Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory - Literature review Example

Introduction From the observation of Piaget, children have the ability to create ideas. Such ideas are not limiting children from receiving knowledge coming from teachers or parents. Piaget’s work and hypothesis has provided foundation on which theorists have been able to be based. Actually, this is the basis from which Piaget constructed his reasoning. Basing on constructionist ideology, knowledge can be constructed. Conversely, learning in children can occur when they create artifacts or products. Additionally, the assertion postulated by Piaget holds that these children are more likely to be engaged in learning especially when these products or artifacts are meaningful and relevant to them. It is this position that made Piaget develop four stages of cognitive development. This is the point of departure in this assessment: critical analysis of a step-wise sequence of mental development during childhood. In so doing the assessment will argue core ideas of the theory thus supporting and refuting evidences linked to the argument of the theory. One of the key values that Piaget believed in is that child’s development can occur through a continuous transformation of thought processes. Additionally, Brooks & Brooks (2000) posit that this development stage consists of several months especially when a given development is taking place. This is one area that has gained controversy among other theorists. For instance, Wise (1985) believes that children can be grouped in accordance with chronological age. Wise adds that this categorization when assessed shows that the development of children levels differ significantly. Such findings contradict sensorimotor stage which according to Piaget starts from birth to 2 years. The contradiction is that knowledge is limited according to this stage as the process is based on experience and physical interactions. To further conceptualise his argument, Piaget insists that children can develop steadily and gradually throughout the different stages and the experiences a child has in one stage assist or acts as foundation in the next stage. While this is the argument posited by Piaget in the first stage, the other side of argument is to find the connectedness of the evidence contained in the assertions. When Piaget believes, in this stage of development (sensorimotor stage) that children make attempts to discover and explore; particularly putting objects in the mouth, scholars such as Martin (2000) have documented that at the ages of 7-10 moths children develop object permanence. This does not only conforms to Piaget’s theory as postulated in the first stage but also provides evidence that memory and imagination of children develop through discovery and exploration. Additionally, recent research by Burns & Silbey (2000) has demonstrated that older children and to some extent adults who were not passed in some stages of Piaget’s stages are sometimes forced to pass through later stages process information that are to some extent characteristic of young children at the same development stage thus affirming Piaget’s assertion that at the first stage of development children’s have restricted learning to one dimension or aspect. The second argument concerns the second stage which is preoperational stage. In this case, the theory posits that children in this stage develop linguistically and other elements developed by children in this stage include egocentric perspective, symbolic thoughts but these are accompanied by limited logic. To explain how children acquires this stage, Piaget included elements that enabled children develop problem-solving skills that included materials like sand, water and blocks. Another argument postulated by Piaget in this stage is that while children make attempts to engage themselves in problem solving skills, such will be enhanced if adults or teachers elicit conversation from the child. While these are arguments or evidences presented by Piaget with regard to the second stage which apparently supports cognitive development stages in children, counter argument from other scholars and theorist have viewed the argument from Piaget differently. For instance, Aronson (2000) believes that the verbalization of the child as argued by Piaget is supposed to give the basis that allows the teacher or the adult to infer the mechanisms of the thought processes of a child. In so doing, Aronson sees lack of logic development in the second stage since rational thought which is supposed to be apparent makes little appearance or rather is given little attention by Piaget especially with the set experiments. To support the argument from Aronson, it can be realized during this stage that children can link together unrelated materials or events, can see objects as ones that possessing life and at the same time may not be able to understand point of view of the materials in the environment of possession thus may not be able to reverse operations. This point of view negates or disapproves position taken by Piaget’s second stage of ‘cognitive development. To further argue against Piaget’s second stage of development, in his research, Anderson (1990) noted that children at preoperational stage who understands that adding three to four yields seven yet they may end up performing the reverse operation of taking three from four. The research from Anderson (1990) and Aronson (2000) argue against Piaget’s evidence and as a matter of fact prove that unlike what Piaget believes in, the stage is rather restricted to one dimension or aspect. To underscore positions held by Anderson and Aronson, Piaget made a test by pouring liquid into two identical containers. When he poured liquid from one container into a third one there was a low level in the new container. The conclusion of the child was that there was less liquid in the third container. This is affirmation that Anderson and Aronson researches are right and that the second stage of cognitive development as argued by Piaget is one dimensional---a concept not captured by the theory. On the other hand, to show evidence that Piaget’s second stage of cognitive development is the case where schools have been developing effective questioning regarding characterization of objects. For instance, there has been an instance where students investigate geometric shapes and in so doing teachers can ask them to group these shapes in accordance with their characteristics. As Bandura (1986) adds, “second stage of cognitive development by Piaget is a recipe for child’s mental development since when teachers are engaged in interactions or discussion with children such children may engender their discovery of the variety of ways to group objects and in so doing, children are helped think about the quantities in better ways” (p. 29). Conversely, Piaget notes that the third stage is marked by advanced cognitive development where children development some skills such as language and basic skills such as problems solving and relating one item and another becomes accelerated. According to the stage, such acceleration in development is characterized by children’s ability to differentiate two or three dimensions at the same time unlike in the previous stags. Relating it to the experiment done by Piaget concerning the liquid levels then the argument posited by this theory would insinuate that when the experiment was conducted the children could notice lower levels of the liquid in the third container but at the same time the child should have the ability of noticing that the reason for the difference is because the newly introduced or the third glass has wider surface thus being able to see events from two or three dimensions. The underpinnings suggested by Piaget in this stage have been experimented in attempts to find the basis of argument. For instance, Desetta & Wolin (2000) show that the evidence attached to cognitive development in the third stage is when children are able to successfully separate and classify objects in their environment according to a given characteristics. This is a logical operations that supports or provides evidence concerning what Piaget believe children’s cognitive development posit at this stage. Eggen & Kauchak (2000) recognize support the evidence provided in this stage by adding that “multiple ways of representing a mathematical solution and hands-on experience can be ways of enhancing the development of this cognitive stage” (p. 58). In as much scholars have argued against over-emphasize on the significance of hands-on engagements or activities (Ertmer & Newby, 1993; Anderson, 1998). However, there have been contemporary researches that have attempted to argue against Piaget’s concrete operations stage. The position held by these researches is that the stage fails to provide students with avenues that can help them make abstract ideas as concrete as this stage suggests. At the ages of 7-11 years there are development of stages that are manifested in systematic and logical manipulation of symbols but formal operations such as 12x + 24x =36 cannot be solved by children at such ages especially if they are not allowed to make references to a concrete situation as suggested by the teacher (Weinert & Helmke, 1998). Consequently, when Piaget suggests that this stage is manifested by children’s ability to differentiate two or three dimensions such has been criticized by Schunck (2000) who suggests that “such dimensions lack in practicability” (p. 59). By lacking practicability Schunck adds that if children indeed acquire different dimensions of viewing objects then there should have as well acquire analytical skills that allow them decipher the information they need in solving problems. Another strong argument that has argued against the evidence presented by Piaget in the third stage is the assertion Schunck points that this stage apparently underestimates the abilities of young children and in so doing, young children may fail when given tasks they can do when subjected under simpler conditions. The last stage in this case is formal operation. According to this stage Piaget suggests that children are capable of forming hypothesis and through this hypothesis they deduce possible consequences thus allowing them construct their own mathematics, logics or ideas (Piaget, 2001). Piaget also suggests that children at this stage begin to develop thought patters which are sequential thus developing patterned reasoning that can be done using pure symbols. The applicability of this argument is when students are involved in connecting mathematical concepts to real-life situations. Further evidence of this is that children in school are able to apply knowledge of rational equations presented to them. Mathematical expressions such as Jane cleaned her house in 6 days working 3 hours per day. How long will it take Jane and James to clean the same house working on the same number of hours per day are developments that have been developed in schools to help support evidence presented by Piaget in this stage of cognitive development. Just like previous stages, Piaget has been criticized with regard to this stage. For instance, Schunck (2000) argues that what Piaget did was to overestimate the abilities of older children or learners. This overestimation has been wrongly manifested in learning or school set up where middle school teachers who have been interpreting the works of Piaget particularly at this stage make assumptions that their students will always think logically in abstract scenario. Conclusion In summary the work of Piaget was to present an argument that children seek meaningful interactions with objects around them and in so doing construct knowledge concerning themselves and the environment around them. Collectively, Piaget has presented cognitive development theory essential for adoption in classroom set up through stages discussed above. However, it is essential when making attempts to adopt Piaget’s stages to assess learners; mental models so as to also understand the process of learning or mental development as a whole. References Anderson, M. (1998). Jerome Bruner. Educational Psychology. Portland, OR: Cortland College. Retrieved June 2014, from http://facultyweb.cortland.edu/~andersmd/cog/brunder.html Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman. Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate: Teaching compassion after Columbine. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Burns, M., & Silbey, R. (2000). So you have to teach math? Sound advice for K-6 teachers. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications. Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (2000). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Desetta, A., & Wolin, S. (Eds.). (2000). The struggle to be strong: True stories by teens about overcoming tough times. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing. Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2000). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72. Martin, D. J. (2000). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Piaget, J. (2001). The psychology of intelligence (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge. [Originally published in 1950]. Schunck, D. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Weinert, F. E., & Helmke, A. (1998). The neglected role of individual differences in theoretical models of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 8, 309–324. Wise, S. L. (1985). The development and validity of a scale measuring attitudes toward statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 401–405 Read More