Critically evaluate piaget’s theory of cognitive development Essay

Piaget has been puffd as the obtain of cognitive psychological science (Shaffer, 1988) and his stage surmise as the foundation of trainingal cognitive psychological science (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002). It is non workable to describe Piagets empirical findings and sup status in just 1,500 words. Instead, I leave in short review the surmisals scope, largeness, parsimony, applic cap efficacy, heuristic value and methodological underpinning. I will then evaluate in much detail the openings public utility comp both in describing and explaining cognitive reading.Historically, Piagets ontological burn down was ground-breaking with its counseling on the qualitative nature of cognition and its constructivist billet. The supposition itself is wide-scoped (universal), comprehensive (covering a unsubtle spectrum of cognitive achievement) and elegantly pellucid (from neonate to adult). It remains deeply influential on cognitive psychological science and continues to be widely ap plied in barbarianc atomic number 18 and educational stifftings. Piagets scheme is parsimonious in its commonality of access code to a broad range of thickening phenomena with primaeval interlinking concepts. Inevitably, such an manque conjecture has generated a wealth of question, whatever supporting, some supplementing, some ext depoting and some disputing aspects of Piagets theory.Some of the weaker aspects of Piagets theory be to arise from his clinical method of use observational behavioural data to empathise conclusions about childrens underlying cognitive competencys. Longitudinal data, ideally suited to monitor rise, was only recorded for his own terzetto children. Certain of his techniques were insufficiently sensitive to make the underlying causes of exploit variations, especially with truly teenage infants, where more recent dependency techniques shoot shown that Piaget considerably underestimated their understanding and ability (Bower, 1982, Baillarg eon & DeVos, 1991). This whitethorn start led him to expend other relevant invoices for varying levels of performance, eg limitations on keeping capacity (Bryant & Trabasso, 1971, Kail, 1984, Diamond, 1985), motor-co-ordination (Mandler, 1990), availability of entrepot 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 supposititious framework describes the building of cognitive study as a fixed succession of four noncontinuous and qualitatively some(prenominal)(predicate) finales (for ease of understanding, referred to as stages) of all childrens intelligence across domains, tasks and contexts.Invariance is a core feature of Piagets abstract structure, in contrast with contemporary perspectives, which inquire rigid conceptual structure s, eg post-modernism and chaos theory. Piaget forceful the invariance of attainmention through stages, so that a child never regresses to persuasion methods from an earlier stage of cognitive phylogeny. This is by trial and error unconvincing, eg, as an adult, I have substantially switched from clod-operational to concrete-operational thinking when presented with flat-pack furniture and an incomprehensible set of instructions. Research (Beilin, 1971, Case, 1992) has in any case contradicted the assumption that in spite of turn upance a given stage of developing, children institute 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 surrounded by stages a key feature in the theorys description of cognitive schooling is also questionable. Although much research has shown that children give the sack do things at ages earlier than Piaget considered practical (Baillargeon, 1987, Mandler, 1998, Diamond, 1991), Piaget focussed on the sequence of progression from one stage to another earlier than the respective ages of cognitive achievement. However, because cognitive achievements have often been shown to emerge earlier (and at terms later if at all, eg certain formal operations) than Piagets stages indicate, exactly when these stages begin and end passelnot be clearly established. This blurring of boundaries between stages, suggests a spiralling structure of gradual, continuous cognitive maturation ratherthan a stepped structure of discontinuous stages.Piagets focus on competency as opposed to performance contributes to the fuss of determining when one stage becomes qualitatively dissentent from another. What we may be fitting of doing optimally (competence) may often resist from what we do actually much of the time (performance) (Davidson & Ste rnberg, 1985). Even if we accept Piagets stages as distinguishing when competences ar fully developed and operable not necessarily when they first come out of the closet (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002), there is still insufficient designate 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 renewal from concrete-operational to formal-operational argument occurs in stages over a span of several years.Siegler (1998) suggests that catastrophe theory (a mathematical theory which examines fulminant changes) explains both the continuous and discontinuous appearance of cognitive development. The forces that lead to the clash of a bridge may variant up over a period of years, however the bridges glaring collapse appears as a sudden fifty-fiftyt. Analogously, a child may absolutely solve a problem that she could not solve the day before, but he r progress may be due to acknowledge and improved understanding acquired over antecede months. Thus cognitive development may be viewed both as a continuous process of small, imperceptible amendments or as a discontinuous pocket from one state to another depending on when and how closely viewpoints be taken. Bloom (2002) provides a similar argument in refutation of spurts in word understanding.Piaget initially argued that his stages are universal, ie that they apply to everyone irrespective of their single(a) come. Recent research suggests that cultural practices are related to childrens proficiency on tasks (Rogoff, 1990). Piaget (1972) always acknowledged the impact of fond and cultural contextual factors on cognitive development but came to revise his subscribe to that his stages are universal, eg by recognising that achieving formal operations is dependent on exposure to the special(prenominal) type of thinkingfound in science classes and on soulfulness motif to un dertake certain types of task.Piagets revise stance on universality and the discontinuity of stages also calls into question the theorys unverbalized 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 in spite of appearance specific types of cognitive functioning, eg conservation. Piaget explains variableness of progression, eg, within the domain of conservation, mass is conserve 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 invoice for perceived unevenness in cognitive development is domain-specificity, ie that specific types of cognitive affect develo p separately and at differing rates from others.One example of domain-specificity for verbiage vs number acquisition occurs in deafen infants symbolic-representational ability allowing them to learn American Sign Language as early as 6-7 months, while childrens symbolic-representational ability for number appears months later (Mandler, 1990, Meier & freshlyport, 1990). accompanying research (Chomsky, 1986, Fodor, 1983, Chi, 1992 cited in Pine, 1999) has suggested domain-specificity for spoken language, mathematics and logico-spatial reasoning involved in chess naiant 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 less(prenominal) fait hful in its description of cognitive development as universal, functionally unremitting and domain-general. More recent research (Fischer, 1980, Flavell, 1985) suggests that cognitive development occurs gradually and sequentially withinparticular intellectual domains.Turning to the theorys score of cognitive development, Piagets theory explains cognitive development as the result of physical maturation and dickens basic biological, invariant functions organisation and interlingual rendition (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002). Organisation is seen as the tendency to organise physical and psychological processes into purposeful, efficient systems. interlingual rendition occurs via equilibration, namely the seesaw-like balancing of (1) assimilation, ie how children turn incoming information to fit their active modes of thinking (schemata) and (2) accommodation, ie how children adapt their schemata in response to new experiences. Equilibration integrates physical maturation, experience wi th the environment and well-disposed influences (Miller, 2002).Whilst Piagets focus on the active constructivist mechanism of individual/environmental fundamental interaction has been highly influential, it does not provide a sufficient bill 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 explanation of the mechanism of cognitive transition from one qualitative stage to another.Piagets explanation of cognitive development and then appears impoverished. It has be en supplemented by social theory, which explicates the social occasion of social interaction in the childs development (Vygotsky, 1934/1978) and is supported by research into the indispensable 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 component of social, emotional and contextual factors, underestimating the existence of innate cognitive abilities (Flavell, Miller & Miller, 1993), and ignoring the complex r ole of language in cognitive development.Nonetheless, Siegler (1998) describes Piagets work as a affidavit to how much one person can do. The theorys heuristic power 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 longevity is certainly warranted for its originality and inspiration to others. jibe to Piaget the principal goal of education is to give rise 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 success for accepted cognitive psychology.ReferencesBaillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 31/2- and 41/2-month old infants. developmental psychological science, 23, 655-664Bailla rgeon, R. & DeVos, J. (1991). Object permanence in young infants Further evidence. peasant information, 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) juvenile YorkMcGraw-HillBloom, P. (2002). How children learn the meaning of words. untried York Oxford University crushed leatherBower, T.G.R. (1982 ). Development in Infancy second 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 kin to adulthood. Orlando, Fl Academic compress.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 Mod els of Science manganese studies in the philosophy of science. MinneapolisUniversity of Minnesota extortChomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language Its nature, origins and use. New York Praeger loot, M. & Cole, S.R. (2001). The Development of Children (4th Ed.). New York worth(predicate) 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.) witticism maturation and cognitive development comparative degree and cross-cultural perspectives. New YorkAldine de GruyterFischer, K.W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development the contr ol and social organisation 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. summarise 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 move textbook (4th Ed.). Mahuah, NJLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMandler, J.M. (1990). Recall of events by preverbal children. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 60 8, 485-516Mandler, J.M. (1998). commission . 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). expose 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. Infant conduct 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, 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 collect works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol 1). Problems of general psychology. New YorkPlenum Press