Jean
Piaget, the Swiss psychologist, claimed that cognitive development proceeds in
four genetically determined stages, and that they always follow the same order.
This theory of child development, he called ‘genetic epistemology’, and it saw the minds of
children as very different from those of adults. Importantly, this perception
must be taken into account in teaching and learning. Big problem – he got it
mostly wrong.
Four ‘ages and stages’
1. Sensorimotor (0-2) Intelligence takes form of motor
actions.
2. Preoperational (3-7) Intelligence intuitive in
nature.
3. Concrete operations (8-11) Intelligence logical but
needs concrete referents.
4. Formal operations (12-15) Thinking involves
abstractions.
Each of these stages had a more
granular structure which Piaget explored in some detail. His emphasis on
mathematical and analytic task experimentation has been criticized as being a
little narrow. However, this, he saw as a good indicator of general cognitive
development.
Famous four-stages
demolished
His famous four stage developmental model has been fairly well demolished.
First, the Sensimotor Stage with the infamous ‘hide a toy
under a cloth and the child thinks it’s no longer there’ study, which turned
out to be an exercise in distraction, and when repeated by Bower and Wishart in
the absence of an adult, with a teddy, most children had no difficulty in
understanding that the toy is still under the cloth. In general, Piaget simply
focussed too much on motor actions when the real development is perceptual.
Kagan also attributes object permanence to a simple increase in memory
capacity.
Second, the Pre-operational Stage study, where a child fails
to recognise a doll’s point of view from photographs of three mountains, was
shown to be too complex for the children to understand. A simpler experiment by
Hughes, using dolls of two policeman, showed that many children can understand
non-egocentric perspectives.
Third, the Concrete Operation Stage was refuted by Rose and
Blank, when it was found that Piaget had been verbally correcting the children
towards his wanted conclusions, invalidating the data. The ‘naughty teddy’
experiment also wiped out his famous three rows of sweets trial supposedly
showing that kids couldn’t get constancy in number. Overall he ignored
hereditary, educational and cultural effects, thereby standardising theory,
when, in fact, there are large differences in the speed and nature of development
due to these and other factors
Fourthly, the Formal Operative Stage focused too much on
formal logic, ignoring many other mature cognitive skills. It’s as if we were
all little mathematicians, not ‘little scientists’. In fact kids develop, not
in a predictable, linear fashion, but in fits and starts, and in many different
ways.
All in all, his four stages were abandoned as subsequent
research showed that development takes place much earlier than he had posited,
is more of a continuum, with more variation in ages and more plasticity than
was previously thought.
Poor scientist
How did he get it so wrong? Well, like Freud, he was no
scientist. First, he used his own three children (or others from wealthy,
professional families) and not objective or multiple observers to eliminate
observational bias. Secondly, he often repeated a statement if the child’s
answer did not conform to his experimental expectation. Thirdly, the data and
analysis lacked rigour, making most of his supposed studies next to useless.
So, he led children towards the answers he wanted, didn’t isolate the tested
variables, used his own children, and was extremely vague on his concepts.
Conclusion
Is there much, or anything, that is useful in Piaget to a
teacher? His four-stage theory of child development has been so completely
negated by subsequent studies, that it’s merely an exercise in the history of
science. Piaget was the dominant force in
child psychology but many of his claims are now subject to a critique from
Bruner, Vygotsky, other constructivists and other developmental psychologists, who see a more malleable developmental picture. What's
worrying is the fact that this Piagean view of child development, based on
'ages and stages' is still widely believed, despite being quite wrong. This
leads to misguided teaching methods. Education and training is still soaked in
this dated theory. However, on
the whole, his sensitivity to age and cognitive development did lead to a more
measured and appropriate use of educational techniques that matched the true
cognitive capabilities of children.
Bibliography
Piaget, J. (1929). The Child's Conception of the World. NY:
Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgement of the Child. NY:
Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
Piaget, J. (1969). The Mechanisms of Perception. London: Rutledge
& Kegan Paul.
Paiget, J. (1970). The Science of Education and the Psychology of the
Child. NY: Grossman.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child.
NY: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence.
NY: Basic Books.
Bybee, R.W. & Sund, R.B. (1982). Piaget for Educators (2nd
Ed). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Jean
Piaget Society