Cognitive Development: Two Competing Schools of Thought - Essay Example

Cognitive Development: Two Competing Schools of Thought This essay will address the field of cognitive development theory. It will discuss the major schools of thought, identify the major variables of each school of thought, and discuss how these theories of cognitive development are significant for guiding instructional teaching methods and curriculum choices. The two schools of thought to be addresses in this essay are the cognitive constructivist branch espoused by Jean Piaget and the social constructionist branch espoused by Lev Vygotsky. More particularly, this essay shall examine the biological view of cognitive development according to Piaget and the broader social notion of cognitive development as explained by Vygotsky. Slavin defines cognitive development as "Gradual, orderly changes by which mental processes become more complex and sophisticated" (Slavin's On Line Glossary: np). This type of development, therefore, is concerned with intellectual processes. This intellectual development is traced from birth until adulthood. Cognitive skills are considered to be affected by both hereditary and environmental variables. Cognitive development theory is concerned with, as stated by Piaget, "how we come to know" (Huitt & Hummel, 2003: np). How human beings are distinguishable from animals is rooted in out ability to reason symbolically and abstractly. Cognitive development theory is concerned with how we develop these reasoning skills. Are these reasoning skills, for instance, hereditary, non-hereditary, or some combination of genetic and environmental factors When and how do these cognitive abilities arise These are the types of questions which characterize the study of cognitive development. Cognitive development theory is deeply indebted to the work of Jean Piaget, a biologist and philosopher. His theories focus on the biological features and stimuli of cognitive development. He remains an influential figure for the "cognitive constructionists" branch of cognitive development theory. Piaget argued that cognitive development was a result of the ways in which human organisms adapted to external variables. He divided these adaptations into two categories, assimilation and accommodation, and hypothesized that these two processes were the means by which humans developed intellectually throughout their lifetimes. Huitt and Hummel have paraphrased Piaget's work by stating that "Assimilation is the process of using or transforming the environment so that it can be placed in preexisting cognitive structures. Accommodation is the process of changing cognitive structures in order to accept something from the environment" (2003: np). An infant assimilates, for example, by learning how to use a different milk bottle or to run in larger shoes. The same infant accommodates by substituting a pacifier for a milk bottle or opting for socks when the larger shoes don't allow him to satisfy his objective. Another school of thought is often traced to the work of Lev Vygotsky. He is deemed to be the major proponent of the "social constructionists" branch of cognitive development theory. Whereas Piaget was concerned with the ways in which the human organism assimilated and accommodated, Vygotsky placed more emphasis on the social interaction aspects than inherent biological predispositions and reactions. There is an important link with Piaget, and that link is that there are adaptive processes at work in cognitive development. It is the nature of these adaptive processes, however, where the theorists disagree. Many cognitive constructionists would see adaptation as proceeding alongside our biological development. Cognitive development, in short, is to a large extant the product of whom we are at a particular biological stage in our lifespan. Most social constructionists, on the other hand, find this parallel reference to biological development too broad and exclusive. They would argue that other situational variables also affect cognitive development. Some of the situational variables cited in the literature include emotions, attachments, and consequences. In the final analysis, there is a great deal of agreement that cognitive development is an adaptive process. The disagreements concern the precise nature of this adaptation and the proper identification of all of the variables affecting adaptation. Piaget identified four stages of development. These four stages were sensorimotor in infancy, the pre-operational stage for toddlers and early childhood, the concrete operational stage for elementary and early adolescence, and the formal operational stage from adolescence to early adulthood. Piaget's stages are closely linked to biological functions and capabilities. The sensorimotor stage, for instance, deals initially with cognitive development as a product of increasing motor activity. In this way, Piaget's stages of development are rather constrained. Cognitive development, in short, is driven forward by biological development and it tends to be very compartmentalized. With this framework, researchers ought to more easily be able to identify points of cognitive development because intellectual processes are developing in a linear fashion. Lev Vygotsky, in contrast, was not persuaded that Piaget's stages of cognitive development were able to capture the true complexity of intellectual evolution. Indeed, he found the "end-product" nature of Piaget's theoretical work to be too simplistic. Vygotsky refused to reduce the notion of cognitive development to stages because he reasoned that these stages were at best misleading and at worst inaccurate (Riddle, 1999). He therefore transformed the focus of the inquiry from stages to connections between individuals and their social and cultural context. He articulated a zone of proximal development and theorized that cognitive development could not be contained within neat stages. An interesting contrast between Piaget and Vygotsky involves the treatment of a child's development of thought and language. Piaget's model would find a natural starting point for thought to translate into language and for this type of internal intellectual progression to terminate with the production of language. Vygotsky, on the other hand, would not see this internal cognitive process as being terminal. The contrast is significant because Piaget can separate variables and discard them whereas Vygotsky retains these variables for analysis throughout an individual's lifespan. Taken together, these different articulations of the stages of cognitive development might be more useful than either framework applied in isolation. Cognitive development theory has import applications in the classroom context. How we attempt to educate our children, how we attempt to nurture and guide their intellectual progress, is ultimately limited by our knowledge of the true sources of cognitive development. There are, to be sure, different classroom applications of cognitive development theory. The most common classroom applications of cognitive development theory are based on Piaget's influential work. Two of the primary instructional techniques are discovery learning and the implementation of instructional methods designed to match the developing interests of the children. In these ways, classrooms operate under the assumption that children do, in fact, develop cognitively in uniform and predictable ways. Theories addressing developmentally appropriate practices, to illustrate, owe their essential theoretical underpinnings to Piaget. Curriculum and instructional techniques are, therefore, dependent to a great extant on the underlying assumptions of the children's stage of development. It must be noted, however, that "data from similar cross-sectional studies of adolescents do not support the assertion that all individuals will automatically move to the next cognitive stage as they biologically mature. Data from adolescent populations indicates only 30 to 35% of high school seniors attain the cognitive development stage of formal operations" (Huitt & Hummel, 2003: np). This data has given impetus to other classroom applications of cognitive development theory. Of particular significance are instructional methods based on the work of Vygotsky and his theoretical progeny. These types of instructional techniques assume that children must not only develop biologically, but that they must simultaneously learn how to build skills and knowledge. Cooperative learning theories and methods of instruction are important aspects of this different type of classroom application. Issues such as self-esteem, a sense of security, and active teacher involvement in creating an environment conducive to cooperative learning become relevant (Slavin, 2003). These types of applications, such as group work, incorporate the more sophisticated stages of cognitive development articulated by Erikson and allow instructors to account for the emotional aspects of intellectual development as well as standard biological stages. In conclusion, cognitive development theory is an extraordinarily complex subject. A core agreement is the notion that the human organism adapts. The precise variables to which we adapt, however, and at what stages, are more difficult questions to answer with absolute precision. The wisest approach would seem to be the one which accounts for all of the relevant variables rather than creating an artificial framework which excludes many salient factors. It would be wrong to argue that Piaget was incorrect, as biological stimuli do affect cognitive development; on the other hand, it would be necessary to add Vygotsky's observations to any larger discussion of cognitive development. These two competing schools of thought, in short, are more complementary than competing. References Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html. Riddle, E.M. (1999). Lev Vygotsky's Social Development Theory. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/theorists/constructivism/htm Slavin, R. (2003). Education psychology: Theory and practice (7th ed., pp. 30-47, 171- 204). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Slavin, R. (n.d.). Slavin's on Line Glossary. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from http://www.abacon.com/slavin/glossary.html Read More