Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Adult Education for Social Change From Center Stage to the Wings and Back Again

Adult Education for Social Change From Center Stage to the Wings and Back Again

Piaget'southward theory of cognitive development is a comprehensive theory nigh the nature and development of human intelligence. Piaget believed that one'southward babyhood plays a vital and agile part in a person's development.[1] Piaget's idea is primarily known as a developmental stage theory. The theory deals with the nature of knowledge itself and how humans gradually come to larn, construct, and use it.[2] To Piaget, cognitive development was a progressive reorganization of mental processes resulting from biological maturation and ecology experience. He believed that children construct an understanding of the world around them, experience discrepancies betwixt what they already know and what they observe in their environment, then adjust their ideas accordingly.[three] Moreover, Piaget claimed that cognitive evolution is at the center of the human organism, and language is contingent on knowledge and understanding acquired through cerebral development.[4] Piaget's earlier work received the greatest attention. Many parents accept been encouraged to provide a rich, supportive surroundings for their child's natural propensity to grow and learn. Kid-centered classrooms and "open education" are direct applications of Piaget's views.[5] Despite its huge success, Piaget's theory has some limitations that Piaget recognized himself: for example, the theory supports precipitous stages rather than continuous development (decalage).[6]

Nature of intelligence: operative and figurative

Piaget noted that reality is a dynamic system of continuous change and, every bit such, is defined in reference to the two conditions that define dynamic systems. Specifically, he argued that reality involves transformations and states.[7]Transformations refer to all manners of changes that a thing or person can undergo.States refer to the conditions or the appearances in which things or persons tin be found between transformations. For example, there might be changes in shape or class (for instance, liquids are reshaped as they are transferred from i vessel to another, and similarly humans change in their characteristics as they abound older), in size (for example, a serial of coins on a tabular array might be placed close to each other or far apart), or in placement or location in space and time (e.one thousand., diverse objects or persons might be constitute at one identify at one fourth dimension and at a unlike identify at another time). Thus, Piaget argued, if human intelligence is to be adaptive, information technology must have functions to stand for both the transformational and the static aspects of reality.[eight] He proposed that operative intelligence is responsible for the representation and manipulation of the dynamic or transformational aspects of reality, and that figurative intelligence is responsible for the representation of the static aspects of reality.[9]

Operative intelligence is the agile aspect of intelligence. It involves all actions, overt or covert, undertaken in gild to follow, recover, or anticipate the transformations of the objects or persons of interest.[10]Figurative intelligence is the more than or less static aspect of intelligence, involving all means of representation used to retain in mind usa (i.e., successive forms, shapes, or locations) that intervene between transformations. That is, it involves perception, faux, mental imagery, cartoon, and language.[eleven] Therefore, the figurative aspects of intelligence derive their meaning from the operative aspects of intelligence, because states cannot exist independently of the transformations that interconnect them. Piaget stated that the figurative or the representational aspects of intelligence are subservient to its operative and dynamic aspects, and therefore, that understanding essentially derives from the operative aspect of intelligence.[10]

At any time, operative intelligence frames how the earth is understood and information technology changes if understanding is not successful. Piaget stated that this process of understanding and change involves two bones functions:assimilation andadaptation.[11] [12] [13] [14]

Absorption and accommodation

Through his study of the field of education, Piaget focused on two processes, which he named assimilation and adaptation. To Piaget, absorption meant integrating external elements into structures of lives or environments, or those we could have through experience.Assimilation is how humans perceive and adjust to new data. It is the procedure of fitting new information into pre-existing cognitive schemas.[15]Absorption in which new experiences are reinterpreted to fit into, or assimilate with, old ideas.[sixteen] It occurs when humans are faced with new or unfamiliar information and refer to previously learned information in order to make sense of it. In contrast,adaptation is the process of taking new information in 1's environment and altering pre-existing schemas in order to fit in the new information. This happens when the existing schema (knowledge) does non piece of work, and needs to be changed to bargain with a new object or state of affairs.[17] Adaptation is imperative because information technology is how people will continue to interpret new concepts, schemas, frameworks, and more.[18] Piaget believed that the human encephalon has been programmed through evolution to bring equilibrium, which is what he believed ultimately influences structures past the internal and external processes through assimilation and adaptation.[15]

Piaget's understanding was that assimilation and accommodation cannot be without the other.[19] They are two sides of a coin. To assimilate an object into an existing mental schema, one first needs to take into business relationship or arrange to the particularities of this object to a certain extent. For instance, to recognize (assimilate) an apple equally an apple, one must first focus (adapt) on the contour of this object. To do this, one needs to roughly recognize the size of the object. Development increases the balance, or equilibration, between these two functions. When in balance with each other, absorption and accommodation generate mental schemas of the operative intelligence. When i part dominates over the other, they generate representations which vest to figurative intelligence.[20]

Sensory-motor stage

Cognitive development is Jean Piaget's theory. Through a series of stages, Piaget proposed 4 stages of cognitive development: thesensorimotor,preoperational,concrete operational andformal operational period.[21] Thesensorimotor stage is the kickoff of the four stages in cerebral evolution which "extends from nascency to the conquering of language".[22] In this stage, infants progressively construct noesis and understanding of the world past analogous experiences (such as vision and hearing) with physical interactions with objects (such every bit grasping, sucking, and stepping).[23] Infants gain knowledge of the earth from the concrete actions they perform within information technology.[24] They progress from reflexive, instinctual activity at birth to the beginning of symbolic thought toward the end of the stage.[24]

Children acquire that they are separate from the surround. They tin can think about aspects of the surround, even though these may be outside the achieve of the child's senses. In this phase, according to Piaget, the development of object permanence is one of the virtually important accomplishments.[xv]Object permanence is a child's agreement that objects proceed to be even though he or she cannot run into or hear them.[24] Peek-a-boo is a good test for that. By the finish of the sensorimotor period, children develop a permanent sense of self and object.[25]

US Navy 100406-N-7478G-346 Operations Specialist 2nd Class Reginald Harlmon and Electronics Technician 3rd Grade Maura Schulze play peek-a-boo with a child in the Children's Ward at Hospital Likas

Piaget divided the sensorimotor stage into half dozen sub-stages".[25]

Sub-Stage Age Clarification
1Uncomplicated Reflexes Birth-6 weeks "Coordination of sensation and activeness through reflexive behaviors".[25] Iii primary reflexes are described past Piaget: sucking of objects in the oral cavity, following moving or interesting objects with the eyes, and endmost of the hand when an object makes contact with the palm (palmar grasp). Over the showtime 6 weeks of life, these reflexes begin to become voluntary actions. For example, the palmar reflex becomes intentional grasping.[26]
2Offset habits and primary circular reactions phase 6 weeks-4 months "Coordination of awareness and 2 types of schema: habits (reflex) and principal circular reactions (reproduction of an outcome that initially occurred by risk). The principal focus is still on the infant's body".[25] As an example of this type of reaction, an babe might echo the move of passing their manus before their confront. As well at this phase, passive reactions, caused by classical or operant workout, can begin.[26]
3Secondary circular reactions stage 4–8 months Development of habits. "Infants become more object-oriented, moving beyond self-preoccupation; repeat actions that bring interesting or pleasurable results".[25] This phase is associated primarily with the development of coordination between vision and prehension. Three new abilities occur at this stage: intentional grasping for a desired object, secondary circular reactions, and differentiations between ends and means. At this stage, infants will intentionally grasp the air in the management of a desired object, often to the amusement of friends and family. Secondary round reactions, or the repetition of an action involving an external object begin; for example, moving a switch to turn on a light repeatedly. The differentiation between means and ends as well occurs. This is perchance 1 of the near important stages of a child's growth equally it signifies the dawn of logic.[26]
4Coordination of secondary circular reactions stages 8–12 months "Coordination of vision and touch—paw-middle coordination; coordination of schemas and intentionality".[25] This stage is associated primarily with the development of logic and the coordination between means and ends. This is an extremely important stage of evolution, holding what Piaget calls the "first proper intelligence". Also, this stage marks the beginning of goal orientation, the deliberate planning of steps to meet an objective.[26]
5Tertiary round reactions, novelty, and marvel 12–eighteen months "Infants become intrigued past the many backdrop of objects and past the many things they can make happen to objects; they experiment with new beliefs".[25] This stage is associated primarily with the discovery of new means to meet goals. Piaget describes the child at this juncture as the "young scientist," conducting pseudo-experiments to discover new methods of meeting challenges.[26]
viInternalization of Schemas eighteen–24 months "Infants develop the ability to utilise archaic symbols and form enduring mental representations".[25]This stage is associated primarily with the beginnings of insight, or truthful creativity. This marks the passage into the preoperational stage.

Pre-operational stage

Piaget's second stage, the pre-operational stage, starts when the child begins to learn to speak at age two and lasts up until the age of seven. During the Pre-operational Stage of cognitive development, Piaget noted that children do non yet understand concrete logic and cannot mentally manipulate information.[27] Children'due south increase in playing and pretending takes place in this phase. However, the child still has problem seeing things from dissimilar points of view. The children'due south play is mainly categorized by symbolic play and manipulating symbols. Such play is demonstrated by the thought of checkers being snacks, pieces of paper being plates, and a box beingness a table. Their observations of symbols exemplifies the idea of play with the absence of the actual objects involved. By observing sequences of play, Piaget was able to demonstrate that, towards the end of the 2nd year, a qualitatively new kind of psychological performance occurs, known as the Pre-operational Stage.[28] [29]

The pre-operational phase is sparse and logically inadequate in regard to mental operations. The child is able to form stable concepts as well as magical beliefs. The child, however, is still not able to perform operations, which are tasks that the child can exercise mentally, rather than physically. Thinking in this stage is nonetheless egocentric, pregnant the kid has difficulty seeing the viewpoint of others. The Pre-operational Stage is split up into two substages: the symbolic function substage, and the intuitive idea substage. The symbolic function substage is when children are able to understand, stand for, recall, and picture objects in their mind without having the object in front of them. The intuitive idea substage is when children tend to propose the questions of "why?" and "how come?" This stage is when children want the noesis of knowing everything.[29]

Symbolic function substage

At near two to four years of age, children cannot withal manipulate and transform data in a logical mode. Nevertheless, they now tin think in images and symbols. Other examples of mental abilities are language and pretend play. Symbolic play is when children develop imaginary friends or function-play with friends. Children's play becomes more social and they assign roles to each other. Some examples of symbolic play include playing house, or having a tea party. Interestingly, the blazon of symbolic play in which children engage is connected with their level of creativity and ability to connect with others.[30] Additionally, the quality of their symbolic play can take consequences on their afterwards development. For instance, young children whose symbolic play is of a violent nature tend to showroom less prosocial behavior and are more probable to display antisocial tendencies in later years.[31]

In this stage, there are still limitations, such as egocentrism and precausal thinking.

Egocentrism occurs when a child is unable to distinguish between their own perspective and that of another person. Children tend to stick to their own viewpoint, rather than consider the view of others. Indeed, they are non even aware that such a concept as "unlike viewpoints" exists.[32] Egocentrism can be seen in an experiment performed by Piaget and Swiss developmental psychologist Bärbel Inhelder, known every bit the three-mountain trouble. In this experiment, 3 views of a mountain are shown to the child, who is asked what a traveling doll would run into at the various angles. The child will consistently describe what they can see from the position from which they are seated, regardless of from what angle they are asked to have the doll'southward perspective. Egocentrism would likewise cause a kid to believe, "I similarSesame Street, and then Daddy must similarSesame Street, also".

Similar to preoperational children'southward egoistic thinking is their structuring of a cause and event relationships. Piaget coined the term "precausal thinking" to depict the way in which preoperational children use their own existing ideas or views, like in egocentrism, to explain cause-and-effect relationships. Iii main concepts of causality as displayed by children in the preoperational stage include: animism, artificialism and transductive reasoning.[33]

Animism is the belief that inanimate objects are capable of deportment and have lifelike qualities. An example could be a kid believing that the sidewalk was mad and made them fall down, or that the stars twinkle in the sky considering they are happy. Artificialism refers to the conventionalities that environmental characteristics can exist attributed to human being actions or interventions. For example, a child might say that it is windy exterior because someone is bravado very difficult, or the clouds are white because someone painted them that color. Finally, precausal thinking is categorized by transductive reasoning. Transductive reasoning is when a child fails to understand the true relationships betwixt cause and effect.[29] [34] Different deductive or inductive reasoning (full general to specific, or specific to general), transductive reasoning refers to when a child reasons from specific to specific, cartoon a relationship between two separate events that are otherwise unrelated. For example, if a child hears the dog bark and so a balloon popped, the child would conclude that because the dog barked, the balloon popped.

Intuitive thought substage

At betwixt about the ages of 4 and vii, children tend to become very curious and ask many questions, showtime the use of primitive reasoning. There is an emergence in the involvement of reasoning and wanting to know why things are the style they are. Piaget called it the "intuitive substage" considering children realize they have a vast amount of knowledge, but they are unaware of how they caused information technology. Centration, conservation, irreversibility, class inclusion, and transitive inference are all characteristics of preoperative thought. Centration is the human action of focusing all attention on one characteristic or dimension of a situation, whilst disregarding all others. Conservation is the sensation that altering a substance'south advent does not change its basic properties. Children at this stage are unaware of conservation and exhibit centration. Both centration and conservation can exist more hands understood once familiarized with Piaget's about famous experimental task.

In this task, a kid is presented with two identical beakers containing the same amount of liquid. The kid usually notes that the beakers do contain the same amount of liquid. When one of the beakers is poured into a taller and thinner container, children who are younger than seven or 8 years old typically say that the two beakers no longer contain the aforementioned amount of liquid, and that the taller container holds the larger quantity (centration), without taking into consideration the fact that both beakers were previously noted to incorporate the same amount of liquid. Due to superficial changes, the child was unable to comprehend that the properties of the substances continued to remain the same (conservation).

Irreversibility is a concept adult in this stage which is closely related to the ideas of centration and conservation. Irreversibility refers to when children are unable to mentally opposite a sequence of events. In the same chalice situation, the kid does not realize that, if the sequence of events was reversed and the water from the alpine chalice was poured back into its original chalice, then the aforementioned corporeality of water would exist. Another example of children's reliance on visual representations is their misunderstanding of "less than" or "more than than". When two rows containing equal amounts of blocks are placed in front of a child, i row spread farther apart than the other, the child will think that the row spread further contains more blocks.[29] [35]

Class inclusion refers to a kind of conceptual thinking that children in the preoperational stage cannot withal grasp. Children's inability to focus on two aspects of a situation at once inhibits them from understanding the principle that one category or class tin can contain several different subcategories or classes.[33] For example, a four-year-sometime girl may be shown a picture of eight dogs and three cats. The girl knows what cats and dogs are, and she is enlightened that they are both animals. However, when asked, "Are there more dogs or animals?" she is probable to answer "more dogs". This is due to her difficulty focusing on the 2 subclasses and the larger class all at the aforementioned fourth dimension. She may take been able to view the dogs every bit dogsor animals, merely struggled when trying to classify them as both, simultaneously.[36] [37] Similar to this is concept relating to intuitive thought, known equally "transitive inference".

Transitive inference is using previous knowledge to determine the missing piece, using basic logic. Children in the preoperational stage lack this logic. An instance of transitive inference would be when a child is presented with the data "A" is greater than "B" and "B" is greater than "C". This child may have difficulty hither understanding that "A" is too greater than "C".

Concrete operational stage

Theconcrete operational stage is the third stage of Piaget's theory of cerebral development. This stage, which follows the preoperational stage, occurs between the ages of 7 and 11 (preadolescence) years,[38] and is characterized by the appropriate utilize of logic. During this stage, a child's idea processes become more mature and "adult like". They start solving problems in a more than logical manner. Abstract, hypothetical thinking is non withal adult in the child, and children can simply solve issues that utilize to concrete events or objects. At this stage, the children undergo a transition where the kid learns rules such as conservation.[39] Piaget adamant that children are able to comprise Inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning involves drawing inferences from observations in order to brand a generalization. In dissimilarity, children struggle with deductive reasoning, which involves using a generalized principle in guild to try to predict the outcome of an event. Children in this stage commonly experience difficulties with figuring out logic in their heads. For example, a child will understand that "A is more than B" and "B is more C". Still, when asked "is A more than C?", the kid might not be able to logically figure the question out in his or her caput.

2 other important processes in the concrete operational phase are logic and the elimination of egocentrism.

Egocentrism is the inability to consider or understand a perspective other than one's own. It is the stage where the thought and morality of the child is completely self focused.[40] During this stage, the child acquires the ability to view things from some other individual's perspective, even if they think that perspective is wrong. For example, show a kid a comic in which Jane puts a doll under a box, leaves the room, and then Melissa moves the doll to a drawer, and Jane comes back. A child in the concrete operations stage will say that Jane will still call back information technology's under the box even though the kid knows information technology is in the drawer. (Run across also False-belief task.)

Children in this phase tin can, even so, just solve problems that apply to actual (concrete) objects or events, and non abstruse concepts or hypothetical tasks. Understanding and knowing how to use full common sense has not even so been completely adapted.

Piaget determined that children in the concrete operational stage were able to incorporate inductive logic. On the other manus, children at this age have difficulty using deductive logic, which involves using a general principle to predict the outcome of a specific effect. This includes mental reversibility. An example of this is being able to reverse the order of relationships betwixt mental categories. For example, a child might exist able to recognize that his or her domestic dog is a Labrador, that a Labrador is a dog, and that a dog is an animate being, and draw conclusions from the data bachelor, likewise as apply all these processes to hypothetical situations.[41]

The abstract quality of the boyish'southward idea at the formal operational level is evident in the boyish'southward verbal problem solving ability.[41] The logical quality of the adolescent's idea is when children are more likely to solve problems in a trial-and-error mode.[41] Adolescents begin to recall more as a scientist thinks, devising plans to solve problems and systematically test opinions.[41] They use hypothetical-deductive reasoning, which means that they develop hypotheses or best guesses, and systematically deduce, or conclude, which is the all-time path to follow in solving the trouble.[41] During this stage the adolescent is able to empathise love, logical proofs and values. During this stage the young person begins to entertain possibilities for the futurity and is fascinated with what they can be.[41]

Adolescents likewise are changing cognitively by the fashion that they remember about social matters.[41] Adolescent egocentrism governs the mode that adolescents remember most social matters, and is the heightened self-consciousness in them as they are, which is reflected in their sense of personal uniqueness and invincibility.[41] Adolescent egocentrism can exist dissected into two types of social thinking, imaginary audience that involves attention-getting beliefs, and personal fable, which involves an adolescent'southward sense of personal uniqueness and invincibility.[41] These two types of social thinking begin to touch on a child'southward egocentrism in the concrete stage. However, information technology carries over to the formal operational phase when they are and then faced with abstract thought and fully logical thinking.

Testing for physical operations

Piagetian tests are well known and proficient to exam for concrete operations. The about prevalent tests are those for conservation. There are some important aspects that the experimenter must accept into account when performing experiments with these children.

I example of an experiment for testing conservation is an experimenter will have ii glasses that are the same size, make full them to the same level with liquid, which the child will acknowledge is the same. Then, the experimenter will pour the liquid from one of the pocket-size spectacles into a tall, thin glass. The experimenter will then ask the child if the taller glass has more liquid, less liquid, or the same amount of liquid. The child will then give his answer. The experimenter will ask the child why he gave his answer, or why he thinks that is.

  • Justification: After the kid has answered the question beingness posed, the experimenter must inquire why the child gave that reply. This is important because the answers they give tin can help the experimenter to assess the kid'south developmental historic period.[42]
  • Number of times asking: Some argue that if a child is asked if the amount of liquid in the offset set up of glasses is equal and so, after pouring the water into the taller glass, the experimenter asks over again nearly the amount of liquid, the children will start to doubt their original answer. They may start to recollect that the original levels were not equal, which will influence their 2d respond.[43]
  • Word Choice: The phrasing that the experimenter uses may affect how the child answers. If, in the liquid and drinking glass example, the experimenter asks, "Which of these spectacles has more liquid?", the child may think that his thoughts of them being the aforementioned is wrong because the adult is saying that 1 must accept more. Alternatively, if the experimenter asks, "Are these equal?", and then the kid is more likely to say that they are, because the experimenter is implying that they are.

Formal operational phase

The final stage is known as theformal operational stage (boyhood and into machismo, roughly ages xi to approximately 15-20): Intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts. This form of thought includes "assumptions that have no necessary relation to reality."[44] At this point, the person is capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning. During this time, people develop the power to think about abstract concepts.

Piaget stated that "hypothetico-deductive reasoning" becomes important during the formal operational stage. This type of thinking involves hypothetical "what-if" situations that are non always rooted in reality, i.east. counterfactual thinking. It is frequently required in science and mathematics.

  • Abstract thought emerges during the formal operational stage. Children tend to think very concretely and specifically in earlier stages, and begin to consider possible outcomes and consequences of actions.
  • Metacognition, the capacity for "thinking about thinking" that allows adolescents and adults to reason nigh their thought processes and monitor them.[45]
  • Problem-solving is demonstrated when children apply trial-and-error to solve problems. The power to systematically solve a problem in a logical and methodical manner emerges.

While children in chief schoolhouse years mostly used anterior reasoning, drawing general conclusions from personal experiences and specific facts, adolescents become capable of deductive reasoning, in which they depict specific conclusions from abstruse concepts using logic. This adequacy results from their capacity to think hypothetically.[46]

"However, inquiry has shown that not all persons in all cultures reach formal operations, and most people practice not use formal operations in all aspects of their lives".[47]

Experiments

Piaget and his colleagues conducted several experiments to assess formal operational thought.[48]

In 1 of the experiments, Piaget evaluated the cognitive capabilities of children of different ages through the apply of a calibration and varying weights. The task was to balance the calibration past hooking weights on the ends of the scale. To successfully complete the task, the children must use formal operational thought to realize that the altitude of the weights from the heart and the heaviness of the weights both affected the balance. A heavier weight has to be placed closer to the center of the scale, and a lighter weight has to exist placed farther from the center, so that the 2 weights balance each other.[46] While 3- to 5- twelvemonth olds could not at all encompass the concept of balancing, children by the historic period of 7 could balance the scale by placing the same weights on both ends, simply they failed to realize the importance of the location. By historic period 10, children could recall about location but failed to use logic and instead used trial-and-error. Finally, past age thirteen and 14, in early adolescence, some children more clearly understood the human relationship between weight and distance and could successfully implement their hypothesis.[49]

Example of Piaget's conservation tasks

The stages and causation

Piaget sees children's conception of causation as a march from "primitive" conceptions of crusade to those of a more scientific, rigorous, and mechanical nature. These primitive concepts are characterized as supernatural, with a decidedly not-natural or not-mechanical tone. Piaget has as his about basic assumption that babies are phenomenists. That is, their noesis "consists of assimilating things to schemas" from their own activity such that they appear, from the kid'southward point of view, "to have qualities which, in fact, stem from the organism". Consequently, these "subjective conceptions," and so prevalent during Piaget's first phase of development, are dashed upon discovering deeper empirical truths.

Piaget gives the example of a child believing that the moon and stars follow him on a night walk. Upon learning that such is the case for his friends, he must separate his self from the object, resulting in a theory that the moon is immobile, or moves independently of other agents.

The second phase, from around three to eight years of historic period, is characterized by a mix of this type of magical, animistic, or "non-natural" conceptions of causation and mechanical or "naturalistic" causation. This conjunction of natural and non-natural causal explanations supposedly stems from experience itself, though Piaget does not make much of an attempt to describe the nature of the differences in conception. In his interviews with children, he asked questions specifically almost natural phenomena, such as: "What makes clouds motility?", "What makes the stars movement?", "Why do rivers flow?" The nature of all the answers given, Piaget says, are such that these objects must perform their actions to "fulfill their obligations towards men". He calls this "moral explanation".[50]

Practical applications

Parents can use Piaget'south theory when deciding how to determine what to buy in social club to support their kid'south growth.[51] Teachers tin can also use Piaget'south theory, for case, when discussing whether the syllabus subjects are suitable for the level of students or not.[52] For instance, recent studies have shown that children in the aforementioned grade and of the aforementioned historic period perform differentially on tasks measuring bones addition and subtraction fluency. While children in the preoperational and concrete operational levels of cerebral development perform combined arithmetics operations (such equally addition and subtraction) with similar accurateness,[53] children in the concrete operational level of cognitive development take been able to perform both improver problems and subtraction bug with overall greater fluency.[54]

The phase of cognitive growth of a person differ from another. Information technology affects and influences how someone thinks about everything including flowers. A 7-calendar month old infant, in the sensorimotor age, flowers are recognized by smelling, pulling and biting. A slightly older child has not realized that a flower is not fragrant, merely similar to many children at her age, her egocentric, two handed curiosity will teach her. In the formal operational phase of an adult, flowers are role of larger, logical scheme. They are used either to earn coin or to create dazzler. Cognitive development or thinking is an agile process from the beginning to the end of life. Intellectual advancement happens because people at every age and developmental menstruum looks for cognitive equilibrium. To reach this balance, the easiest manner is to empathise the new experiences through the lens of the preexisting ideas. Infants learn that new objects can be grabbed in the same way of familiar objects, and adults explain the twenty-four hour period's headlines as evidence for their existing worldview.[55]

However, the awarding of standardized Piagetian theory and procedures in unlike societies established widely varying results that atomic number 82 some to speculate not only that some cultures produce more cognitive evolution than others but that without specific kinds of cultural experience, but also formal schooling, development might cease at sure level, such as concrete operational level. A process was done following methods developed in Geneva. Participants were presented with ii beakers of equal circumference and elevation, filled with equal amounts of water. The water from one beaker was transferred into some other with taller and smaller circumference. The children and immature adults from non-literate societies of a given age were more than likely to call back that the taller, thinner chalice had more water in it. On the other hand, an experiment on the furnishings of modifying testing procedures to match local cultural produced a different pattern of results.[56]

Postulated physical mechanisms underlying schemas and stages

In 1967, Piaget considered the possibility of RNA molecules as likely embodiments of his however-abstract schemas (which he promoted every bit units of action)—though he did not come to whatsoever firm determination.[57] At that time, due to work such as that of Swedish biochemist Holger Hydén, RNA concentrations had, indeed, been shown to correlate with learning, so the thought was quite plausible.

However, by the time of Piaget's death in 1980, this notion had lost favor. One main trouble was over the protein which, information technology was causeless, such RNA would necessarily produce, and that did not fit in with observation. It was determined that just near 3% of RNA does code for protein.[58] Hence, most of the remaining 97% (the "ncRNA") could theoretically be available to serve every bit Piagetian schemas (or other regulatory roles in the 2000s under investigation). The issue has not even so been resolved experimentally, merely its theoretical aspects were reviewed in 2008[58] — and so adult further from the viewpoints of biophysics and epistemology.[59] [lx] Meanwhile, this RNA-based arroyo as well unexpectedly offered explanations for other several biological bug unresolved, thus providing some measure of corroboration.

Relation to psychometric theories of intelligence

Piaget designed a number of tasks to verify hypotheses arising from his theory. The tasks were not intended to measure individual differences, and they have no equivalent in psychometric intelligence tests. However the unlike inquiry traditions in which psychometric tests and Piagetian tasks were developed, the correlations between the two types of measures have been constitute to be consistently positive and generally moderate in magnitude. A common general factor underlies them. It has been shown that it is possible to construct a battery consisting of Piagetian tasks that is as adept a measure of general intelligence as standard IQ tests.[61] [62] [63]

Challenges to Piagetian Stage Theory

Piagetian accounts of development accept been challenged on several grounds. First, as Piaget himself noted, development does not always progress in the smooth manner his theory seems to predict. "Decalage," or progressive forms of cognitive developmental progression in a specific domain, advise that the stage model is, at best, a useful approximation.[64] Furthermore, studies take plant that children may be able to learn concepts and capability of complex reasoning that supposedly represented in more advanced stages with relative ease (Lourenço & Machado, 1996, p. 145).[65] [66] More broadly, Piaget'south theory is "domain general," predicting that cognitive maturation occurs meantime across different domains of knowledge (such as mathematics, logic, and understanding of physics or language).[64] Piaget did not have into business relationship variability in a child's operation notably how a child can differ in sophistication beyond several domains.

During the 1980s and 1990s, cognitive developmentalists were influenced by "neo-nativist" and evolutionary psychology ideas. These ideas de-emphasized domain general theories and emphasized domain specificity or modularity of mind.[67] Modularity implies that different cognitive faculties may be largely independent of one another, and thus develop according to quite different timetables, which are "influenced by real world experiences".[67] In this vein, some cognitive developmentalists argued that, rather than being domain general learners, children come up equipped with domain specific theories, sometimes referred to as "core knowledge," which allows them to intermission into learning within that domain. For example, fifty-fifty young infants appear to be sensitive to some predictable regularities in the move and interactions of objects (for example, an object cannot pass through another object), or in man behavior (for example, a hand repeatedly reaching for an object has that object, not merely a item path of motion), as it becomes the building cake of which more elaborate knowledge is constructed.

Piaget's theory has been said to undervalue the influence that culture has on cognitive development. Piaget demonstrates that a child goes through several stages of cognitive development and come to conclusions on their own but in reality, a child'due south sociocultural environment plays an important part in their cognitive development. Social interaction teaches the child about the world and helps them develop through the cerebral stages, which Piaget neglected to consider.[68]

More recent piece of work has strongly challenged some of the bones presumptions of the "core knowledge" school, and revised ideas of domain generality—but from a newer dynamic systems approach, non from a revised Piagetian perspective. Dynamic systems approaches harken to modern neuroscientific enquiry that was non available to Piaget when he was amalgam his theory. 1 of import finding is that domain-specific noesis is constructed as children develop and integrate knowledge. This enables the domain to improve the accurateness of the cognition as well as organisation of memories.[67] All the same, this suggests more than of a "shine integration" of learning and development than either Piaget, or his neo-nativist critics, had envisioned. Additionally, some psychologists, such as Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner, thought differently from Piaget, suggesting that linguistic communication was more important for cognition evolution than Piaget unsaid.[67] [69]

Mail-Piagetian and Neo-Piagetian Stages

In recent years, several theorists attempted to address concerns with Piaget's theory past developing new theories and models that can conform bear witness which violates Piagetian predictions and postulates.

  • The neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, advanced by Robbie Case, Andreas Demetriou, Graeme South. Halford, Kurt W. Fischer, Michael Lamport Commons, and Juan Pascual-Leone, attempted to integrate Piaget's theory with cognitive and differential theories of cognitive system and development. Their aim was to better account for the cerebral factors of development and for intra-private and inter-individual differences in cognitive development. They suggested that evolution along Piaget'due south stages is due to increasing working retention capacity and processing efficiency past "biological maturation".[lxx] Moreover, Demetriou´s theory ascribes an important role to hypercognitive processes of "self-monitoring, cocky-recording, self-evaluation, and self-regulation", and it recognizes the performance of several relatively autonomous domains of thought (Demetriou, 1998; Demetriou, Mouyi, Spanoudis, 2010; Demetriou, 2003, p. 153).[71]
  • Piaget's theory stops at the formal operational stage, just other researchers have observed the thinking of adults is more nuanced than formal operational thought. This fifth stage has been named post formal idea or operation.[72] [73] Post formal stages have been proposed. Michael Commons presented evidence for four mail formal stages: systematic, meta-systematic, paradigmatic, and cross-paradigmatic (Commons & Richards, 2003, p. 206-208; Oliver, 2004, p. 31).[74] [75] [76] There are many theorists, all the same, who take criticized "post formal thinking," because the concept lacks both theoretical and empirical verification. The term "integrative thinking" has been suggested for use instead.[77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

Kohlberg'due south Model of Moral Development

  • A "sentential" phase, said to occur before the early preoperational stage, has been proposed by Fischer, Biggs and Biggs, Commons, and Richards.[82] [83]
  • Searching for a micro-physiological footing for homo mental capacity, Traill (1978, Section C5.four [6]; – 1999, Department 8.4 [7]) proposed that there may be "pre-sensorimotor" stages ("Chiliad−iL", "M−2L", …), which are developed in the womb and/or transmitted genetically.
  • Jerome Bruner has expressed views on cognitive development in a "businesslike orientation" in which humans actively apply knowledge for practical applications, such as problem solving and agreement reality.[84]
  • Michael Lamport Commons proposed the model of hierarchical complication (MHC) in 2 ways: "Horizontal Complication" and "Vertical Complexity" (Eatables & Richards, 2003, p. 205).[75] [85] [86]
  • Kieran Egan has proposed five stages of understanding: "somatic", "mythic", "romantic", "philosophic", and "ironic", which is developed through cerebral tools such as "stories", "binary oppositions", "fantasy" and "rhyme, rhythm, and meter" to enhance memorization to develop a long-lasting learning capacity.[87]
  • Lawrence Kohlberg developed three stages of moral evolution: "Preconventional", "Conventional" and "Postconventional".[87] [88] Each level is composed of ii orientation stages, with a total of six orientation stages: (1) "Punishment-Obedience", (2) "Instrumental Relativist", (iii) "Good Boy-Overnice Girl", (4) "Law and Order", (five) "Social Contract", and (6) "Universal Ethical Principle".[87] [88]
  • Andreas Demetriou has expressed Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive evolution.
  • Jane Loevinger's stages of ego evolution occur through "an evolution of stages".[89] "First is the Presocial Stage followed by the Symbiotic Phase, Impulsive Stage, Self-Protective Phase, Conformist Stage, Cocky-Enlightened Level: Transition from Conformist to Conscientious Phase, Individualistic Level: Transition from Careful to the Democratic Stage, Conformist Stage, and Integrated Stage".[89]
  • Ken Wilber has incorporated Piaget's theory in his multidisciplinary field of Integral Theory. The human consciousness is structured in hierarchical order and organized in "holon" chains or "Bang-up concatenation of being", which are based on the level of spiritual and psychological development.[90]

Maslow'due south Hierarchy Of Needs

  • The process of initiation is a modification of Piaget'due south theory integrating Abraham Maslow'south concept of self-actualization.[91]
  • Cheryl Armon has proposed v stages of " the Skilful Life": "Egoistic Hedonism", "Instrumental Hedonism", "Affective/Altruistic Mutuality", "Individuality", and "Autonomy/Community" (Andreoletti & Demick, 2003, p. 284) (Armon, 1984, p. 40-43).[92] [93]
  • Christopher R. Hallpike proposed that human evolution of cognitive moral understanding had evolved from the get-go of time from its primitive state to the present fourth dimension.[94] [95]
  • Robert Kegan extended Piaget's developmental model to adults in describing the constructive developmental framework.[96]

References

  1. Jump upwards^ http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/content/entry/conscitech/developmental_psychology/0
  2. Jump upwards^ Torres, J. and Ash, Thousand. (2007). Cerebral development. In Encyclopedia of special education: A reference for the teaching of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other infrequent individuals. Retrieved from http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/content/entry/wileyse/cognitive_development/0
  3. Jump up^ McLeod, S. A. "Piaget | Cognitive Theory". Simply Psychology. Retrieved18 September 2012.
  4. Jump up^ Baldwin, J. (2005). Jean Piaget. In Key thinkers in linguistics and the philosophy of language. Retrieved from http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/edinburghthinkl/jean_piaget/0
  5. Jump up^ Great Lives from History: The Twentieth Century; September 2008, p1-three
  6. Jump up^ Singer-Freeman, Karen Due east. "Concrete Operational Period." Encyclopedia of Man Development. Ed. Neil J. Salkind. Vol. ane. K Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2006. 291-292. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. x Dec. 2014.http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3466300160&v=2.ane&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=due west&asid=b6bd1ae3a4e93016b772396b5848a349
  7. Spring upwards^ Piaget, J. (1977). The office of action in the evolution of thinking. In Knowledge and evolution (pp. 17-42). Springer U.s.a..
  8. Bound upward^ Maréchal, G. (2010). Constructivism. In A. J. Mills, Thousand. Durepos, & Eastward. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Report Inquiry (Vol. 1, pp. 220-225). Thou Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://get.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.practice?id=GALE%7CCX1562500095&5=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=15311e6ee67b398da4f1a1967f58503d
  9. Bound up^ Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973).Retentiveness and intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  10. ^Jump upwards to: a b Furth, H. Thousand. (1977). The operative and figurative aspects of knowledge in Piaget'south theory. B. A. Geber (Ed.). London,, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  11. ^Jump upward to: a b Gruber, H. E. (2004). Piaget, Jean (1896-1980). In J. H. Byrne (Ed.), Learning and Memory (2nd ed., pp. 526-529). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX3407100185&v=two.ane&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=due west&asid=b71fd57e9d31971ea40106f27e199015
  12. Jump up^ Assimilation. (2001). In B. Strickland (Ed.), The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (second ed., pp. 49-l). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3406000055&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=174d9bd2c42c2e8475446e5c13301c8d
  13. Jump upwardly^ Flim-flam, J. E. (2006). Assimilation. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Development (Vol. 1, pp. 118-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX3466300066&v=two.one&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=due west&asid=ed09320c311b0c0e856cb2ce7c4cd810
  14. Jump upward^ ELKIND, D. (2002). Piaget, Jean (1896–1980). In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational activity (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 1894-1898). New York: Macmillan Reference Us. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3403200491&v=2.ane&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=8de3eeb14aba519a97e788201dd42234
  15. ^Jump upwardly to: a b c Berger, Kathleen Stassen (2008).The developing person through the life span (7th ed.). Worth. p. 44. ISBN 9780716760801.
  16. Jump up^ Berger, Kathleen Stassen (2008).The developing person through the life span (7th ed.). Worth. p. 45. ISBN 9780716760801.
  17. Leap upward^ McLeod, Southward. A. (2009). Jean Piaget. Retrieved from http://world wide web.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html
  18. Leap upward^ "Block, Jack" "Assimilation, Adaptation, and the Dynamics of Personality Evolution"
  19. Jump up^ Block, Jack (1982). "Assimilation, accommodation, and the dynamics of personality evolution".Child Development.53 (ii): 281–295. doi:10.2307/1128971.
  20. Jump up^ http://etec512learningconference-piaget.weebly.com/theory.html
  21. Jump upward^ Berger, Kathleen Stassen (2008).The developing person through the life span (7th ed.). Worth. p. 43. ISBN 9780716760801.
  22. Jump up^ Tuckman, Bruce Due west., and David M. Monetti. Educational Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print
  23. Jump up^ Bernstein, Penner, and Clarke-Stewart, Roy.Psychology Study Guide
  24. ^Jump up to: a b c "Sensorimotor Stage".
  25. ^Bound up to: a b c d e f grand h Santrock, J.W. (2008).A Topical Approach To Life-Span Development (pp.211-216). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
  26. ^Leap up to: a b c d due east Piaget, J. (1977). Gruber, H.E.; Voneche, J.J., eds.The essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books.
  27. Jump upwards^ http://psychology.about.com/od/piagetstheory/p/preoperational.htm
  28. Jump upwards^ Loftus, Geoff. (2009). "Introduction to Psychology (15th Ed.)".- Affiliate three
  29. ^Jump upwardly to: a b c d Santrock, John West. (2004).Life-Bridge Development (ninth Ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Colina College – Affiliate viii
  30. Bound upwardly^ Russ, S. W. (2006). "Pretend play, affect, and inventiveness".New directions in aesthetics, creativity and the arts, Foundations and frontiers in aesthetics: 239–250.
  31. Spring up^ Dunn, Judy; Hughes, Claire. ""I Got Some Swords And You lot're Dead!": Trigger-happy Fantasy, Antisocial Beliefs, Friendship, And Moral Sensibility In Immature Children".Child Development.72: 491–505. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00292.
  32. Jump up^ Piaget, A Kid'south Conception of Space, Norton Edition, 1967; p. 178
  33. ^Jump upward to: a b Rathus, Spencer A. (2006).Childhood: voyages in evolution. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
  34. Jump upwards^ "Preoperational Stage". RetrievedFebruary ii, 2013.
  35. Jump upward^ McLeod, S. A. (2010).Just Psychology
  36. Jump up^ Andrews, Glenda; Graeme S. Halford; Karen Spud; Kathy Knox (2009). "Integration Of Weight And Distance Data In Young Children: The Role Of Relational Complexity".Cerebral Development.24 (1): 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.07.005.
  37. Jump upward^ Branco, J. C; Lourenco, O (2004). "Cerebral and linguistic aspects in 5- to vi-year-olds' class inclusion reasoning".Psicologia Educacao Cultura.eight (2): 427–445.
  38. Jump up^ Herbert Ginsburg and Sylvia Opper (1979),Piaget'southward Theory of Intellectual Development, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-thirteen-675140-7, p. 152.
  39. Bound up^ Concrete Operations [Video file]. (1993). Davidson Films, Inc. Retrieved October 6, 2014, from Education in Video: Book I.
  40. Jump upwards^ SCOTT, J., & MARSHALL, One thousand. (2009).A lexicon of sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  41. ^Jump upwardly to: a b c d e f g h i Santrock, J.W. (2008).A Topical Approach to Life Span Development (pp.221-223). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  42. Jump upward^ Karplus, R., & Lavatelli C. S. (Experimenters), & Davidson films (Producer). (2010, August x). Classic Piaget Volume one (Davidson Films, Inc.)[Experiments]. Retrieved December ane, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?5=2FjIso13i20.
  43. Jump up^ McLeod, S. A. (2010). Concrete Operational Phase. In Simply Psychology. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/concrete-operational.html
  44. Jump up^ Piaget, Jean (1972).The Psychology of Intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield.
  45. Leap upward^ Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen (2013).Adolescence and Emerging Machismo. NJ: Person Education Inc. pp. 64–65. ISBN 0-205-89249-3.
  46. ^Jump up to: a b Berger, Kathleen Stassen (2014).Invitation to the Life Span, Second Edition. New York: Worth Publishers.
  47. Jump up^ Arnett, Jeffrey (2013). "3".Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood: A Cultural Approach (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Teaching Inc. p. 91.
  48. Bound up^ Inhelder, Barbel; Piaget, Jean (1958).The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.
  49. Jump upwardly^ Piaget, Jean; Inhedler, Bärbel (1969).The psychology of the kid. Basic Books.
  50. Jump up^ Piaget, J (1928). "La causalité chez l'enfant".British Journal of Psychology.xviii: 276–301. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1928.tb00466.10.
  51. Bound upward^ BUCKLEITNER, W. (2008, June 12).New York Times.
  52. Jump up^ Hinde, E. R., & Perry, N. (2007).Elementary School Journal, 108(one), 63-79.
  53. Jump up^ Ramos-Christian, Vanessa; Robert Schleser; Mary E. Varn (2008). "Math fluency: Accuracy versus speed in preoperational and concrete operational first and 2nd grade children".Early Childhood Teaching Journal.35 (6): 543–549. doi:10.1007/s10643-008-0234-7.
  54. Jump upward^ Wubbena, Zane (2013). "Mathematical fluency every bit a function of conservation ability in young children".Learning and Individual Differences.26: 153–155. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.013.
  55. Spring up^ Berger, Kathleen Stassen. (2011).The Developing Person Through the Life Span (8th ed., pp. 45-46). Worth Publishers.
  56. Jump up^ Cole, One thousand. (2005). Culture and cognitive evolution. In Encyclopedia of cognitive scientific discipline. Retrieved from http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileycs/culture_and_cognitive_development/0
  57. Jump up^ Piaget, J. (1967/1971).Biologie et connaissance: Essai sur les relations entre les régulations organiques et les processus cognitifs. Gallimard: Paris —Biology and Noesis. Chicago University Press; and Edinburgh University Press.
  58. ^Spring up to: a b Traill, R.R. (2008).Thinking past Molecule, Synapse, or both? — From Piaget's Schema, to the Selecting/Editing of ncRNA. Ondwelle: Melbourne. [1]
  59. Bound up^ Traill, R.R. (2011a). "Coherent Infra-Red as logically necessary to explain Piagetian psychology and neuro-microanatomy — …"Journal of Physics: Conference Series,329, 012018. [Prague conference: "Electrodynamic Activity of Living Cells"; (i–3 July 2011)]. doi:x.1088/1742-6596/329/1/012018 [2]
  60. Bound up^ Traill, R.R. (2012).A molecular basis for Piaget'southward "schème" (as retentivity-code): Some surprising implications;'PowerPoint' presentation at the 42nd Annual Conference of the Jean Piaget Gild [three] plus the accompanying notes [four]
  61. Jump upwardly^ Humphreys, L.G.; Rich, South.A.; Davey, T.C. (1985). "A Piagetian Test of General Intelligence".Developmental Psychology.21: 872–877. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.5.872.
  62. Jump upwardly^ Lautrey, J. (2002). Is at that place a general cistron of cerebral development? In Sternberg, R.J. & Grigorenko, E.Fifty. (Eds.),The full general cistron of intelligence: How general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  63. Spring up^ Weinberg, R.A. (1989). "Intelligence and IQ. Landmark Issues and Great Debates".American Psychologist.44: 98–104. doi:x.1037/0003-066x.44.2.98.
  64. ^Jump up to: a b Singer-Freeman, 1000. Eastward. (2006). Physical Operational Period. In North. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Development (Vol. i, pp. 291-292). G Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3466300160&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=b6bd1ae3a4e93016b772396b5848a349
  65. Jump up^ Lourenço, O.; Machado, A. (1996). "In defense of Piaget's theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms".Psychological Review.103 (1): 143–164. doi:x.1037/0033-295X.103.i.143.
  66. Jump up^ Kay C. Woods, Harlan Smith, and Daurice Grossniklaus. "Piaget's Stages of Cerebral Evolution". pp. vi [5]Retrieved May 29, 2012
  67. ^Jump upward to: a b c d Callaghan, T. C. (2005). Cognitive Development Across Infancy. In B. Hopkins (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Child Development (pp. 204-209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Academy Printing. Retrieved from http://become.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1311100053&5=2.ane&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=c822fe0523f5b1258756f6e7855acc8d
  68. Spring up^ Kail, Robert (2007).Children and Their Development (4 ed.). Pearson.
  69. Jump upward^ Bruner, Jerome S. (2001). In B. Strickland (Ed.), The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (second ed., pp. 100-101). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3406000105&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=650268d1759955de0b9432be0e28ba5f
  70. Spring up^ Neo-Piagetian Theories of Development. (2009). In E. Thousand. Anderman & Fifty. H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of Classroom Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 639-643). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX3027800184&5=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=5fee96b9c6312e2ec80a2b957d08d51e
  71. Bound upward^ Demetriou, A. (2003). Mind, self, and personality: Dynamic interactions from late childhood to early on adulthood. Journal of Adult development, 10(3), 151-171. Retrieved from http://www.adesignmedia.com/OnlineResearch/sp_Mind%20Self%20and%20Personality.pdf
  72. Jump upwardly^ Jan D. Sinnott "The Development of Logic in Adulthood: Postformal Thought and Its Applications" (Plenum Press 1998)
  73. Jump up^ Johnson, D. J. (2006). Eye Machismo. In Due north. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Development (Vol. 2, pp. 835-842). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3466300423&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=c6e23814559096bdcd16fc9068c727ee
  74. Jump up^ Commons, G. L. (2008). Introduction to the model of hierarchical complication and its human relationship to postformal action. World Futures, 64(five-7), 305-320. Retrieved from http://www.dareassociation.org/Papers/GWOF_A_330277%20Introduction.pdf
  75. ^Jump upward to: a b Eatables, M. Fifty., & Richards, F. A. (2003). Four Postformal Stages. Handbook of Adult Development, 199-219. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=56y91WtpwCIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA199&ots=2t8Hicx6K7&sig=VUxWK8p7OVgR9cUzGRP5sWuIeEk#v=onepage&q&f=fake
  76. Jump up^ Oliver, C. R. (2004). Bear on of catastrophe on pivotal national leaders' vision statements: Correspondences and discrepancies in moral reasoning, explanatory style, and rumination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate Plant. Retrieved from http://world wide web.dareassociation.org/Carl.Oliver_Dissertation_2004.pdf
  77. Jump up^ Kallio, E. Integrative thinking is the key: an evaluation of current research into the development of thinking in adults. Theory & Psychology, 21 Result 6 December 2011 pp. 785 – 801
  78. Jump up^ Kallio, East. & Helkama, 1000. 1991. Formal operations and postformal reasoning: A replication. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 32 (ane), eighteen-21
  79. Jump up^ Kallio, E. 1995. Systematic reasoning: Formal or postformal cognition? Periodical of Adult Development 2 (3), 187-192
  80. Jump up^ Kramer, D. Post-Formal Operations? A Need for Farther Conceptualization Hum Dev 1983;26:91–105
  81. Jump upwardly^ Marchand, H. The Genetic Epistemologist Volume 29, Number three
  82. Jump upwards^ Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (1984a). A general model of stage theory. In M. Fifty. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. i. Late adolescent and adult cognitive evolution (pp. 120-140). New York: Praeger.
  83. Spring upwards^ Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (1984b). Applying the general stage model. In 1000. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. 1. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 141-157). New York: Praeger.
  84. Jump upward^ Bakhurst, D. (2006). Bruner, Jerome (1915–). In North. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Development (Vol. 1, p. 203). 1000 Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://become.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3466300119&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=westward&asid=d850de297c4ec233b0c5cc4eaf6bafb7
  85. Spring up^ Commons, M. L., & Pekker, A. (2008). Presenting the formal theory of hierarchical complexity. World Futures: Journal of General Evolution 65(1-three), 375-382.
  86. Jump up^ Commons, 1000. 50., Gane-McCalla, R., Barker C. D., Li, E. Y. (in press). The Model of Hierarchical Complexity every bit a measurement organisation. Periodical of Adult Development.
  87. ^Spring upward to: a b c Petersen, Northward. J. (2006). Kid Development Theories. In F. Due west. English language (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration (Vol. i, pp. 122-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX3469600091&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=26b7af136b0552cd6503dd1d719701b3
  88. ^Jump upwards to: a b Voorhis, P. V. (2010). Kohlberg, Lawrence: Moral Evolution Theory. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory (Vol. 1, pp. 508-513). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX1923700151&v=2.one&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=e4752d673a01c82f3d23867cde7a5c46
  89. ^Leap up to: a b Forbes, S. A. (2006). Ego Development. In Northward. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Development (Vol. 1, pp. 442-443). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://get.galegroup.com/ps/i.practice?id=GALE%7CCX3466300230&5=two.one&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=b35c3cffb1761177fef91a14fa348d28
  90. Jump upwardly^ Wilber, Ken. (2010). In D. A. Leeming, 1000. Madden, & S. Marlan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion (pp. 962-965). New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://become.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3042600539&v=ii.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=b4fd045913628a8f86d9316598e825e9
  91. Bound up^ Kress, Oliver (1993). "A new approach to cerebral development: ontogenesis and the process of initiation". Evolution and Cognition 2(four): 319-332.
  92. Bound upwards^ Demick, J., & Andreoletti, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of developed development. Springer. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=56y91WtpwCIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=Cheryl+Armon+good+life&ots=2t8Nmdx7M6&sig=TzbSJQ5IBxYWW-T478GfOWB7Bjw#v=onepage&q=Cheryl%20Armon%20good%20life&f=false
  93. Spring up^ Armon, C. (1984). Ideals of the good life: A longitudinal/cross-exclusive study of evaluative reasoning in children and adults (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education). Retrieved from http://dareassociation.org/Papers/Cheryl%20Armon%20Dissertation.pdf
  94. Jump up^ Hallpike, C. R. (2004). The evolution of moral agreement. Prometheus Research Group. Retrieved from http://hallpike.com/EvolutionOfMoralUnderstanding.pdf
  95. Jump upward^ Hallpike, C. R. (1998). Moral Development from the Anthropological Perspective. ZiF Mitteilungen, 2(98), 4-18. Retrieved from http://www.unibielefeld.de/(28en,en)/ZIF/Publikationen/Mitteilungen/Aufsaetze/1998-2-Hallpike.pdf
  96. Leap up^ Kegan, Robert. The evolving self: problem and process in human development. Harvard University Printing, Cambridge, MA 1982, ISBN 0-674-27231-five.

External links

  • Piaget's Theory of Cerebral Development
  • Cognitive development of a child
  • Only ane-third of adults can reason formally

ferrarieill1972.blogspot.com

Source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/teachereducationx92x1/chapter/piagets-theory-of-cognitive-development/