Compare the Piagetian Theory of Development Versus the Core Knowledge Theory of Development - Essay Example

? Compare the Piagetian Theory of Development Versus the Core Knowledge Theory of Development Introduction One of the backbone elements of psychological research is the examination of human development. Structured theories of development date back to as early as Sigmund Freud’s ‘psychosexual stages of development’. The advance of the 20th century witnessed corresponding changes in theories of development. While Freud’s psychosexual stages were largely discarded as unscientific, in their place emerged Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, as well as the Core Knowledge theory of development. These theories emerged with the abandonment of psychoanalysis as the primary means of psychological understanding, and the corresponding movement towards cognitive and nativist perspectives. This essay compares and contrasts the Piagetian theory of cognitive development with the Core Knowledge theory of development. Analysis Broadly speaking the Core Knowledge theory can be contrasted with Piaget’s theory in terms of how these theories view the very structure of development. Core Knowledge theory contends that development occurs in de-compartmentalized and highly specialized functions that are independent of each other. This is contrasted with Piaget’s theory of cognitive development that contends as humans gain knowledge it is internalized into a cohesive knowledge structure. These perspectives can be further understood as domain-specific learning corresponding to Core Knowledge theory and domain-general learning corresponding to Piaget’s perspective. While these divisions constitute an overarching perspective on the differences between these approaches, it’s necessary to consider them in more depth as a means of recognizing the fundamental differentiating and comparative elements. One of the main distinguishing factors of the Core Knowledge theory of development is the argument that children are born with a number of core or ‘nativist’ theories on existence. It is these core perspectives that influence and largely direct the individual’s behavior. Notably, this is contrasted with Piaget’s theory of cognitive development in that the later places emphasis on the acquisition and development of cognitive knowledge as greatly shaping and influencing human behavior. Two of the most prominent Core Knowledge theorists are Gopnik and Meltzoff (Spelke, 2008). These individuals argue that children across all cultures are born with innate abilities that greatly determine their behavior. Still, within these specific functions also exists the ability wherein experiential knowledge can contradict past understandings and influence behavior. To an extent one might consider that such a process is akin to cognitive behaviorism, but upon further analysis it’s clear that Core Knowledge theory places much greater emphasis on these innate modes of understanding. In gaining a deeper understanding on Core Knowledge theory there are a number of further distinguishing factors. Theorists have noted that, “To qualify as a core knowledge system, the system must be domain specific, task specific, and encapsulated. This applies both to the physical world as well as the social world” (Spelke, 2008, p. 34). While Piaget’s cognitive behavioral theory has a number of stages of development this is not akin to the specific functions that distinguish Core Knowledge theory. In Core Knowledge theory psychologists look more to specific skills rather than stages. One of the frequently cited of such specific core knowledge functions is that of numbers. In understanding a Core Knowledge perspective on numbers one considers an experiment conducted with infants. The infants were six-months old and they were tasked with distinguishing between the numbers eight and sixteen and then the numbers sixteen and thirty-two. In both instances the infants were able to accurately distinguish between the number sets. One recognizes that this specifically fits within the Core Knowledge theoretical paradigm as it considers that development within a specific category – namely number functions – and also recognizes that this knowledge is seemingly innate as the age of the infants is such that it seems to indicate this knowledge was not gained through experience. Still, the experiment did not reveal that these infants had complete understanding and recognition of number functions. For instance, when the experiment was extended to include dots and the infants were tasked with distinguishing between sixteen and twenty-four they were unable to complete the task. Cordes & Brannon (2009) further established that infants were unable to distinguish four from six dots. The conclusion reached was that infants were able to recognize 2:1 ratios, but unable to distinguish 3:2 ratios. As a means of further understanding how psychologists approach Core Knowledge development theory one considers how the recognition of the previously establish 2:1 ratio extends to other modes of knowledge. In these regards, researchers have also considered the ways that this understanding is affected by auditory mediation. Cordes & Brannon (2009) examined the extent that these number recognition patterns hold when implemented through auditory inputs; again they indicate that the same 2:1 ratio is recognized, but not the 3:2 ratio. A third experiment worked to test innate number knowledge when the numbers were not simply placed outright, but occurred through the division of two boxes of cookies. In this instance Cordes & Brannon (2009) established that the 2:1 number ratio of ‘innate’ knowledge did not hold. These Core Knowledge theory experiments demonstrate both one of the foundational arguments in favor of the Core Knowledge approach to development, as well as demonstrating the process through which such knowledge or perspectives is established. Within this specific theoretical breakdown one recognizes one of the fundamental challenges of the Core Knowledge approach to development, namely that while specific ‘core’ knowledge elements seem to be in existence a great amount of knowledge is clearly informed by human experience (Gelman 2003). For Core Knowledge perspectives on numbers the aforementioned tests have led researchers to conclude that there are two different core knowledge systems for numbers. The first system represents objects and constancy over time, while the second system represents sets and their approximate numerical value (Gelman 2003). These sets have also been distinguished along number size, with one set distinguishing between small numbers, or subitizing, while the other set distinguishes between larger numbers (Gelman 2003). While the specific psychological divisions between these knowledge sets is significant in understanding the Core Knowledge theory of development, in terms of its distinction with Piaget’s theory of cognitive development perhaps the most notable feature is that rather than envisioning human development or knowledge acquisition in a vertical series of stages, the Core Knowledge theory frames it in terms of horizontal knowledge skills that remain uniform across cultures. In understanding the way that Piaget’s theory of cognitive development differs from the Core Knowledge theory of development, perhaps the most underlining recognition is that Piaget’s theory is referred to as a developmental stage theory. Similar to Freud’s earlier psychosexual stages of development, Piaget’s theory places emphasis on the ways that humans gain knowledge through cognitive stages. On a philosophical level there are further distinguishing factors Piaget’s and the Core Knowledge perspectives. One considers that the Core Knowledge perspective necessarily has an ontological view of reality as largely stable; this perspective coincides with knowledge of this reality as being stable and consistent (Santrock 2008). One can contrast this view of reality with Piaget’s perspective, as in Piaget’s perspective reality is dynamic and under continuous change; it follows then that human knowledge and development must be codified in a similarly dynamic process. The nature of cognitive psychology then mirrors this fluidity. In further distinguishing between Piaget’s perspective and that of Core Knowledge theory one considers that different ways that they ‘signify the human’; the term is slightly ambiguous as the very articulation of the concept underlies the distinguishing feature between the two perspectives on development. Piaget’s perspective contends that there are transformations and states that function within the overarching structure of his cognitive developmental stages. For Piaget states represent specific periods where the individual has reached a stable or plateau like state of cognitive being. To an extent Piaget’s ‘states’ can be compared to ‘core’ knowledge states in that both posit a mode of being wherein recognition of knowledge and existence is stable (Cole 2005). For Piaget, however, these ‘states’ are necessarily disrupted through processes of transformation wherein the individual is between developmental states, or stages. To a degree it seems both developmental theories share a vision of a ‘state,’ it just appears that in terms of Piaget’s cognitive perspective these states constitute the majority of the developmental learning process. While states and transformations constitute the overarching foundational elements of Piaget’s cognitive development perspective, one recognizes that perhaps the most characteristic elements are the specific stages that Piaget believes the individual passes through. These stages "extend from birth to the acquisition of language" (Tuckman 2010). Notably, this is a predominant distinguishing factor between Piaget’s and the Core Knowledge theory, as the former does not emphasize any progressive means of development. Piaget’s first stage is the sensorimotor stage. Piaget believes this stage lasts from approximately birth to 24 months old (Chapman 1988). Notably, the age figures are approximations as the individual’s cognitive development is necessarily contingent on their sensory experiences. Within the sensorimotor stage Piaget believes that infants gain understanding of the world from their physical interactions in it. Within this stage Piaget makes the further divisions of between reflexive, instinctual action at birth to the beginning of symbolic thought at the end of the stage. While the specific developmental concerns within this sensorimotor stage are extensive, in terms of its contrast with the Core Knowledge perspective one recognizes the earlier Core Knowledge experiments that were conducted on 6-month-old infants. The Core Knowledge experiments, through tests with numbers, argued that the infants demonstrated specific knowledge that existed from birth, namely 2:1 ratio numbers. This would contrast with Piaget’s perspective that contends that it is through an infants’ experience during their sensorimotor stage that leads to this knowledge. Following the sensorimotor stage, Piaget believes humans enter into the preoperational stage. It is believed that the preoperational stage lasts approximately between ages two and seven. This stage is distinguished from the other stages in that Piaget believes the child learns to represent objects by images, words, and drawings (Walkerdine 1990). This stage is also closely linked to the imagination in that Piaget believes that the child begins to form imaginary concepts as well as stable concepts and mental reasoning. This stage is further divided into the symbolic function sub-stage and the intuitive thought sub-stage (Walkerdine 1990). During the former the children have primitive reasoning skills, but begin to be able to think in images and symbols (Walkerdine 1990). Piaget differentiates between this and the intuitive thought sub-stage when the child begins to develop more advanced reasoning skills. The final two cognitive development stages are the concrete operational stage and the formal operational stage. The concrete operational stage occurs between ages 7 and 11 and is distinguished by the appropriate use of logic (Chapman 1988). Finally the individual enter into the formal operational stage and this stage extends into adulthood. During this final stage the individual has finally realized the use of hypothetical and deductive reasoning; additionally, they will further the ability to think about abstract concepts. One considers that many of these perspectives on development differ from Core Knowledge perspectives in that Piaget’s views on development are largely linked to abstract notions of personality, reasoning, ego, and logic, whereas Core Knowledge development largely considers more substantiated skills (Cole 2005). To an extent one could then contend that Piaget’s perspective on development is more closely linked to a vision of proper intellectual development, while Core Knowledge theory is more concerned with readily discernable skills. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has compared and contrasted the Core Knowledge theory of development with Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. The essay has demonstrated that these theories differ in that the Core Knowledge theory contends that human development is largely rooted in innate ‘core’ abilities, whereas Piaget’s theory views human development in terms of dynamic transformations and changes. Within this spectrum of understanding there are a number of areas where the theories intertwine. Still, perhaps the most significant implication for these divergent perspectives is the recognition that Core Knowledge theory transcends culture, whereas Piaget’s perspective is contingent on cultural inputs. Ultimately, it’s clear there are elements of both perspectives that hold strong claims to truth. References Chapman, M. (1988). Constructive Evolution: Origins and Development of Piaget’s Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cole, M. (2005). The Development of Children. New York: Worth Publishers. Cordes, S, & Brannon, E 2009, 'Crossing the Divide: Infants Discriminate Small From Large Numerosities', Developmental Psychology, 45, 6, pp. 1583-1594 Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., Spelke, E. (2004). Core Systems of Number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8. 307-314. Gelman, S (2003). The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Santrock, J.W. (2008). A Topical Approach To Life-Span Development (pp.211-216). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Spelke, E.S. (2008). Core knowledge. American Psychologist, 1233-1243. Tuckman, Bruce W. (2010) Educational Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Print Walkerdine, V (1990). The Mastery of Reason: Cognitive Development and the Production of Rationality. London: Routledge. Read More