Critically evaluate piaget’s theory of cognitive development Essay

Piaget has been described as the male parent of cognitive psychology (Shaffer, 1988) and his stage scheme as the prepareation of festeringal cognitive psychology (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002). It is not realizable to describe Piagets semiempirical findings and opening in however 1,500 words. Instead, I exit briefly analyze the surmises scope, comprehensiveness, parsimony, applic great power, trial-and-error value and methodological underpinning. I will then evaluate in more detail the theorys utility in describing and explaining cognitive festering.Historic all(prenominal)y, Piagets ontological approach was ground-breaking with its rivet on the soft nature of cognition and its constructivist locating. The theory itself is wide-scoped (universal), comprehensive (covering a broad spectrum of cognitive achievement) and elegantly coherent (from neonate to adult). It remains deeply influential on cognitive psychology and continues to be widely employ in kidcare and educationa l settings. Piagets theory is parsimonious in its commonality of approach to a broad range of complex phenomena with chance on interlinking concepts. Inevitably, such an ambitious theory has generated a wealth of search, some(a) 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 profound cognitive competences. longitudinal data, ideally suited to monitoring progression, was only recorded for his own triplet children. Certain of his techniques were in competently sensitive to identify the underlying causes of performance variations, peculiarly with very young babys, where more recent habituation techniques have shown that Piaget good underestimated their understanding and ability (Bower, 1982, Baillargeon & DeVos, 1991). This may have led him to overlook early(a) relevant sto rys for varying levels of performance, eg limitations on stock capacity (Bryant & Trabasso, 1971, Kail, 1984, Diamond, 1985), motor-co-ordination (Mandler, 1990), availability of memory strategies(Siegler, 1991) and verbal understanding (Sternberg, 1985). so far, Piagets clinical method, his flexible and ecologically reas hotshotd approach did reveal original insights into childrens persuasion, which a more standardised, scientific approach may have overlooked entirely.Piagets theoretical mannikin describes the anatomical bodily structure of cognitive education as a fixed grade of four discontinuous and qualitatively protestent periods (for ease of understanding, referred to as stages) of all childrens intelligence across domains, tasks and contexts.Invariance is a core sport of Piagets conceptual structure, in contrast with contemporary linear perspectives, which question smashed conceptual structures, eg post-modernism and chaos theory. Piaget emphasised the invaria nce of progression through stages, so that a child never regresses to thinking methods from an earlier stage of cognitive development. This is empirically unconvincing, eg, as an adult, I have easily switched from established-operational to concrete-operational thinking when presented with flat-pack furniture and an incomprehensible set of instructions. Research (Beilin, 1971, Case, 1992) has to a fault 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 amidst stages a key character in the theorys description of cognitive development is too questionable. Although practically research has shown that children can do things at ages earlier than Piaget considered possible (Baillargeon, 1987, Mandler, 1998, Diamond, 1991), Piaget focused on the sequence of progression from one stage to an another(prenominal)(prenominal) rather than the respective ages of cognitive achievement. However, because cognitive achievements have often been shown to emerge earlier (and occasionally accompanying if at all, eg certain 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 development ratherthan a stepped structure of discontinuous stages.Piagets focus on competence as hostile to performance contributes to the difficulty of determining when one stage becomes qualitatively different from another. What we may be capable 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 c ompetences are fully developed and functional not necessarily when they first appear (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002), there 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 alteration from concrete-operational to formal-operational logical thinking occurs gradually over a span of several years.Siegler (1998) suggests that catastrophe theory (a mathematical theory which examines sudden changes) explains both the continuous and discontinuous way of cognitive development. The forces that lead to the collapse of a bridge may prove up over a period of years, however the bridges visible collapse appears as a sudden event. Analogously, a child may suddenly bring a problem that she could not solve the day before, but her progress may be due to association and improved understanding acquired over preceding months. Thus cognitive development may be viewed both as a continuous form 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 refutation of spurts in word eruditeness.Piaget initially argued that his stages are universal, ie that they fall in to everyone irrespective of their idiosyncratic experience. Recent research suggests that cultural practices are related to childrens proficiency on tasks (Rogoff, 1990). Piaget (1972) ever 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 particular(prenominal) type of thinkingfound in science classes and on individual motivation to approach 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 ad hoc types of cognitive functioning, eg conservation. Piaget explains unevenness of progression, eg, within the domain of conservation, mass is conserved much preferably 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. unmatched example of domain-specificity for language vs number ac quisition occurs in deaf 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 & impudentlyport, 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 factor 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 accurate in its description of cognitive development as universal, functionally invariant and domain-general. More recent research (F ischer, 1980, Flavell, 1985) suggests that cognitive development occurs gradually and sequentially withinparticular intellectual domains. act to the theorys explanation of cognitive development, Piagets theory explains cognitive development as the result of physical maturation and two prefatorial biological, invariant functions organisation and adaptation (Lutz & Sternberg, 2002). Organisation is seen as the tendency to send physical and psychological processes into purposeful, efficient systems. Adaptation occurs via equilibration, namely 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 surround and social influences (Miller, 2002).Whilst Piagets focus on the active constructivist mechanism of individual/environmental inter meet h as 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 transform 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 thus 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 born(p) so cial 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) have integrate 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 earthly concern 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 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 length of service is certainly warranted for its originality and inspiration to others. According to Piaget the principal goal of education is to earn 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 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. Child development, 62, 1227-1246Beilin, H. (1971). developmental stages and developmental processes. In D.R. Green, M.P. Fo rd & G.B. Flamer (Eds.) Measurement and Piaget. (pp 172-196) youthful YorkMcGraw-HillBloom, P. (2002). How children learn the mean of words. New York Oxford University PressBower, 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 sustain to adulthood. Orlando, Fl Academic Press.Case, R. (1992). The minds staircase Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of childrens belief 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 philosophy of science. MinneapolisUniversity of Minnesota PressChomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language Its nature, origins and use. New York Praeger sugar, M. & Cole, S.R. (2001). The Develo pment 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 back away to guide action, as indicated by infants performance on AB. Child Development, 56, 868-883Diamond, A. (1991). anterior lobe involvement in cognitive changes during the first year of life. In K.R. Gibson & A.C. Petersen (Eds.) mindset maturation and cognitive development comparative and cross-cultural perspectives. New 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 good development The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol 2). New York Harper & wranglingLutz, 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). mental 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 o n a possible sign reinforcement in language acquisition. Language, 66, 1-23Meltzoff, A.N. & Moore, 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, 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). mentation and speech. In T.N. Minick (Ed.) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol 1). Problems of general psychology. New YorkPlenum Press