Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development (Constructivism)

Piaget's theory, initially met with scant recognition, gradually ascended to a position of considerable prominence within the domain of human development. The ambit of Piaget's theory encompasses diverse facets of development, and its inherent complexity renders a comprehensive summary beyond the purview of this present discourse. Readers of discerning interest are directed to consult supplementary resources (Brainerd, 2003; Furth, 1970; Ginsburg & Opper, 1988; Meece, 2002; Phillips, 1969; Piaget, 1952, 1970; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Wadsworth, 1996). What shall ensue is a succinct overview of the salient points pertinent to constructivism and learning. Albeit Piaget's theory no longer commands the vanguard in the theoretical explication of cognitive development, its enduring significance persists, yielding several implications of practical utility for the domains of instruction and learning.

Equilibration

According to Piaget, cognitive development dependeth upon four factors: biological maturation, experience with the physical environment, experience with the social environment, and equilibration. The first three are self-explanatory, but their effects depend upon the fourth. Equilibration refereth to a biological drive to produce an optimal state of equilibrium (or adaptation) between cognitive structures and the environment (Duncan, 1995). Equilibration is the central factor and the motivating force behind cognitive development. It coordinateth the actions of the other three factors and maketh internal mental structures and external environmental reality consistent with each other.

To illustrate the role of equilibration, consider a 6-year-old lass, Allison, riding in a carriage with her father. They are travelling at sixty-five miles per hour, and some one hundred yards in front of them is another carriage. They have been following this carriage for some time, and the distance between them remaineth the same. Her father pointeth to the carriage and asketh Allison, “Which carriage is travelling faster, our carriage or that carriage, or are we proceeding at the same speed?” Allison replieth that the other carriage is travelling faster. When her father asketh why, she replieth, “Because it is in front of us.” If her father then said, “We are, in truth, proceeding at the same speed,” this would create a conflict for Allison. She believeth the other carriage is travelling faster, but she hath received conflicting environmental input.

To resolve this conflict, Allison can use one of the two component processes of equilibration: assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation refereth to fitting external reality to the existing cognitive structure. When we interpret, construe, and frame, we alter the nature of reality to make it fit our cognitive structure. To assimilate the information, Allison might alter reality by believing that her father is teasing her, or perchance at that moment the two carriages were proceeding at the same speed, but that the other carriage had been travelling faster beforehand.

Accommodation refereth to changing internal structures to provide consistency with external reality. We accommodate when we adjust our ideas to make sense of reality. To accommodate her belief system (structures) to the new information, she might believe her father without understanding why, or she might change her belief system to include the notion that all carriages in front of them are proceeding at the same speed as they are.

Assimilation and accommodation are complementary processes. As reality is assimilated, structures are accommodated.

Stages

Piaget concluded from his research that children’s cognitive development passed through a fixed sequence. The pattern of operations that children can perform may be thought of as a level or stage. Each level or stage is defined by how children view the world. Piaget’s and other stage theories make certain assumptions

• Stages are discrete, qualitatively different, and separate. Progression from one stage to another is not a matter of gradual blending or continuous merging.
• The development of cognitive structures is dependent upon preceding development.
• Although the order of structure development is invariant, the age at which one may be in a particular stage will vary from person to person. Stages should not be equated with ages.

Table 'Piaget’s stages of cognitive development' sheweth how Piaget characterised his stage progression. Much hath been written on these stages, and an extensive research literature existeth on each. The stages are only briefly described here; interested readers should consult other sources (Brainerd, 2003; Byrnes, 1996; Meece, 2002; Wadsworth, 1996).

In the sensorimotor stage, children’s actions are spontaneous and represent an attempt to understand the world. Understanding is rooted in present action; for example, a ball is for throwing and a bottle for sucking. The period is characterised by rapid change; a two-year-old is cognitively far different from an infant. Children actively equilibrate, albeit at a primitive level. Cognitive structures are constructed and altered, and the motivation to do this is internal. The notion of effectance motivation (mastery motivation) is relevant to sensorimotor children. By the end of the sensorimotor period, children have attained sufficient cognitive development to progress to new conceptual-symbolic thinking characteristic of the preoperational stage (Wadsworth, 1996).

Preoperational children are able to imagine the future and reflect upon the past, although they remain heavily perceptually oriented in the present. They are apt to believe that ten coins spread out in a row are more than ten coins in a pile. They also are unable to think in more than one dimension at a time; thus, if they focus on length, they are apt to think a longer object (a yardstick) is bigger than a shorter one (a brick) even though the shorter one is wider and deeper. Preoperational children demonstrate irreversibility; that is, once things are done, they cannot be changed (e.g., the box flattened cannot be remade into a box). They have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. Cartoon characters appear as real as people. The period is one of rapid language development. Another characteristic is that children become less egocentric: They realise that others may think and feel differently than they do.

The concrete operational stage is characterised by remarkable cognitive growth and is a formative one in schooling, because it is when children’s language and basic skills acquisition accelerate dramatically. Children begin to shew some abstract thinking, although it typically is defined by properties or actions (e.g., honesty is returning money to the person who lost it). Concrete operational children display less egocentric thought, and language increasingly becometh social. Reversibility in thinking is acquired along with classification and seriation—concepts essential for the acquisition of mathematical skills. Concrete operational thinking no longer is dominated by perception; children draw on their experiences and are not always swayed by what they perceive.

The formal operational stage extendeth concrete operational thought. No longer is thought focused exclusively on tangibles; children are able to think about hypothetical situations. Reasoning capabilities improve, and children can think about multiple dimensions and abstract properties. Egocentrism emergith in adolescents’ comparing reality to the ideal; thus, they often shew idealistic thinking.

Piaget’s stages have been criticised on many grounds (Byrnes, 1996). One problem is that children often grasp ideas and are able to perform operations earlier than Piaget found. Another problem is that cognitive development across domains typically is uneven; rarely doth a child think in stage-typical ways across all topics (e.g., mathematics, science, history). This also is true for adults; the same topic may be understood quite differently. For example, some adults may think of baseball in preoperational terms (“Hit the ball and run”), others might think of it as concrete operationally (“What do I do in different situations?”), and some can reason using formal operational thought (e.g., “Explain why a curve ball curves”). As a general framework, however, the stages describe the thought patterns that tend to co-occur, which is useful knowledge for educators, parents, and others who work with children.

Mechanisms of Learning (Piaget’s Theory)

Equilibration is an internal process (Duncan, 1995). As such, cognitive development can occur only when disequilibrium or cognitive conflict existeth. Thus, an event must occur that produceth a disturbance in the child’s cognitive structures so that the child’s beliefs do not match the observed reality. Equilibration seeketh to resolve the conflict through assimilation and accommodation.

Piaget felt that development would proceed naturally through regular interactions with the physical and social environments. The impetus for developmental change is internal. Environmental factors are extrinsic; they can influence development but not direct it. This point hath profound implications for education because it suggesteth that teaching may have little impact on development. Teachers can arrange the environment to cause conflict, but how any particular child resolves the conflict is not predictable.

Learning occurreth, then, when children experience cognitive conflict and engage in assimilation or accommodation to construct or alter internal structures. Importantly, however, the conflict should not be too great because this will not trigger equilibration. Learning will be optimal when the conflict is small and especially when children are in transition between stages. Information must be partially understood (assimilated) before it can promote structural change (accommodation). Environmental stimulation to facilitate change should have negligible effect unless the critical stage transitions have begun so that the conflict can be successfully resolved via equilibration. Thus, learning is limited by developmental constraints (Brainerd, 2003).

The research evidence on cognitive conflict is not overwhelmingly supportive of Piaget’s position (Zimmerman & Blom, 1983; Zimmerman & Whitehurst, 1979). Rosenthal and Zimmerman (1978) summarised data from several research studies shewing that preoperational children can master concrete operational tasks through teaching involving verbal explanations and modeled demonstrations. According to the theory, this should not happen unless the children are in stage transition, at which time cognitive conflict would be at a reasonable level.

The stagelike changes in children’s thinking seem to be linked to more gradual changes in attention and cognitive processing (Meece, 2002). Thus, children may not demonstrate Piagetian stage understanding for various reasons, including not attending to the relevant stimuli, improperly encoding information, not relating information to prior knowledge, or using ineffective means to retrieve information (Siegler, 1991). When children are taught to use cognitive processes more effectively, they often can perform tasks at higher cognitive levels.

Piaget’s theory is constructivist because it assumeth that children impose their concepts on the world to make sense of it (Byrnes, 1996). These concepts are not inborn; rather, children acquire them through their normal experiences. Information from the environment (including people) is not automatically received but rather is processed according to the child’s prevailing mental structures. Children make sense of their environments and construct reality based on their capabilities at the present time. In turn, these basic concepts develop into more sophisticated views with experience.

Piaget maintained that cognitive development was not readily amenable to instruction, albeit research evinces that it may be accelerated (Zimmerman & Whitehurst, 1979). The theory and attendant research bear implications for pedagogical practice.

Understand Cognitive Development

Instructors shall derive benefit from a perspicacious understanding of the cognitive strata at which their charges function. It is not to be presumed that all pupils within a given class shall operate at a uniform level. Numerous Piagetian exercises are readily administered (Wadsworth, 1996). Instructors may endeavor to ascertain the cognitive levels and adapt their teaching accordingly. Pupils who appear to be in a state of transition may benefit from tuition pitched at the next superior level, inasmuch as the discordance shall not prove excessively challenging for them.

Implications of Piaget’s theory for education

Piaget decried passive modes of learning. Children necessitate a propitious and stimulating milieu conducive to active exploration and hands-on exercises. Such an arrangement facilitates the active construction of knowledge.

• Understand cognitive development.
• Keep students active.
• Create incongruity.
• Provide social interaction.

Create Incongruity

Development ensues solely when environmental inputs stand in contradiction to the cognitive structures of the students. Material ought not to be readily assimilated, yet not so onerous as to preclude accommodation. Incongruity may furthermore be engendered by affording students the latitude to solve problems and arrive at erroneous solutions. Naught in Piaget’s theory dictates that children must invariably succeed; instructor feedback indicating incorrect answers may serve to promote disequilibrium.

Provide Social Interaction

Whilst Piaget’s theory posits that development may proceed in the absence of social interaction, the social milieu nonetheless constitutes a crucial source of cognitive development. Activities that foster social interactions are of utility. The acquisition that others espouse disparate viewpoints may aid children in becoming less egocentric. The annexed 'Piaget and Education' expounds upon the manners in which instructors may foster cognitive development.