Therefore, child education practitioners for this phase should focus on these aspects accordingly and aim to develop them further. For example, whilst upon one placement my planning for one particular lesson included the opportunity to conduct a scientific experiment in small groups whilst responding to open ended questions, as I was aware the activity would target and build upon the student’s prior knowledge or developing schemas.
Stage 4
Piaget’s fourth and final phase, the formal operations stage, is expected to begin between the ages of eleven or twelve and continue to eighteen. The theorist felt that within the early adolescent years, the development of the ability of reversibility and conservation to abstract, verbal, and hypothetical situations took place. He commented that the adolescents began to make speculations about what might happen in the future as they gained the capability to formulate and test hypotheses, and comprehend abstract concepts such as probability, ratio, and proportion (Child development - Berk). Thus teaching at this stage should be in such a way that it encourages young people to consider many possibilities from several perspectives. For instance, in essay writing which many teachers use to assess students, a problem question could additionally ask for comparisons and explanations, to ensure the pupil has learnt how to resolve an issue and articulate that information to others.
Piaget also gathered information, statistics and conducted experiments within the area of Adaptation Development. The adaptation theory (also known as the Constructivist theory) involved three fundamental processes, which contributed to the child’s cognitive development. These were assimilation, accommodation, and equilibrium. Assimilation involved the incorporation of new events into pre-existing cognitive structures. Accommodation is the adjustment involved in the formation of new mental structures needed to accommodate new information. Equilibration involved the child striking a balance between him/her and the environment, between assimilation and accommodation. The theorist believed when a child experienced a new event, disequilibrium set in until s/he was able to assimilate and accommodate the new information and thus attain equilibrium.
This dual process, assimilation-accommodation, enables the child to form a schema in Piaget’s opinion. The University of Hull handout suggests that ‘children progress through stages in their thinking, each of which corresponds to change in the structure of their intelligence. These structures are sets of mental operations that can be applied to anything in the world. Such a mental operation is called a schema.’
Within the classroom the teacher may observe and influence this process simply by monitoring a child who is learning the alphabet. The child is aware that when letters are placed together they spell words. However when he/she takes the letters they have learned, and tries to put them together in any kind of order, they don’t always spell a word. After repeated attempts and assistance from another (perhaps the teacher), the child will realise that the letters must be in a certain order to spell a word. He or she must change their former way of thinking about the alphabet letters and develop a new schema concerning the order of letters in words. The child then adds this information to their world of knowledge and when confronted with new letters, he or she knows that they must be in a specific order to spell the words correctly (Singer and Revenson, 1996, p.16).
In contrast of Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist who wrote on development in the 1930s, offered a socio-cultural perspective on development that continues to influence research and teaching methods today. Vygotsky argued that the most important environment for a child was not, as Piaget had suggested, the child's physical surroundings, but rather the social context within which the child developed. His theory considered three differing but vast sections including; Cultural- that higher mental functioning in the individual emerged out of social processes; Secondly Language - which human social and psychological processes are fundamentally shaped by cultural tools; Lastly the developmental method Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which is the concept that the potential of the child is limited to a specific time span (Jarvis, Chandler 2001 P.149-150).
Cultural:
Vygotsky believed that it was adults, educators and the child’s peers who had the responsibility in sharing their greater collective knowledge with the younger generations (Jarvis, Chandler 2001 P.149-150). This type of learning supports a discovery model of learning and places the teacher in an active role while the students’ intellectual abilities develop naturally through various paths of discovery. Vygotsky argued that through social activities children learnt cultural ‘tools’ and social inventions. These included language, rules, counting systems, writing, art, and music.
Language:
Vygotsky also felt that language was a system of symbolic representation, which had been perfected over many previous generations and allowed the child to "abstract" the world. It provides the symbols for the child's equations concerning the world;
Language was split into three separate categories: Social, Egocentric, and Inner. For Vygotsky, language was what allowed thinking to become a possibility. He believed language is the difference between thinking on an elementary level and on a higher level.
If this is so the teacher must be seen as a positive role model with a vast range of vocabulary and have the ability to speak Standard English. I have seen instances where this has not occurred and students have been disadvantaged as they have been unable to express themselves fully and develop as expected.
Zone of Proximity Development (ZPD):
Vygotsky's theory suggested the ZPD was a possible indicator of a child’s current and potential ability to do undertake an activity (Flanagan 1999 P.72). He believed that problem-solving tasks could be placed into three categories, which were as follows: (a) those performed independently by the student (“independent performance”); (b) those that could not be performed even with help; and (c) those that fall between the two, the tasks that can be performed with help from others (“assisted performance”) . Vygotsky believed the concept of ‘ZPD’ recommended a superior approach towards education and allowed an enhanced understanding of the learning process (Flanagan 1999 P.73).
Experienced teachers which I have spoken to have agreed and commented (J.S) ‘By using the ZPD in assessment, not only do we have a more accurate estimate of the child's abilities, but we have a more flexible way of assessing children. (S.W) ‘The ZPD helps us look at what support to provide, and how the child reacts, in a more sensitive manner.’
Bruner is another psychologist who emphasized cognitive development as being intimately linked to the brain's construction of knowledge within a social context. He built upon Vygotsky's idea of the (ZPD), by introducing what he described as scaffolding. Scaffolding involves the range of activities through which an adult or peer can assist the learner to achieve goals that would otherwise be beyond them. As the child becomes more independent the adult can gradually remove the scaffolding until the child no longer needs it. (Hayes (1991) Psychology) Indeed scaffolding can be seen within the National Literacy strategy through the different stages of writing ability, from emergence (writing letters and single words; understanding that we write and read English from left to right) to early writer status (recognizing such patterns as paragraphs and pages) to transitional writer status (mastering the ability to edit and revise an original work).
From reading the summaries of the theories above, it can be noted that Piaget and Vygotsky have many contrasting and differing viewpoints and opinions.
For instance, Piaget belief that cognitive changes precede linguistic advances, unlike Vygotsky who proposed that language allowed the child a far greater freedom of thought that then progressed to further cognitive development (Flanagan 1999 P.59). Piaget disagreed and believed strongly in the development of thinking and that language transferred from the individual to the social context (Ginsburg, Opper 1979 P.84). However, Vygotsky believed that language moved from the social environment to the individual (Jarvis, Chandler 2001 P.150).
I am inclined to agree with Vygotsky upon the above point as from personal experience I have observed children who have altered their speech to meet the needs of the environment they find themselves within and that use of vocabulary and accents differ depending on the current circumstance. Simone Demora (Internet research source four) supports my viewpoint and goes on to say ‘that language, through social interaction, leads to the development of fundamental processes of thinking and concept formation of an individual.’
Vygotsky too believed speech enthused from social speech (communicative) to inner egocentric speech (Jarvis, Chandler 2001 P.150). He felt strongly that children began by voicing a personal dialogue before continuing on to social speech. He argued that speech became internalised as the child matured. In contrast, Piaget claimed that egocentric Speech was simply an accompaniment to a child’s actions (Ginsburg, Opper 1979 P.84) and that egocentric speech decreased with maturity. However, even though they both had different opinions on the purpose of egocentric speech both agreed on the importance that it played within cognitive development.
Vygotsky, like Piaget, believed the relationship between the individual and the social context as being necessary relational. However, Vygotsky believed that it was adults and peers who influenced the child’s intelligence, personality and temperament. He did not believe it was possible for a child to learn and to grow individually as culture and the environment around the child had such an influential role in the development of their Cognitive Development (Flanagan 2001 P.72). He also believed a child was unable to develop the way he or she had without learning from others in the environment in which they were raised. In contrast, Piaget maintained that children were naturally inquisitive about their own abilities and about their environment (Jarvis, Chandler 2001 P.129) and that children advanced their knowledge because of biologically regulated cognitive changes (Flanagan 2001 P.57). Furthermore, Piaget overlooked the role of the child's activity with relation to thought processes and believed that a child was only capable of learning the processes in each stage at any one time (Flanagan 1999 P.60).
I can relate to viewpoints in both theories however I tend to favour Vygotsky’s standpoint as he believed that it was adults and peers who influenced the child’s cognitive development. As a trainee teacher myself I find it difficult to comprehend the opinion that children advance solely because of biologically regulated cognitive changes. If so, what would be the purpose of having educators in society if children were capable of maturing appropriately without their assistance?
Vygotsky was also critical of Piaget's assumption that developmental growth was independent of experience and based on a universal characteristic of stages. Vygotsky believed that characteristics did not cease at a certain point as Piaget did. When one thing was learned, it was used from that point onwards. It did not discontinue because a child entered another stage of development. Everything was progressive. Vygotsky also disagreed with Piaget's assumption that development could not be impeded or accelerated through instruction (Flanagan 1999 P.57). Vygotsky believed that intellectual development was continually evolving without an end point and not completed in stages as Piaget theorised.
I too hold a similar viewpoint to the Russian psychologist, as upon my placement it could be noted when compiling my child profile and weekly reviews that children were evolving continuously and that social and cultural factors could influence their development. I was aware that my students may or may not reach each stage at the predetermined age decided by certain theorists. However, I also realised that each child develops individually and did not cease to exist if he or she did not reach the said stage. I felt observing and monitoring the class closely was the most productive method to ensure my current lessons were appropriate for the child’s present level of development without necessarily having to refer to what level of cognitive development the theorists were suggesting the children should be at.
After evaluating Piaget’s and Vygotsky's theories concerning cognitive development, I feel that it should also be noted that although Vygotsky was extremely critical of Piaget, the theorist realised the importance of the information that Piaget had gathered and, in spite of his criticisms, chose to build his educational theories on the strengths of Piaget's suppositions. And Piaget too altered the way he thought due to personal experiences and the reviews he received, and modified his techniques of research to include a greater emphasis of the role of the child's educator and the activities they could provide.
However, in conclusion and with considerations for implications in the classroom, I feel that Vygotsky’s Social Constructive Theory has the upper hand over Piaget’s conjectures as it has the capability to relate to and provide the necessary tools (such as Zone of Proximal Development) for a teacher to discover the vital information he or she needs to meet a pupil’s particular needs or to improve a group’s level of knowledge and understanding.
Word Count: 2,720 words
Bibliography
Berk, L. E. (2000). Child development (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Flannagan, C. (1999). Applying Child Psychology to Early Child Development. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Limited
Ginsbury, H. Opper, S. (1979). Piaget‘s Theory of Intellectual Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Hayes, N. (1999). Access to Psychology. 5th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton
Hayes, N. (1991). Psychology. London: British Psychological Society.
Jarvis, M. Chandler, E. (2001). Angles on Psychology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Limited
Plotnik, R. (1998). Introduction To Psychology with infotrac 5th ed. Thomas Learning College
Thomson, H. Meggit, C. (1997). Human Growth and Development. Abingdon: Bookpoint Limited
Singer, D., & Revenson, T. (1996). A piaget primer - How a child thinks. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Further Sources of Reference
Works Cited
1. http://nunic.nu.edu/~bbaltes/syllabi/611_piaget.html
Accessed 10/10/05
2. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/g2602/0001/2602000146/p1/articl.jhtml
Accessed 11/10/05
3. http://www.valdosta.peachnet.edu/~whuitt/psy702/cogsys/piaget.html
Accessed 13/10/05
4. http://www.pt.britishcouncil.org/inenglish/ie2002a06sd.htm
Accessed 15/10/05
Dewey, R. (2000). APA publication manual crib sheet. Retrieved October 17, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/journals/webref.html
Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (1998). Educational psychology interactive: Cognitive development. Retrieved October 17, 2005,, from the World Wide Web: http://Chiron.Valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html
Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (1998). Educational psychology interactive: Cognitive development/applications. October 18, 2005,, from the World Wide Web: http://Chiron.Valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html
Kearsley (2001). TIP: theories. Retrieved October 19, 2005,, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/piaget.html
University Of Hull Handout. (2005). Child Development Theories Retrieved October 17, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://bbb6.hull.ac.uk
Student number: 200407608
