetical frame cause describes the structure of cognitive evolution as a fixed order of four noncontinuous and qualitatively dissentent periods (for ease of understanding, referred to as full stops) of all childrens intelligence across orbits, tasks and contexts.Invariance is a core feature of Piagets abstract structure, in contrast with contemporary perspectives, which hesitat ion rigid conceptual structures, eg post-modernism and chaos theory. Piaget emphasized the invariance of progression through stages, so that a child never regresses to intellection methods from an earlier stage of cognitive phylogeny. This is through empirical observation unconvincing, eg, as an adult, I have easily switched from courtly-operational to concrete-operational intellection when presented with flat-pack furniture and an incomprehensible set of instructions. Research (Beilin, 1971, Case, 1992) has as well as contradicted the assumption that inside a given stage of study, children prove only stage-appropriate levels of performance, eg 4-year-olds make the same mistakes as 1-year-olds on some hidden- bearing problems by aspect at locations where they have found the object previously (Siegler, 1998).Structural, qualitative discontinuity between stages a key feature in the theorys commentary of cognitive reading is also questionable. Although practically searc h has shown that children nominate do things at ages earlier than Piaget considered accomplishable (Baillargeon, 1987, Mandler, 1998, Diamond, 1991), Piaget waysed on the sequence of progression from one stage to another 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 definite formal operations) than Piagets stages indicate, exactly when these stages begin and end cannot be clearly established. This blurring of boundaries between stages, suggests a spiralling structure of gradual, continuous cognitive breeding rather than a stepped structure of discontinuous stages.Piagets focus on competence as opposed to performance contri only ifes to the problem of determining when one stage becomes qualitatively different from another. What we may be loose of doing optimally (competence) may often differ from what we do actually much of the condemnation ( performance) (Davidson & international antiophthalmic factorere Sternberg, 1985). Even if we accept Piagets stages as distinguishing when competences ar fully unquestionable and functional not necessarily when they low appear (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002), there is cool it 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 conversion from concrete-operational to formal-operational reasoning occurs gradually over a span of several years.Siegler (1998) suggests that catastrophe theory (a mathematical theory which examines sudden adjustments) explains both the continuous and discontinuous appearance of cognitive development. The forces that lead to the collapse of a link up may build up over a period of years, however the duos visible collapse appears as a sudden event. Analogously, a child may suddenly solve a probl em that she could not solve the twenty-four hour period before, but her progress may be due to bed and improved understanding acquired over preceding months. Thus cognitive development may be viewed both as a continuous outgrowth of small, imperceptible amendments or as a discontinuous shift from one suppose to another depending on when and how closely viewpoints argon taken. Bloom (2002) provides a similar billet in refutation of spurts in word learning.Piaget initially argued that his stages are universal, ie that they obligate to everyone irrespective of their various(prenominal) experience. Recent look for suggests that cultural practices are related to childrens proficiency on tasks (Rogoff, 1990). Piaget (1972) always ac noesis the impact of hearty 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 peculiar(prenominal ) type of thinking found in science classes and on individual motivation to undertake certain types of task.Piagets revised stance on universality and the discontinuity of stages also calls into question the theorys implicit structural supposal 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 variability of progression, eg, within the domain of conservation, mass is conserved much sooner than volume, by horizontal decalage, which occurs when problems that appear instead similar in the requirements of underlying knowledge actually differ in the complexness of schemata required. An alternative description for perceived unevenness in cognitive development is d omain-specificity, ie that specific types of cognitive bear on develop separately and at differing rates from others. peerless example of domain-specificity for phrase vs material body erudition occurs in deaf infants symbolic-representational ability allowing them to learn American stigma Language as early as 6-7 months, while childrens symbolic-representational ability for number appears months later (Mandler, 1990, Meier & rawport, 1990). Subsequent research (Chomsky, 1986, Fodor, 1983, Chi, 1992 cited in Pine, 1999) has suggested domain-specificity for linguistic communication, mathematics and logico-spatial reasoning refer in chess Horizontal decalage is described, at best, as a peripheral part and, at worst, as undermining the theorys holistic stage structure and domain-generality.To tote up the descriptive utility of Piagets theory, it surely describes the general sequencing of childrens broad reason development, although stage-like discontinuity may be a comm ent of perspective only. However, the theory appears less absolute in its description of cognitive development as universal, functionally invariant and domain-general. to a greater extent recent research (Fischer, 1980, Flavell, 1985) suggests that cognitive development occurs gradually and sequentially within grumpy intellectual domains.Turning to the theorys explanation of cognitive development, Piagets theory explains cognitive development as the response of physical maturation and two fundamental biological, invariant functions organisation and adaptation (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002). Organisation is seen as the tendency to channelize physical and psychological processes into purposeful, efficient systems. rendering occurs via equilibration, namely the seesaw-like balancing of (1) assimilation, ie how children transfigure incoming information to fit their vivacious modes of thinking (schemata) and (2) accommodation, ie how children adapt their schemata in response to new e xperiences. Equilibration integrates physical maturation, experience with the environment and social influences (milling machine, 2002).Whilst Piagets focus on the active constructivist mechanism of individual/environmental fundamental inter pull through 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 transformation from one qualitative stage to another.Piagets explanation of cognitive development therefore appears impoverished. It has been supplemented by social theory, which explicates the role 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 computer memory and attention. Other theorists (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992) have incorporated 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 ex istence of innate cognitive abilities (Flavell, Miller & Miller, 1993), and ignoring the complex role of oral communication in cognitive development.Nonetheless, Siegler (1998) describes Piagets work as a testimony to how much one person can do. The theorys heuristic force out is undeniable recent studies of cognitive development have focussed on previously unsuspected cognitive strengths in children and on a broader range of childrens thinking than that investigated by Piaget (Kohlberg, 1984). The theorys higher rank is certainly warranted for its originality and inspiration to others. According to Piaget the wind goal of education is to create adults who are capable of doing new things, not barely of repeating what other generations have make 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 success for current cognitive psychology.ReferencesBaillargeon, R. (19 87). Object permanence in 31/2- and 41/2-month old infants. organic evolutional psychology, 23, 655-664Baillargeon, R. & DeVos, J. (1991). Object permanence in young infants Further evidence. Child Development, 62, 1227-1246Beilin, H. (1971). developmental stages and developmental processes. In D.R. Green, M.P. Ford & G.B. Flamer (Eds.) measuring rod and Piaget. (pp 172-196) newly YorkMcGraw-HillBloom, P. (2002). How children learn the meaning of words. modern York Oxford University PressBower, T.G.R. (1982 ). Development in infancy 2nd Ed. San Francisco WH FreemanBryant, P.E. & Trabasso, T. (1971). transitive verb inferences and memory in young children. Nature, 232, 456-458Case, R. (1985). dexterous Development Birth to adulthood. Orlando, Fl Academic Press.Case, R. (1992). The headways 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 Minnesota studies in the philosophical system of science. MinneapolisUniversity of Minnesota PressChomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language Its nature, origins and use. sweet York Praeger bread, M. & Cole, S.R. (2001). The Development of Children (4th Ed.). newly York Worth PublishersDavidson, J.E. & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Competence and performance in intellectual development. In E. Neimark, R deLisi & J.H. rawman (Eds.), Moderators of competence (pp 43-76) Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesDiamond, A. (1985). Development of the ability to use recall to lookout man 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 cros s-cultural perspectives. parvenue YorkAldine de GruyterFischer, K.W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development the control and construction 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 children (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 & RowLutz, 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 Er lbaum 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). forbidden of the hands of babes on a possible sign advantage in language acquisition. Language, 66, 1-23Meltzoff, A.N. & Moore, M.K. (1994). Imitation, memory and the representation of persons. baby 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. valet 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. Gallagh er (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 childishness & Adolescence. Belmont, CA Brooks/ColeSiegler, R.S. (1991). Childrens thinking (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJPrentice-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