Since the 1960’s early childhood educators have learned about Piaget’s theory of children’s cognitive development, and have been able to recite the four stages of development: sensoriomotor, preoperational, operational, and formal operations. As discussed in your textbook, children in the preoperational stage of development have egocentric perspectives, demonstrate transductive reasoning, and are unable to conserve number, mass, and liquids. Piaget also said that thought precedes language.
Piaget formulated these theories through observation, interviews with children, and using simple experiences that are now referred to as “Piagetian tasks.” Were all of Piaget’s conclusions correct? What evidence supports and which evidence contradicts Piaget’s characterizations of the three-year-old preoperational child? And was Piaget’s concept of cognition accurate in light of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and Vygotsky’s ideas about the function of language?
Answer the question, was Piaget right? Remember to back up your conclusions with evidence from your readings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Piaget’s theories resonate with me in some ways, but not so much in others. I think Piaget was right that children do go through stages of development in a consecutive fashion, and that milestones are reached at the approximate time periods he documented. I also agree that development is not a smooth process.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Piaget, the preoperational period is from 2 years to 7 years, which is a long span of time in which many things can happen. During that time, children are concrete thinkers. They tend to be more egocentric in their thoughts. Piaget also said that during this stage children group items by one feature, such as all red things, or all triangles; but, I have not found this to be completely accurate, as we often see preschool aged children who are capable of sorting based upon two attributes, i.e.: group the red circles and the blue triangles. I think a lot of development is based upon opportunity and environment, which is more of a Vygotsky, or even Gardner, philosophy.
There may be sequential stages, as Piaget envisioned, but children need opportunities to develop. Without these opportunities, children will continue to be concrete thinkers and egocentric. If the adults in their lives are not able to lead them through problem-solving activities through a series of probing questions, they may never develop in some of these areas.
Children need to be comfortable in asking questions to further their understanding, which is not encouraged in many homes of low socio-economic backgrounds. Perhaps that is one reason why older students who come from such backgrounds continue to be concrete thinkers. Unless their teachers are very dedicated in providing guiding questions, they will never be effective problem solvers.
Vygotsky would say that children move from one stage of development aided by careful questioning by adult caregivers and educators. Setting up the environment is another way that will encourage the child to seek out answers to questions that they have developed through observation and reflection. Another way to encourage learning, according to Vygotsky, is through peers. Peers can teach one another in the zone of proximal development. If the child is ready, the person teaching could be anyone in a position to do so: parent, caregiver, teacher, or peer.
Howard Gardner might say that children learn different skills by practicing them. Some children are more empathetic than others, even from a young age while some children need a lot of practice in their social skills.
One thing from Piaget that does resonate with me is the idea that children do not need real objects in order to learn until they have reached 7 years of age. He talked about children in the concrete operational stage needing real items. I would take it a step further and state that all children need this realia to help them learn. Experiential learning is beneficial at all ages, not just from ages 7-adolescence. Piaget’s theories seem similar to Waldorf, with 7 year intervals indicating stages of development.
I enjoyed the section of Chapter 15 related to a multicultural critique of Piaget's theory, especially where they mentioned that Piaget did not think that children in the preoperational stage would understand cause and effect, yet children do. Again, I would say this is from experience. What kinds of questions do we ask of young children? Perhaps we ask more probing questions than back in Piaget's time?
In no way do I consider myself an expert on Piaget. I’m not nearly as comfortable with his theories as I am with Howard Gardner’s, for instance; but, I see him as a base for others to build upon. It is important that teachers remember that there are stages of a child’s development, but they also need to see themselves as Vygotskyesque to coax out these levels. To say they will occur without stimulation seems to be a fallacy.
Piaget’s conclusions were not completely correct. According to Trawick-Smith (2006 p. 237) research flaws of other kinds have been cited to explain Piaget’s underestimation of preschooler’s abilities. Some researchers have changed Piaget’s experiments slightly or designed new ones, using more sophisticated technology. Resulting findings indicate that children may be more competent than Piaget has proposed.
ReplyDeleteSome of Piaget’s theories I have seen to be true. For example (Trawick-Smith 2006 p. 236) when Piaget noticed that young children would sometimes shift from relying on one property to relying on another when categorizing. “A child might, for example, start out by putting one blue triangle down, then a red one, and then a green one, relying first one shape. But since the last item was green, the child might suddenly to the property of color” (236). In my experience that yes, some three year old children that have had not had a much experience of the this or with shapes and colors may infant rely one property then shift to another before completing the first.
Trawick-Smith (375) argues that several studies have shown that preschoolers can understand natural cause better than Piaget proposed. In one study, children were asked about phenomena’s that were very familiar to them-flowers and dogs. When asked “Do you think people make dogs?” Instead of “where do dogs come from?” Children as young as age 3 reported that plants and animals come from nature and not created by humans. Other studies according to Trawick-Smith have found that 3 and 4 year olds can perform multiple classifications if tasks are presented to them in a clear and simple way.
Vygosky (Trawick-Smith) argued that play is a crucial role in school learning. Language, in Vygotsky’s opinion helps direct children’s attention and organize their understandings. He feels both self-directed speech and the language of others are useful. He also argued that play helps children learn.
As for Gardener he argues that at least eight distinct intellectual competencies can be identified. He feels that each from of intelligence is independent and is related to the functioning part of the brain.