PIAGET’S STAGES OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT - Cognition and Development
KEY TERMS:
Object Permanence: the understanding that objects still exist
even when they are no longer visible
Egocentrism: lacking the ability to see the world from another person’s viewpoint
Conservation: the understanding that redistributing material doesn’t change its mass, volume or number.
Class Inclusion: the understanding that some classes of objects include other classes of objects.
Egocentrism: lacking the ability to see the world from another person’s viewpoint
Conservation: the understanding that redistributing material doesn’t change its mass, volume or number.
Class Inclusion: the understanding that some classes of objects include other classes of objects.
KEY FEATURES OF PIAGET’S
THEORY (supports interactionism)
-
Piaget put forward a stage
theory of cognitive development (four stages).
-
He claimed that the stages
were invariant and universal (all
children go through them in the same
order.)
-
Piaget claimed that infants
were ‘lone scientists’ – he believed that a child’s understanding of the world
is actively constructed through experience and self-discovery.
PIAGET’S STAGES OF COGNITIVE
DEVELOPMENT
|
Sensorimotor
Stage
|
0-2
years
|
|
Pre-operational
Stage
|
2-7
years
|
|
Concrete
Operational Stage
|
7-11
years
|
|
Formal
Operational Stage
|
12+
years
|
Stage One: Sensorimotor Stage
Features of this stage:
Features of this stage:
§ Birth to 2 years old
§ The infant initially has no object permanence:
they acquire this at around 8 months old
§
Infants build on their
existing schemas through assimilation and accommodation
Research Evidence:
Piaget (1963) tested infants of different ages for object permanence by removing a toy from the child’s grasp and hiding it beneath a blanket. Infants under 8 months would not search for the toy (suggesting that they have no object permanence); at approximately 8 months, the infants would search.
Piaget (1963) tested infants of different ages for object permanence by removing a toy from the child’s grasp and hiding it beneath a blanket. Infants under 8 months would not search for the toy (suggesting that they have no object permanence); at approximately 8 months, the infants would search.
However, if Piaget moved the toy to a different
hidden location the child would continue to look under the original blanket (‘A
not B error’) – children only stop making this error at around 12 months when
they develop a more advanced understanding of object permanence.
Evaluation of studying object
permanence:
Weakness:
P: Maybe the infants under 8 months did not search for the toy for other reasons not considered by Piaget.
E: For example, they may have lacked the necessary motor skills/they might not have been interested.
E: Therefore, it’s been argued that they may develop object permanence earlier than what Piaget suggested.
Weakness:
P: Maybe the infants under 8 months did not search for the toy for other reasons not considered by Piaget.
E: For example, they may have lacked the necessary motor skills/they might not have been interested.
E: Therefore, it’s been argued that they may develop object permanence earlier than what Piaget suggested.
Weakness:
P: There is contradicting evidence
E: For example, Bower (1971) presented 4-to-8 month old infants with a situation where the object is moved from right to left, passing behind a screen. He observed the direction of the infant’s gaze when the object passed behind the screen and found that many infants continued to track the invisible object with their eyes.
E: This suggests that infants develop object permanence earlier than what Piaget proposed.
P: There is contradicting evidence
E: For example, Bower (1971) presented 4-to-8 month old infants with a situation where the object is moved from right to left, passing behind a screen. He observed the direction of the infant’s gaze when the object passed behind the screen and found that many infants continued to track the invisible object with their eyes.
E: This suggests that infants develop object permanence earlier than what Piaget proposed.
Weakness:
P: There is further contrasting evidence
E: For example, Bower and Wishart (1972) made an object ‘disappear’ by turning out the lights, and they then observed 5-month old infants using an infrared camera. They found that the infants continued to reach for the object in the dark for up to 90 seconds.
E: This therefore suggests that they have object permanence: which is, again, a lot earlier than what Piaget had suggested.
P: There is further contrasting evidence
E: For example, Bower and Wishart (1972) made an object ‘disappear’ by turning out the lights, and they then observed 5-month old infants using an infrared camera. They found that the infants continued to reach for the object in the dark for up to 90 seconds.
E: This therefore suggests that they have object permanence: which is, again, a lot earlier than what Piaget had suggested.
Weakness:
P: There is contrasting evidence
E: Baillargeon and DeVos (1991) found that infants show an understanding of object permanence from as early as 3 months
E: This suggests that Piaget may have underestimated the abilities of young children and it questions his constructivist approach to child development.
P: There is contrasting evidence
E: Baillargeon and DeVos (1991) found that infants show an understanding of object permanence from as early as 3 months
E: This suggests that Piaget may have underestimated the abilities of young children and it questions his constructivist approach to child development.
Stage Two: Pre-operational
Stage
Features of this stage:
Features of this stage:
§ 2-7 years old
§ At this stage, children are egocentric: they
lack the ability to see the world from someone else’s point of view.
§
Children at not yet able to
perform mental operations: for example, conservation (they lack the ability to
understand that redistributing material doesn’t change its mass, volume or
number).
Research Evidence:
Piaget and Inhelder (1956) – the three mountains experiment. 100 children were shown a model of three mountains, each with a different object on it (eg. snow, a house and a church). A doll was then placed in various positions around the model and the child had to pick (from 10 images) what the doll could see.
Children aged 4-5 chose the view from their own perspective (egocentric), 6 year olds often chose a view other than their own, but not always the correct view, and 7-8 year olds consistently chose what the doll could see (suggesting they’re not egocentric).
This suggests that children at the pre-operation stage are egocentric: and the ability to understand the world from another person’s viewpoint occurs around the age of 7.
Piaget and Inhelder (1956) – the three mountains experiment. 100 children were shown a model of three mountains, each with a different object on it (eg. snow, a house and a church). A doll was then placed in various positions around the model and the child had to pick (from 10 images) what the doll could see.
Children aged 4-5 chose the view from their own perspective (egocentric), 6 year olds often chose a view other than their own, but not always the correct view, and 7-8 year olds consistently chose what the doll could see (suggesting they’re not egocentric).
This suggests that children at the pre-operation stage are egocentric: and the ability to understand the world from another person’s viewpoint occurs around the age of 7.
Evaluation of studying
egocentrism:
Weakness:
P: Donaldson (1978) argued that Piaget underestimated the cognitive ability of young children – and proposed that his findings were a result of the way in which he carried out his investigations.
E: For example, the three mountains task was a very unfamiliar situation for most children, and not like what they would encounter in everyday life – so perhaps young children would be able to de-centre in more realistic situations that have personal relevance.
E: This suggests that there may be methodology issues within Piaget’s theory. This point is supported by Borke (1975) who found that children of ages 3 and 4 were able to de-centre if given a more familiar and realistic situation: which is a lot lower than the age 7/8 that was proposed by Piaget.
Weakness:
P: Donaldson (1978) argued that Piaget underestimated the cognitive ability of young children – and proposed that his findings were a result of the way in which he carried out his investigations.
E: For example, the three mountains task was a very unfamiliar situation for most children, and not like what they would encounter in everyday life – so perhaps young children would be able to de-centre in more realistic situations that have personal relevance.
E: This suggests that there may be methodology issues within Piaget’s theory. This point is supported by Borke (1975) who found that children of ages 3 and 4 were able to de-centre if given a more familiar and realistic situation: which is a lot lower than the age 7/8 that was proposed by Piaget.
Stage Three: Concrete
Operational Stage
Key Features:
Key Features:
§ 7-11 years old
§ Children can now think logically and perform
mental operations (eg. simple mathematics like adding and subtracting)
§
They develop class inclusion:
they can now understand categories (eg. flowers) and subcategories (eg. roses
and daisies).
Research Evidence for class
inclusion:
Piaget (1952) used a box of wooden brown beads and wooden white beads and asked children whether the box contained more brown beads or more wooden beads – only children above 6 years old were able to give the correct answers. This supports the theory that class inclusion develops around the concrete operational stage.
Piaget (1952) used a box of wooden brown beads and wooden white beads and asked children whether the box contained more brown beads or more wooden beads – only children above 6 years old were able to give the correct answers. This supports the theory that class inclusion develops around the concrete operational stage.
Evaluation of studying class
inclusion:
Weakness:
In a similar study to Piaget (1952), McGarrigle (1978) found that 48% of 6 year olds were able to answer a class-inclusion question, suggesting that they are capable of understanding class inclusion earlier than what Piaget thought – when the task was made more similar to what they would encounter in everyday situations.
In a similar study to Piaget (1952), McGarrigle (1978) found that 48% of 6 year olds were able to answer a class-inclusion question, suggesting that they are capable of understanding class inclusion earlier than what Piaget thought – when the task was made more similar to what they would encounter in everyday situations.
Research Evidence for
conservation:
Piaget and Szeminska (1941) showed children two identical beakers with the same amount of water in and asked if one contained more than the other (the pre-transformation question). All the water was then poured into a tall, thin glass and they were asked the question again (the post transformation question).
After the transformation, most of the children under 7 said the tall, thin glass contained more water and the older children said they contained the same.
This shows that there is an important change in the cognitive ability of 7-year old children, when they develop the ability to conserve.
Piaget and Szeminska (1941) showed children two identical beakers with the same amount of water in and asked if one contained more than the other (the pre-transformation question). All the water was then poured into a tall, thin glass and they were asked the question again (the post transformation question).
After the transformation, most of the children under 7 said the tall, thin glass contained more water and the older children said they contained the same.
This shows that there is an important change in the cognitive ability of 7-year old children, when they develop the ability to conserve.
Evaluation of studying
conservation:
Weakness:
P: There may be problems with the way that Piaget conducted his experiments
E: For example, children may misunderstand the intentions of the researcher (eg. they may think that by asking the same question twice it implies the research is expecting a different answer.) This is supported by Rose and Blank (1974) who reconstructed the experiment, without asking the first question: they found that 6 year olds made significantly fewer mistakes than in the original study.
E: This suggests that Piaget’s methodology may be flawed and that children may be able to conserve earlier than what he though, thus affecting the validity of the findings.
Weakness:
P: There may be problems with the way that Piaget conducted his experiments
E: For example, children may misunderstand the intentions of the researcher (eg. they may think that by asking the same question twice it implies the research is expecting a different answer.) This is supported by Rose and Blank (1974) who reconstructed the experiment, without asking the first question: they found that 6 year olds made significantly fewer mistakes than in the original study.
E: This suggests that Piaget’s methodology may be flawed and that children may be able to conserve earlier than what he though, thus affecting the validity of the findings.
Stage Four: Formal Operational
Stage
Key Features:
Key Features:
§ They can apply mental operations to abstract
concepts
§
They begin to think hypothetically
(ie. they can suggest what might be the result if something was to happen)
Research Evidence:
The ‘third eye problem’ was used to test formal operational thinking. Schaffer (1998) reported that 9 year olds suggested that a 3rd eye should be on the forehead, whereas 11 year olds were more inventive (eg. a 3rd eye on the hand that would allow you to see around corners). This shows that 11 year olds were able to think hypothetically – demonstrating they were moving towards formal operations.
The ‘third eye problem’ was used to test formal operational thinking. Schaffer (1998) reported that 9 year olds suggested that a 3rd eye should be on the forehead, whereas 11 year olds were more inventive (eg. a 3rd eye on the hand that would allow you to see around corners). This shows that 11 year olds were able to think hypothetically – demonstrating they were moving towards formal operations.
Evaluation of studying formal
operations:
Weakness:
P: There is contrasting evidence
E: Other researchers have found that adolescents are actually much slower to acquire formal operations that what Piaget thought. Cole (1990) suggested that quite a lot of American adults don’t often reason at the formal level and it seems that there are some cultures in which no one can solve Piaget’s formal operational problems.
E: This could be due to them not having the kind of schooling that stresses logical/mathematics/science and thus, suggests that such tasks may be culture bound. This point is supported by Tulkin and Konnor (1973) who found that people were able to display formal operations if given a task that was suited to their culture.
P: There is contrasting evidence
E: Other researchers have found that adolescents are actually much slower to acquire formal operations that what Piaget thought. Cole (1990) suggested that quite a lot of American adults don’t often reason at the formal level and it seems that there are some cultures in which no one can solve Piaget’s formal operational problems.
E: This could be due to them not having the kind of schooling that stresses logical/mathematics/science and thus, suggests that such tasks may be culture bound. This point is supported by Tulkin and Konnor (1973) who found that people were able to display formal operations if given a task that was suited to their culture.
EVALUATION OF PIAGET’S
RESEARCH METHODS:
Strength:
P: Piaget’s clinical observations and interviews have been useful
E: He gathered rich, qualitative data by paying close attention to everything the children did/said
E: This has allowed him to produce a highly detailed account of cognitive development
P: Piaget’s clinical observations and interviews have been useful
E: He gathered rich, qualitative data by paying close attention to everything the children did/said
E: This has allowed him to produce a highly detailed account of cognitive development
Weakness:
P: His stages were devised as a result of observing and testing a small (and arguably unrepresentative) sample of children.
E: He used a limited sample of Swiss children – often his own.
E: This is a weakness as he shouldn’t generalise these findings to children in other cultures – which is huge problem as his theory is supposed to be “universal”.
P: His stages were devised as a result of observing and testing a small (and arguably unrepresentative) sample of children.
E: He used a limited sample of Swiss children – often his own.
E: This is a weakness as he shouldn’t generalise these findings to children in other cultures – which is huge problem as his theory is supposed to be “universal”.
Weakness:
P: His tests were arguably confusing for children.
E: The language used may have affected the children’s answers – for example: they may have misunderstood the word ‘more’ and assumed it meant ‘taller’ – hence, the results. Or, alternatively, in the conversation study the children may have thought they were being asked a ‘trick question’.
E: This is a problem because he failed to consider how test performance may have been affected by factors such as language ability – and just assumed that failure at a task meant the child lacked the ability, therefore suggesting he may have underestimated the children’s abilities.
P: His tests were arguably confusing for children.
E: The language used may have affected the children’s answers – for example: they may have misunderstood the word ‘more’ and assumed it meant ‘taller’ – hence, the results. Or, alternatively, in the conversation study the children may have thought they were being asked a ‘trick question’.
E: This is a problem because he failed to consider how test performance may have been affected by factors such as language ability – and just assumed that failure at a task meant the child lacked the ability, therefore suggesting he may have underestimated the children’s abilities.
EVALUATION OF PIAGET’S THEORY:
Strength:
P: His work has received cross-cultural support
E: Goodnow (1969) used samples from USA, UK, Africa and China and found that all these children displayed the same sequence of development described by Piaget.
E: This suggests that, in fact, the findings can be generalised to children universally.
P: His work has received cross-cultural support
E: Goodnow (1969) used samples from USA, UK, Africa and China and found that all these children displayed the same sequence of development described by Piaget.
E: This suggests that, in fact, the findings can be generalised to children universally.
Strength:
P: Other psychologists, like Vygotsky, have argued that guidance from adults is important and that it can accelerate learning, however, there is evidence to support the notion of fixed stages.
E: Gelman (1969) found that it was extremely difficult to teach the concept of conservation to children aged 4 and 5.
E: This supports Piaget’s view that teaching and support cannot accelerate the process of cognitive development, as it develops in fixed stages.
P: Other psychologists, like Vygotsky, have argued that guidance from adults is important and that it can accelerate learning, however, there is evidence to support the notion of fixed stages.
E: Gelman (1969) found that it was extremely difficult to teach the concept of conservation to children aged 4 and 5.
E: This supports Piaget’s view that teaching and support cannot accelerate the process of cognitive development, as it develops in fixed stages.
Weakness:
P: His theory is based on a number of rigid, defined stages.
E: In real life, how likely is it that cognitive development occurs as mechanically as his theory suggests? When a child moves onto the next stage, a ‘switch’ doesn’t just flick.
E: Cognitive development is a lot more ‘messy’ and fluid, which this theory doesn’t consider.
P: His theory is based on a number of rigid, defined stages.
E: In real life, how likely is it that cognitive development occurs as mechanically as his theory suggests? When a child moves onto the next stage, a ‘switch’ doesn’t just flick.
E: Cognitive development is a lot more ‘messy’ and fluid, which this theory doesn’t consider.
Weakness:
P: He neglected the importance of other factors
E: For example, Vygotsky highlights the importance of social interaction.
E: Piaget is not accounting for potentially crucial factors, which has led to an overemphasis on cognitive aspects of development (rather than emotional/social factors).
P: He neglected the importance of other factors
E: For example, Vygotsky highlights the importance of social interaction.
E: Piaget is not accounting for potentially crucial factors, which has led to an overemphasis on cognitive aspects of development (rather than emotional/social factors).
Weakness:
P: There are certain things that we don’t learn through self-discovery, as we learn it from others.
E: For example, traditions and cultural practices
E: Piaget doesn’t acknowledge this – but Vygotsky does, suggesting Vygotsky’s theory potentially holds more credibility as an explanation.
P: There are certain things that we don’t learn through self-discovery, as we learn it from others.
E: For example, traditions and cultural practices
E: Piaget doesn’t acknowledge this – but Vygotsky does, suggesting Vygotsky’s theory potentially holds more credibility as an explanation.
Comments
Post a Comment