Piaget to Constructivism - Research Paper Example

? Developmental Psychology has been considered synonymous with Piaget and his theory of cognitive development as a consequence of exhaustiveresearches conducted by Piaget throughout the first half of twentieth century. His researches have lead to significant developments in the concept of constructivism which asserts that knowledge is constructed by the learner. Post Piaget, significant developments occurred in the concept of constructivism leading to development of two major approaches of social constructivism by Vygotsky and radical constructivism by Glaserfeld. The current article aims to trace the journey of constructivism from Piaget to contemporary researchers. Table of Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 4 Jean Piaget (1896-1980) 4 Cognition 5 Piaget’s Theory of cognitive development 5 Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development 6 Criticism 7 Post-Piaget 8 Constructivism 9 Social Constructivism 11 Radical Constructivism 11 Conclusion 13 References 13 Piaget to Constructivism Introduction Constructivism remains one of the most frequently used, researched and documented concept in educational research and technology during the last few decades. Philips (1995) equates it to secular religion using the phrase ‘a powerful folk tale about the origins of human knowledge’. Hence like any religion, constructivism too is characterized by many sects; the proponent of each being critical of the rest. It is my purpose in this paper to discuss the various facets of constructivism, its foundation, and evolution beginning with an understanding of the concept. It is also of significant value that no discussion of constructivism can be valid without often repeated reference to Piaget, and his 60 years of relentless research in establishing the concept of dynamic constructivist theory of knowing (Glasersfeld, 1995). Thus the discussion can be divided in to two categories Piagetian constructivism and radical or neo-constructivism. Jean Piaget (1896-1980) John Piaget, a Swiss psychologist and epidemiologist is known worldwide for his significant contributions to the evolution of child psychology, and the development of knowledge. Trained as zoologist, Piaget was intrigued by the complexity of human mind, an involvement which led to the development of cognitive development theory or the theory of genetic epistemology. His theory is based on the fundamental concept of maturation or Law of readiness. It stresses that learning ability is determined by the level of psychological maturity of the child. With advance in age, the child acquires higher levels of maturity and hence enhanced capacity to understand and suitably interpret his experiences. Further this developmental process is not smooth, but characterized by variously paced stages along with certain phases of acute transformations. Thus children will be available to comprehend and interpret an experience only when they are ‘ready’ for it and not before that. Piaget theories being based on cognition and cognitive development, an understanding of the two are perquisites for developing of a comprehension of Piaget’s theory (Shaffer and Kipp, 2010). Cognition Cognition of the act of knowing, a term used to describe the processes of the human mind by which it attempts to acquire and apply knowledge. These processes include the indirectly manifested mental activities of attending, perceiving, learning, thinking and remembering (Bjorklund, 2005). Piaget’s Theory of cognitive development Piaget’s theory of Cognitive Development also known as Piaget’s theory of Genetic Epistemology is fundamentally constructivist, integrative and interactionist. The term genetic was used by Piaget to denote the older concept of ‘development’. Genetic epistemology thus means the experimental study of knowledge. The primary goal of this theory is a transition from less valid to more valid knowledge. Piaget defines intelligence as a fundamental life process that allows a child to adapt to his environment. Children on the other hand are active explorers who construct schemes or ‘schemas’ in order to establish cognitive equilibrium between their experiences and their perceptions. ‘Schema’ refers to a set of perceptions, ideas, interpretations or activities which occur simultaneously. The ‘schema’ is constructed as a consequence of processes of organization and adaptation, the latter comprising of complementary processes of assimilation and accommodation. While assimilation refers to the process of permeation of information in to the brain; accommodation refers to alterations of prior belief or concepts of the mind as a consequence of assimilation. Thus assimilation refers to fitting new experiences to existing ‘schemas’, and accommodation is modifying prior ‘schema’ in response to new experiences; the cumulative effect of the two being adaptation. Cognitive development occurs as a consequence of a continuous process of assimilation leading to formation and reformation of ‘schema’ (Shaffer and Kipp, 2010). Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development ‘Stage’ refers to a particular period in the development process of child during which he is able to comprehend certain concepts but not others. Piaget’s cognitive development theory states the occurrence of invariant sequence of stages tabulated below. Table 1: Piaget’s stages of cognitive development (Shaffer and Kipp, 2010) Stage Age Characteristic Features Sensorimotor Period 0-2 yrs Beginning with basic reflexes, children develop knowledge and understanding of events and objects. Construction of schemas. First indication of goal-directed activity Preoperational Period 2-7 yrs Animistisism, egocentrisim and centration. Uses language and classifies objects using single characteristics Concrete Operational 7-11 yrs Decentration, reversibility, logical thinking about concrete concepts. Ability to sequence mentally and display transitivity. Conservation of number, mass and weight Formal Operations >11 yrs Rationality, ability to comprehend abstract concepts, hypothetico-deductive and inductive reasoning The primary stages of developmental can further be classified in to substages: 1 Sensory-motor Period Stage of Reflexes (0-1 month) Stages of Primary Circular Reactions (1-4 months) Stages of Secondary Circular Reactions (4-12 months) Stages of Tertiary Circular reactions (12-18 months) Inventions of new means through mental combinations (18-24 months) 2 Preoperational Period Substage of Preconcepts (1.5 yrs to 4 yrs) Substage of intuitive thinking (4-7 or 8 yrs) 3 Concrete Operational Period (7-11 yrs) 4 Formal Operations Period (>11 yrs) Criticism Piaget’s theory of cognitive development has been criticized to be restricted in concept, empirically erroneous and flawed in philosophy. Critics of Piaget’s theory assert that Piaget underestimated the competence of children especially at the preoperational stage. These children exhibit operational competencies if suitable performance factors are presented. Piaget theory presents clear age demarcations for developmental stages which have not been confirmed experimentally. However, the sequentiality of stages and not the age demarcations being the key concepts of Piaget’s theory, this criticism does not influence the reliability of Piaget’s theory. More so because Piaget’s developmental stages do not arise abruptly, but are the result of a continuous and gradual process. Piaget has also been criticized to neglect performance factors entirely, a truth that may have been due to Piaget’s prime concern being exploration of thinking patterns exclusively. The major criticism of Piaget theory is based on his use of verbal techniques or language during the clinical experimentation. Critics assert that the use of language to assess cognitive development is analogous to use the effect of a cause to describe the cause (Lourenco and Machado, 1996). To conclude; logically Piaget’s theory occupies a place between formal and dialectical logic. In terms of epistemology it integrates the concept of objective idealism and materialism. Definitions of each of the cognitive developmental stages provided by Piaget are absolute and with indisputable evidences. In terms of prime objective of Piaget. i.e. understanding knowledge; the aspect of transition from one stage to next is of greater significance. He clearly established the developmental or ‘genetic’ nature of intelligence. Children construct knowledge when they are presented with new experiences. Child is constructivist, building reality on the basis of new experiences and previous knowledge (Lourenco and Machado, 1996). Post-Piaget Piaget based his developmental stages on the cumulative impact of maturation, physical and logico-mathematical level, social experience and equilibration; thereby making it a slow process. Recent researches have proved that clear demarcations between social and cognitive parameters is not only non-feasible, but also results in erroneous deductions. The process of transformation from one stage to next in elementary school children has been demonstrated to occur in 5-10 min. Further Biological and social parameters are also complementary and not discrete (Sata, 1999). The death of Piaget followed by the demise of Piagetian theory occurred simultaneously with the development of two theories: radical constructivism and social constructivism; and conceptual change. Vygotsky, like Piaget believed in the developmental nature of knowledge, but he proposed scientific development concepts rather than Piaget’s spontaneous development of knowledge. He further introduced the concept of ‘zone of proximal development’ and inner speech and dialogues. He considered Piaget’s theories as idealist, but Vygotsky’s social development theory has itself been criticized for giving more importance to social aspects and ignoring psychological factors completely. Constructivism A highly simplified yet reasonably accurate statement defines the core concept of constructivism as the theory that learners construct or build new concepts on the basis of previously acquired knowledge, beliefs and experiences as well as their applications. In the words of John Dewey, “It is the cardinal concept of the newer school of education that the beginning of instruction shall be made with the experience learners already have”. The origins of constructivism can be traced back to early eighteenth century when the term was coined by Giambastista Vico, a philosopher who claimed that “the human mind can only know what the human mind has made”. The evolution of constructivism is characterized by its integration with the theories of cognitive development and thus related it can be defines as “the reciprocal processes that enable participants in a community to construct meanings that lead towards a shared purpose of schooling” (Walker, 2002). Hence constructivism is a theory of learning the roots of which can be traced back to theory of knowing or epistemology. Epistemology has been defined as the study of knowledge and justified belief by the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fosnet (1992) describes constructivism as ‘theory of knowing’ as well as ‘theory of coming to know’. The theory of knowing stems from the concepts of biology; as stated by Piaget; involving assimilation of new experiences into pre existing knowledge, leading to construction of schema and accommodation of new information. The process is also psychological and philosophical in nature owing to its exploration of the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of knowledge respectively. Getting to know something is never without certain level of modifications of the information, based on individual’s reflections, meditations and social experiences. Constructivism therefore is a multidisciplinary and dynamic approach integrating concepts from philosophy, psychology and science. Constructivism as a learning theory has certain distinctive characters that render it unique compared to other learning theories (Walker, 2002). The constructivist theory considers learners to be equipped with prior knowledge in form of beliefs and experiences that accompanies them to the classroom. Additional information is assigned a position with reference to the prior through correlation. Thus accommodation and assimilation of new information follows presentation of new experiences. The interpretation of the new information is influenced by prior experiences of the learner. Constructivism approach asserts that the learning experiences enable learner to interpret their beliefs, knowledge and experiences. Thus the teaching process should include questions provoking learner to draw out from their previous knowledge and thus develop insight. Since prior knowledge and experiences determine the interpretation of new experiences; learners’ race, culture, socioeconomic background etc are key factors determining the learning process and its outcome. The learning is a social activity rather than an individualized process; and is enhanced by social interaction. At individual level, learning process is enhanced through reflection and metacognition on the part of learner. Learners are important and active participants of the learning process rather than passive recipients. Thus constructivism considers learning as a bipolar, multicomponent and dynamic process. In general context, constructivism implies that individual construct their perceptions on basis of their experiences and understand reality in terms of these perceptions. In the field of education, constructivism signifies that students find meaning of the new experiences in terms of and based on prior ones. Thus rather than the traditional concept of learning process being ‘the filling up of the empty vessel’, it, in fact involves a two-way activity. It concurs with Plato’s belief that knowledge is constructed within the learner and is brought to forefront by the teacher through the teaching process. Constructivist approach considers learning as primarily an internal process rather than an external act. Social Constructivism Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) stressed the role of society and cultural factors in determining the course and pace of learning. Learners according to Vygotsky construct knowledge on the basis of social interactions. Thus the distinguishing features of Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory is that development of knowledge is a collaborative activity dependent on inputs from others including parents, family, friends, peer group, other community members etc. The role of the teacher in the learning process is that of the facilitator. During the initial stages, teacher provides support, the levels of which are reduced gradually and learners are allowed to take responsibility. The strategy is termed as scaffolding. In this context Vygotsky introduced the concept of Zone of Proximal Development or ZPD which is the enhancement of performance levels with aid from outside sources. Thus ZPD is a measure of impact of social group influence. Learning process is considered to be complete when learner is able to use individual as well as social resources to construct knowledge on his own (Martin, 2001). Radical Constructivism The term radical constructivism was coined by Ernst von Glaserfeld in 1974. The origin of the concept of radical constructivism can be traced back to 18th century philosophers Giambastista Vico and George Berkley. Radical constructivism considers that knowledge is constructed by the individual as a consequence of his response to his subjective experiences resulting in adaptation. Glaserfeld believes that the constructivism has to be radical in order to avoid it relapsing in the concepts of realism i.e. the concept that reality is independent of the observer. It believes that a dogmatic concept of knowledge that remains unquestioned under all circumstances; is impossible. Radical constructivism is thus based on the concept of what ‘may’ work rather than what ‘will’ work. Building on the vast researches and literature of Piaget, Glaserfeld explored ideas about ‘knowing’ as yet unexplored by the philosophers (Glaserfeld, 1996). Glaserfeld criticism of earlier concepts of constructivism was based on the ambiguity of two terms: reality and experience. Further experience is segmented and ordered. Segmentation on one hand is an act of sensory and motor origin, but on the other hand it is dependent on the prior perceptions of the individual. Thus experience according to Glaserfeld, can never be definite; it always is subjective, and in this form interacts with social factors leading to development of knowledge. Next rational knowledge is always characterized by a quest of definite predictive models; however no scientific model, however accurate under a given set of circumstances can be considered as the only possible approach to solve a problem. In presence of alternatives, selection of a particular approach is determined by multiple criteria of economy, ease etc. Finally, the traditional concept of language as a means of communication and transfer of knowledge is in fact not accurate. Language as a means of communication is dependent on the interpretation of words by the receiver. The decoding process in effective communication is as critical as the encoding and transmission. However the interpretation is again subjective to receivers’ perceptions. Thus language needs to be modeled or modified to orient students in accordance with the direction in which the construction of knowledge is desired. For this purpose the instructor must be equipped with information regarding prior concepts of the learner; so as to facilitate a starting point. Thus Glaserfeld considers it imperative to develop a threshold level of compassion and interest in the receiver to get an image of his mental attributes (Glaserfeld, 1996). Conclusion No study of developmental psychology is complete without a mention of Piaget. He made in depth explorations of what he proclaimed to be the twin mysteries of knowledge; the new modes of thinking that develop parallel to ontogenesis; and the how these modes of thinking become psychologically imperative (Lourenco and Machado, 1996). Piaget’s schema theory or cognitive development theory explained constructivism while Vygotsky’s social constructivism expands the concept to incorporate the impact of social interaction in the development of knowledge. Further Glaserfeld proposed the concept of subjectivity of constructs or radical constructivist theory. Thus Piaget along with Vygotsky, Bruner, Glaserfeld and others contributed to the development of constructivism. References 1. Bjorklund, D. (2005). Children's thinking: cognitive development and individual differences. CA: Wadsworth Thomson. 2. Fosnet, C. (1992). Constructing Constructivism. In T. Duffy, & T. H. Jonassen, Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction, A Conversation (pp. 167-76). 3. Lourenco, O., & Machado, A. (1996). In defense of Piaget's theory: a reply to 10 common critcisms. Psychological review , 143-64. 4. Martin, D. J. (2001). Elementary science methods: a constructivist approach. Wadsworth, USA: Library of Congress. 5. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: the many faces of constructivism. Educational researcher , 5-12. 6. Sata, L. D. (1999). Constructivist theory in the age of Newt Gingrich: the post formal concern with power. In S. R. Steinberg, & J. L. Kincheloe, The post-formal reader: cognition adn education (pp. 109-27). USA. 7. Shaffer, D. R., & Kipp, K. (2010). Developmental Psychology: childhood and adolescence. Wadsworth, USA: Cengage Learning. 8. von Glaserfeld, E. (1996). Why constructivism must be radical. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. W. Garrison, Constructivism and education (pp. 23-8). NY: The press syndicate of university of Cambridge. 9. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe, & J. E. Gale, Constructivism in education (pp. 3-16). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 10. Walker, D. (2002). Constructivist leadership: standards, equity and learning-weaving whole cloth from multiple strands. In L. Lambert, The constructivist leader (pp. 1-33). Teachers college press: NY. Read More