The sensory motor stage is the ‘baby’ stage of infancy, named to indicate the two major developments of the senses and movement. In this stage extremely important mental processes occur including the development of reflexes, habits, co-ordination, insight, creativity, and object permanence, with this being the most important concept in this stage. Object permanence is the realisation at around eight to nine months that objects still exist even though they can’t be seen. This was supported by experiments conducted by Piaget in the ‘A not B error’ task, showing that when an item is not accessible to the child’s senses it is not deemed to exist by them until this sub-stage has been completed.
The preoperational stage of Piaget’s theory states that a child can use symbolic thinking and can solve basic problems but shows a lack of logic in mental operations. However the main development of this stage is the loss of the egocentrism shown previously in that before this, they cannot differentiate between themselves and others and cannot perceive that people to not think, see or feel the same as them. The fundamental errors in logic displayed at this stage were shown in Piaget’s work in that if the child is shown seven blue counters and 3 red ones the child will correctly identify if there are more blue than red, but if asked if there are more blue than counters than all the counters altogether they will still respond positively. This ‘shows the transition between intuitiveness in solving problems and true logical reasoning acquired in later years’ (Parke & Schmuckler, 2002).
The third stage of development according to Piaget is the concrete operational stage which is characterised by a more appropriate and complex use of logic. This stage is more developed than the last in that it demonstrates children having the ability to problem solve but only when the problem is ‘tangible or concrete’ (Mitchell and Ziegier, 2007) with the child being unable to handle the hypothetical or invented. Another important principle of this stage is the theory of conservation which Piaget portrayed in that children in this stage, as opposed to those in the previous one, can discern that two equally filled cups of water contain the same amount even when one is poured into a larger container.
The final stage of Piaget’s theory is the formal operational stage which commences around puberty. This stage is characterised by the ‘acquisition of the ability to think abstractly, reason logically and draw conclusions from the information available’ (Piaget, 1954). The child in this stage can understand ‘grey areas’ and emotions such as love, and can use logic to solve hypothetical situations as well as scientific thinking. It is during this stage that ‘the youngster is able to solve the transitive inference problem on a purely mental level’ (Mitchell and Ziegier, 2007) meaning that no ‘real’ items need to be used in the logical thinking.
Whilst Piaget’s theory has been very influential and important, there are many criticisms of it, one of which being that infants are not in a state of solipsism and have more of an ability to recognise object permanence than Piaget theorised. This was contradicted by Bower (1965) who reasoned that if there was no object permanence then an infant would have no ability to recognise size constancy. He proved with his box experiment that babies did in fact have this ability and therefore that objects have ‘stable and enduring properties’ however it was also found that infants do ‘assume that the existence of things in the world depend largely on their own actions’ (Mitchell and Ziegier, 2007) signifying Piaget as partially correct. Another criticism of Piaget is of his theories relating to the preoperational stage. Margaret Donaldson (1978) challenged this by arguing that it was Piaget’s incorrect way of questioning the children that lead to his conclusions, not their incompetence. She proved this by conducting the naughty teddy task. This task testing conservation meant giving the children a reason to be repeatedly questioned therefore not making them panic into giving the answer they think is the one that is wanting to be heard. The results showed that when given a reason, the children were able to give the correct answer, contradicting Piaget’s preoperational stage theory. Donaldson’s theories have been questioned however and in the experiment of Moore and Frye (1986) the children were shown to give incorrect answers even though a reason was introduced. Overall it can be seen that Piaget’s theory was again partially correct as it has been shown that some children of this age can conserve however others do not have the ability, showing that Piaget’s strict age limits are not as ridged as indicated.
In opposition to the argument that knowledge progresses through a selection of stages is Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. He supported the theory of social constructivism which ‘lays much greater stress on social experience’(Mitchell and Ziegier, 2007 than Piaget’s. It states that it intelligence is culture relative and not universal as Piaget suggested and that this culture has a lot to do with how a child will learn and what is taught to them. Vygotsky also stated that it was incorrect to focus on individualistic intelligence of a child and that social intelligence as a whole needed to be considered. He also believed that development was not self motivated or occurring in stages as per Piaget, but mentored and progressed by the nurturing of teachers or parents. His theory advocated the use of ‘scaffolding’ as a means of development where by intellectual support for the child is removed little by little, eventually leaving them a fully developed thinker, although he stated that scaffolding would only work in the ‘zone of proximal development’, this being the full extent of the child’s abilities. Vygotsky also recognised language as a tool of thought as opposed to Piaget’s theory that it was an ‘expression of symbolic competence’.
In conclusion it can be seen that knowledge can be seen to progress through a series of stages however that it is more individualistic than thought by Piaget. The evidence shows that Piaget had strong theories but some have since been proven to be only partially correct, for example evidence of Margaret Donaldson’s naughty teddy experiment as well as Bower’s size constancy investigation. Vygotsky whilst not in strict opposition to Piaget, offers a different perspective in that he incorporates the attributes of social context and the influence of teaching in his theories of development. In addition Vygotsky places emphasis on the importance of language as a tool for learning where as Piaget seems to underestimate the relevance of this.
References
Parke, Schmuckler (2002) Child Psychology:A Contempory View point. Heatherington: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Higher Education
Ginsberg, H., & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget’s theory of Intellectual development. London: Prentice Hall.
Mitchell, P., & Ziegler, F. (2007). Fundementals of Development- The psychology of Childhood. Hove: Psychology Press
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Minds. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins
Hallpike, C.R. (1979). The Foundations of Primitive Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.