Piagets Theory on Cognitive Development - Research Paper Example

Name Institution Date Tutor INTRODUCTION Cognitive means to understand. A biologist Jean Piaget is the father of the cognitive development theory (Bee 1997).This he began by studying his three sons from birth to thirteen years while he was doing his autobiography. As a result, he came up with this theory. Though many people criticized his job, his theory has of a very key importance to the educational sector. He came up with four stages of cognitive development namely: Sensori motor stage (birth to 2 years) Pre- operational stage (2- 6 years) Concrete operational stage( 7-11 years) Formal operational stage.(11years and above) These are qualitative differences between one stage and another. Children are involved in constructing their own knowledge into corporating new information into existing knowledge structures and schemes- mental images (Bee 1997).Children learn by assimilation of old schemes, then modify the schemes by noting the differences between various things and finally reach a state of equilibrium or simply equilibrication. The child has limited mental schemes thus modify the schemes to meet mental pictures it is exposed to also referred to as equilibrium or a state of balance. The child only comprehend only half of mental picture of what it physically present and what it interacts with and in turn form its own knowledge. They may develop action schemes which are the foundations for future knowledge (Craig 1992). For instance a child understands that is mothers breasts are for sucking and providing warmth to it. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES This paper aims at introducing you to gathering, analyzing and reporting research data. The focus is on examining Piaget’s concepts in a practical way. METHOD Two participants have been selected to provide information on the various stages of the cognitive theory. Participant one is named Bruno, a boy of 4 years and participant two is Ruby, an adolescent girl of 18 years. They display different responses to the task given of arranging logos on the basis of their characteristics-20 different colors and sizes. Participant 1 Bruno (4 years old) Bruno starts by grouping the legos on the basis of their sizes. In the process he gets side tracked and begins making a rocket ship out of the legos. After watching him for a while, I remind him of his task and request him to regroup the legos. His response is “sorry I forgot". He then continues regrouping the legos in terms of their sizes and comes up with 8 groups. I ask him why 8 groups and why use sizes to categorize them. He says, “because they are the same size and he did them like this because that was the instructions". The second time, he puts them together in accordance to their colors. He keeps going back to the sizes of the legos. I remind him that he is not using sizes but color. He stops when he is done with putting them in their sizes and colors. He stops once he has the same color and sizes together but leaves a heap in the middle of the table because they were all different sizes. I ask him to keep going with the sorting. He then puts all the colors together and comes up with 6 groups. Participant 2- Ruby (18 years old) She groups the Lego into colors into 6 different groups. While she groups them she asks if it is strange that she was grouping them by colors. I respond there is no right or wrong way. She just places them all in color groups, no stacking of each other just laying on the table. When I ask her why she grouped them like that, she says it seemed like the most reasonable way to group them because there were more shapes than colors so this gave less grouping. I then asked her to re-group them and this time she stacks them on top of each other and puts them in size groups. There were 9 different groups. TABLE 1 NAME AGE SEX 1ST TIME ATTRIBUTE (COLOUR,SIZE) 2ND TIME ATTRIBUTE (COLOUR,SIZE) Bruno 4years Male 8groups Sizes. (Reason: Following instructions) 6groups Color and sizes. (Before being reminded) Colors(After being reminded) Ruby I8years Female 6groups Colors (Reason: Most reasonable way because there were more shapes than colors.) 9groups Sizes. The table above shows the name, age, sex of the participants, the attributes they used to group Legos for the first and second time and the reasons why. DISCUSSION The first participant by the name of Bruno belongs to the Pre-operational stage which comprises of 2-6 years. They possess characteristics like mastery of language especially their mother tongue or what is used around them. They have symbolic play or representations of objects which aid in their cognitive development. They also possess Transductive logic which is the basic knowledge of the child which appears to be illogic (Craig 1992). They give relationships to things which have no relationships at all. For instance, Bruno uses both size and color to arrange the legos, two attributes that have no relationship at all. These babies do not understand reversal but only view situations in regression. If one aspect is changed, they get confused and are not able to recollect themselves. If they do, it is only after close watch and reminding them just like Bruno does when reminded to arrange the Legos while he was constructing a rocket ship. These babies also portray centration which involves looking at only one aspect of an issue. They do not have the ability to carefully look at the finer details like weight, mass, size, distance and length. Bruno could not tell the finer details of the sizes of the Legos and ended up having 8 groups the first time in relation to the size and 6 groups after using both sizes and color. At one time he even had piles left out as he had no idea where to group them. They do not possess conservation of matter and will in turn confuse in the number and arrangement of objects. Children who fall under this stage are ego-centric (Newman and Newman 1997). They see things in their own point of view and will fulfill them how they want. Bruno proves this fact by constructing a rocket ship instead of grouping the Legos like he was told. He seems very busy not until I remind him to continue with the task. He even claims that he had forgotten. Basically the children of this level understand identities- how objects relate to each other-and functions of various objects. However, transformations and changes in mass, weight, size, volume e.t.c give them a lot of problems because they cannot understand and differentiate them. Ruby, the second participant is 18 years old and falls in the category of Formal Operational stage. In this stage the child has abstract and logical thinking (Newman and Newman 1997). They think about things that are not tangible. Their reasoning is also very scientific; they use theories in solving many problems that face them just like Ruby did which explains why the groupings are different. They use alphabetical deductive reasoning which is the ability to degenerate hypothesis and to think logically about obstructions for example symbols and propositions as well as available information. This explains why Ruby was careful to ask whether using color to categorize was the correct method to use. She needed confirmation and at this stage it is very normal. The child questions all that is around it in order to find the correct information. These children have compositional thinking that is based on true statements. Ruby arranges the Legos and gives her valid reasons for doing that. One of her reasons is that, ‘it was most reasonable way because there were more shapes than colors’. Her conclusions are valid regardless of the factual truth. Bruno contrasts this by doing the assignment by the virtue of following instructions and not being creative from the task given. Ruby goes beyond the eye and uses creative thinking to solve the task. In regard to the characteristic of Personal Fable that they possess, they believe that they have a special mission and are very unique. Since they feel important and no misfortunes can follow them, they are confident that tasks given are manageable. Ruby does not end up with ungrouped Legos like Bruno who gave up. She completes the task and has valid reasons to support her conclusions. They also believe in imaginary audiences. The tasks performed are done carefully because they imagine the ones around them are staring and watching over them. The notion of responsibility grows in them with time. Ruby therefore completes the task unlike Bruno, whose attention was shifted elsewhere, constructing a rocket ship from the Legos. Ruby on the other accomplishes her mission and is confident that her answers are correct. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS This practical has quite a number of implications. The first is when to teach. Readiness to learn is important. One cannot learn unless has the prerequisite skills for instance in sensori motor, they learn through action skills. The curriculum should not be designed with reference to changing cognitive structures in children. There are individual differences in the children. Children differ in their history of maturation, experience and social interaction and equilibration (Seifert and Hoffning 1997). How to teach is therefore a major concern. The teaching methods should be consistent with the child’s level of perceptual and cognitive development. Children should interact with the materials like books, pens, chemical equipment e.t.c. This enables understanding and mastery of concepts taught. Teachers should encourage role play. This enables students accommodate each other. Peers have selfish ideas therefore cognitive conflicts. It is important that the teacher embraces methods that include all learners despite their cognitive levels. Students are able to accommodate each other which enables learning take place. CONCLUSION The paper discusses the definition of cognitive and the stages of cognitive development. A practical example of Piaget’s theory is illustrated by two practicals performed by two children of different levels, Bruno (4years) of Sensori stage and Ruby (18 years) of Formal Operational Stage. They respond differently to this task which explains the difference between these two levels they fall in. A table is included which is a summary of the practical by the two children. Discussions on the findings are included which are in relation to the theory by Piaget. Finally the educational implications of this theory conclude the assignment. REFERENCES Bee, M. (1997). Lifespan Development. Addison Wesley Educational Publishers: New York. Berger, K. and Thompson, R.A. (1995). The developing Person through childhood and Adolescence. Worth publishers Inc: London. Craig, G. (1992). Human Development. Prentice Hall: London Newman, P. R. and Newman B.M. (1997). Childhood and Adolescence. Cole Publishing Company. New York. Seifert, K. L. and Hoffning, R. J. (1997). Child and Adolescent Development. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston. Read More