Jean Piaget s Theory of Cognitive Development

1. Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

2. Outline (1) General introduction. (2) Sensory-Motor period. (3) Pre-operational period. (4) Concrete operations. (5) Formal operations. (6) Evaluation.

3. I: Terms and concepts.

4. Genetic Epistemology: A constructivist theory No innate ideas...not a nativist theory. Nor is the child a “tabula rasa” with the “real” world out there waiting to be discovered. Instead, mind is constructed through interaction with the environment; what is real depends on how developed one’s knowledge is

5. How does Piaget describe developmental change? Development occurs in stages, with a qualitative shift in the organization and complexity of cognition at each stage. Thus, children not simply slower, or less knowledgeable than adults ? instead, they understand the world in a qualitatively different way. Stages form an invariant sequence.

6. Stages of Cognitive Development (1) Sensorimotor (0-2 years) (2) Pre-operational (2-7 years) (3) Concrete Operational (7-11 years) (4) Formal Operational (11-16 years)

7. What develops? Cognitive structures Cognitive structures are the means by which experience is interpreted and organized: reality very much in the eye of the beholder Early on, cognitive structures are quite basic, and consist of reflexes like sucking and grasping. Piaget referred to these structures as schemes.

8. How do cognitive structures develop? Through assimilation and accomodation. Assimilation: The incorporation of new experiences into existing structures. Accommodation: The changing of an old structures so that new experiences can be processed. Assimilation is conservative, while accommodation is progressive.

9. Why accommodate? Normally, the mind is in a state of equilibrium: existing structures are stable, and assimilation is mostly occurring. However, a discrepant experience can lead to disequilibrium or cognitive “instability” Child forced to accommodate existing structures.

10. Active view of development Child as scientist Mental structures intrinsically active ? constantly being applied to experience Leads to curiosity and the desire to know Development proceeds as the child actively refines his/her knowledge of the world through many “small experiments”

11. Instructional learning viewed as relatively unimportant Teachers should not try to transmit knowledge, but should provide opportunities for discovery Child needs to construct or reinvent knowledge ? adult knowledge cannot be formally communicated to the child Limited importance of socio-cultural context; importance of peer interaction.

12. II: The Sensorimotor Period (0-2 years) Only some basic motor reflexes? grasping, sucking, eye movements, orientation to sound, etc By exercising and coordinating these basic reflexes, infant develops intentionality and an understanding of object permanence.

13. II: The Sensorimotor Period (0-2 years) Intentionality refers to the ability to act in a goal-directed manner ? in other words, to do one thing in order that something else occurs. Requires an understanding of cause and effect

14. II: The Sensorimotor Period (0-2 years) Object permanence refers to the understanding that objects continue to exist even when no longer in view. Need to distinguish between an action and the thing acted on.

15. Stage 1 (0-1 month) Stage of reflex activity. Many reflexes like reaching, grasping sucking all operating independently. Objects like "sensory pictures". Subjectivity and objectivity fused. Schemes activated by chance: No intentionality.

16. Stage 2 (1-4 months) Stage of Primary Circular Reactions. Infant’s behaviour, by chance, leads to an interesting result & is repeated. Circular: repetition. Primary: centre on infant's own body. Example: thumb-sucking.

17. Object concept at stage 2 Passive expectation: if object disappears, infant will continue looking to the location where it disappeared, but will not search. In the infant mind, the existence of the object still very closely tied to schemes applied to experience

18. Intentions at stage 2 Intentionality beginning to emerge: infant can now self-initiate certain schemes (e.g., thumb-sucking)

19. Stage 3 (4-8 months) Stage of Secondary Circular Reactions Repetition of simple actions on external objects. Example: bang a toy to make a noise.

20. Intentionality at stage 3 Poor understanding of the connection between causes and effect limits their ability to act intentionality. “Magical causality” ? accidentally banging toy makes many interesting things happen

21. Object concept at stage 3 Visual anticipation. If infant drops an object, and it disappears, the infant will visually search for it. Will also search for partially hidden objects But will not search for completely hidden objects.

22. Stage 4 (8-12 months) Co-ordination of secondary circular reactions. Secondary schemes combined to create new action sequences.

23. Intentionality at Stage 4 First appearance of intentional or in Piaget’s terms, means-end behavior. Infant learns to use one secondary scheme (e.g., pulling a towel) in order that another secondary scheme can be activated (e.g., reaching and grasping a toy)

24. Object concept at stage 4 Infant will search for hidden objects. Does infant understand the object as something that exists separate from the scheme applied to find the object? No. Evidence? A not B error.

34. A not B error Infant continues to search at the first hiding location after object is hidden in the new location. Object still subjectively understood. Object remains associated with a previously successful scheme.

35. Stage 5 (12-18 months) Stage of Tertiary Circular Reactions. Actions varied in an experimental fashion. Pursuit of novelty New means are discovered. Limited to physical actions taken on objects

36. Object concept at stage 5. Can solve A not B. Cannot solve A not B with invisible displacement (Example from Piaget).

37. Stage 5 and invisible displacement Can only imagine the object as existing where it was last hidden. Invisible displacement requires the infant to mentally calculate the new location of the object.

38. Stage 6 (18-24 months) Can solve object search with invisible displacement. Infants now mentally represent physically absent objects. Understands object as something that exists independently of sensory-motor action.

39. Stage 6 (18-24 months) Sensori-motor period culminates with the emergence of the Symbolic function An idea or mental image is used to stand-in for a perceptually absent object Trial-and-error problem solving does not need to enacted but can undertaken through mental combination.

40. Summary Sensori-motor period culminates in the emergence of symbolic representation. Object permanence understood. Basic means-ends skills have emerged.

41. Piaget – Part 2 Beyond the sensorimotor period

42. III: The pre-operational period Symbolic thought without operations. Operations: logical principles that are applied to symbols rather than objects. 3 examples: reversibility, compensation, and identity In the absence of operations, thinking is governed more by appearance than logical necessity.

43. Pre-operational thinking and problems of conservation

51. Why do pre-operational children fail problems of conservation? Because their thinking is not governed by principles of reversibility, compensation and identity

55. Why do pre-operational children fail problems of conservation? Because their thinking is not governed by principles of reversibility, compensation and identity If children applied these principles, they would conclude liquid is conserved

56. Characteristics of Pre-Operational Thinking Not governed by logical operations Consequently, it appears egocentric (e.g., 3 mountains task) and intuitive (e.g., conservation tasks)

59. Characteristics of Pre-Operational Thinking (1) Egocentric (2) Intuitive ? problem solving is not reasoned or logical

60. Nature of intuitive reasoning No reversibility ? Cannot mentally undo a given action. Perceptual centration ?Focus on only one dimension of a problem. States versus transformations ? Transformations relating different states ignored.

61. What makes Pre-operational thinking stage-like? Because it appears to be a general characteristic of children’s thinking at this age.

62. What makes Pre-operational thinking stage-like? Because it appears to be a general characteristic of children’s thinking at this age. Examples: Other conservation problems.

66. What makes Pre-operational thinking stage-like? Because it appears to be a general characteristic of children’s thinking at this age. Examples: Other conservation problems.

67. What makes Pre-operational thinking stage-like? Because it appears to be a general characteristic of children’s thinking at this age. Examples: Other conservation problems. Emotion reasoning.

69. What makes Pre-operational thinking stage-like? Because it appears to be a general characteristic of children’s thinking at this age. Examples: Other conservation problems. Emotion reasoning. Moral reasoning.

70. What makes Pre-operational thinking stage-like? Because it appears to be a general characteristic of children’s thinking at this age. Examples: Other conservation problems. Emotion reasoning. Moral reasoning. ? focus on consequences

71. IV: Concrete operational thinking (7-12 years) Qualitatively different reasoning in conservation problems. Flexible and decentered. Co-ordination of multiple dimensions. Logical vs. empirical problem solving. Reversibility. Awareness of transformations.

72. IV: Concrete operational thinking (7-12 years) Physical operations now internalized and have become cognitive Still, logic directed at physical or concrete problems

73. Horizontal decalage Different conservation problems solved at different ages. Some claim it is a threat to Piaget’s domain general view of cognitive development Example: volume vs mass But, invariant sequence observed.

74. V: Formal operations Thought no longer applied strictly to concrete problems. Directed inward: thought becomes the object of thought. Advances in use of deductive and inductive logic

75. V: Formal operations Deductive thought in period of concrete operations confined to familiar everyday experience: “If Sam steals Tim’s toy, then how will Tim feel?” Formal operations: “If we could eliminate injustice, would the world live in peace?” Thinking goes beyond experience, more abstract

76. Inductive reasoning Example: Pendulum problem Scientific thinking: from specific observations to general conclusions through hypothesis-testing

77. Inductive reasoning Example: Pendulum problem

78. Inductive reasoning Formal operational children will systematically test all possibilities before arriving at a conclusion

79. VI: Evaluating Piaget Difficult. An enormous theory. Covers many ages and issues in development.

80. Strengths Active rather than passive view of the child. Revealed important invariants in cognitive development. Errors informative. Perceptual-motor learning rather than language important for development. Tasks.

81. Weaknesses The competence-performance distinction

82. Competence Knowledge, rules, and concepts that form the basis of cognition. Inferred from behaviour.

83. Performance Energy level, interest, attention, language skills, motivation etc. Factors that effect the expression of a competence.

84. Competence-performance distinction. Piaget attributed infants success (or lack of success) to competence. However, he gave no consideration to performance factors that may have constrained the expression of knowledge. Example: A not B

85. Performance-competence distinction and A not B A not B errors thought to indicate poor understanding of objects. However, motor components of the task may constrain the expression of infants knowledge. Example: Baillergeon. Object permanence observed in 5 month-olds using a looking time task.

86. Other examples Borke (1975) & the 3 mountains task. Bruner (1966) & the liquid conservation task. More detailed task analysis required.

87. Stages? Stage like progression only observed if one assumes a bird-eye view. Closer inspection reveals more continuous changes (Siegler, 1988).

88. Summary Piaget’s theory is wide-ranging and influential. Source of continued controversy. People continue to address many of the questions he raised, but using different methods and concepts.