Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

according to piaget, in what stage do children begin to consider that rules can be conditional?

Piaget's theory of cognitive development is a comprehensive theory near the nature and evolution of human intelligence. Piaget believed that one'due south childhood plays a vital and active role in a person's evolution.[i] Piaget'southward thought is primarily known every bit a developmental stage theory. The theory deals with the nature of knowledge itself and how humans gradually come up to acquire, construct, and use information technology.[2] To Piaget, cognitive evolution was a progressive reorganization of mental processes resulting from biological maturation and ecology experience. He believed that children construct an understanding of the world around them, experience discrepancies between what they already know and what they discover in their environment, then adjust their ideas accordingly.[iii] Moreover, Piaget claimed that cerebral development is at the center of the human organism, and linguistic communication is contingent on knowledge and understanding caused through cerebral development.[iv] Piaget'due south earlier piece of work received the greatest attention. Many parents have been encouraged to provide a rich, supportive environment for their kid's natural propensity to grow and learn. Kid-centered classrooms and "open pedagogy" are direct applications of Piaget's views.[5] Despite its huge success, Piaget's theory has some limitations that Piaget recognized himself: for instance, the theory supports sharp stages rather than continuous development (decalage).[6]

Nature of intelligence: operative and figurative

Piaget noted that reality is a dynamic system of continuous modify and, as such, is defined in reference to the two atmospheric condition that ascertain dynamic systems. Specifically, he argued that reality involves transformations and states.[7]Transformations refer to all manners of changes that a thing or person can undergo.States refer to the conditions or the appearances in which things or persons can be found between transformations. For example, in that location might be changes in shape or grade (for instance, liquids are reshaped as they are transferred from one vessel to another, and similarly humans change in their characteristics as they grow older), in size (for example, a serial of coins on a table might be placed close to each other or far apart), or in placement or location in infinite and time (due east.g., various objects or persons might be plant at one place at one time and at a different place at another time). Thus, Piaget argued, if human being intelligence is to exist adaptive, information technology must take functions to represent both the transformational and the static aspects of reality.[8] He proposed that operative intelligence is responsible for the representation and manipulation of the dynamic or transformational aspects of reality, and that figurative intelligence is responsible for the representation of the static aspects of reality.[ix]

Operative intelligence is the active attribute of intelligence. It involves all deportment, overt or covert, undertaken in order to follow, recover, or conceptualize the transformations of the objects or persons of interest.[10]Figurative intelligence is the more than or less static aspect of intelligence, involving all means of representation used to retain in mind usa (i.eastward., successive forms, shapes, or locations) that intervene betwixt transformations. That is, it involves perception, imitation, mental imagery, cartoon, and language.[11] Therefore, the figurative aspects of intelligence derive their significant from the operative aspects of intelligence, because states cannot exist independently of the transformations that interconnect them. Piaget stated that the figurative or the representational aspects of intelligence are subservient to its operative and dynamic aspects, and therefore, that understanding substantially derives from the operative aspect of intelligence.[ten]

At whatsoever fourth dimension, operative intelligence frames how the globe is understood and it changes if understanding is not successful. Piaget stated that this procedure of understanding and alter involves two basic functions:assimilation andaccommodation.[11] [12] [13] [14]

Absorption and adaptation

Through his study of the field of didactics, Piaget focused on two processes, which he named assimilation and accommodation. To Piaget, absorption meant integrating external elements into structures of lives or environments, or those we could have through experience.Assimilation is how humans perceive and adapt to new information. It is the process of fitting new information into pre-existing cerebral schemas.[15]Assimilation in which new experiences are reinterpreted to fit into, or assimilate with, erstwhile ideas.[16] It occurs when humans are faced with new or unfamiliar information and refer to previously learned information in order to make sense of it. In contrast,accommodation is the process of taking new information in one's environment and altering pre-existing schemas in gild to fit in the new information. This happens when the existing schema (knowledge) does not work, and needs to exist changed to deal with a new object or state of affairs.[17] Accommodation is imperative considering it is how people will continue to translate new concepts, schemas, frameworks, and more.[18] Piaget believed that the homo encephalon has been programmed through evolution to bring equilibrium, which is what he believed ultimately influences structures by the internal and external processes through absorption and adaptation.[15]

Piaget's understanding was that assimilation and adaptation cannot be without the other.[nineteen] They are two sides of a coin. To assimilate an object into an existing mental schema, i showtime needs to take into account or accommodate to the particularities of this object to a sure extent. For instance, to recognize (assimilate) an apple as an apple, ane must first focus (conform) on the contour of this object. To do this, one needs to roughly recognize the size of the object. Evolution increases the balance, or equilibration, between these ii functions. When in balance with each other, assimilation and adaptation generate mental schemas of the operative intelligence. When one function dominates over the other, they generate representations which belong to figurative intelligence.[xx]

Sensory-motor stage

Cerebral development is Jean Piaget'south theory. Through a series of stages, Piaget proposed four stages of cognitive development: thesensorimotor,preoperational,concrete operational andformal operational period.[21] Thesensorimotor stage is the first of the four stages in cognitive development which "extends from nativity to the acquisition of language".[22] In this stage, infants progressively construct noesis and understanding of the earth by coordinating experiences (such as vision and hearing) with physical interactions with objects (such equally grasping, sucking, and stepping).[23] Infants gain knowledge of the world from the physical deportment they perform within it.[24] They progress from reflexive, instinctual action at nascence to the first of symbolic idea toward the end of the stage.[24]

Children larn that they are separate from the environment. They can think well-nigh aspects of the environment, even though these may be outside the reach of the child'southward senses. In this stage, co-ordinate to Piaget, the development of object permanence is one of the almost important accomplishments.[15]Object permanence is a child's agreement that objects keep to exist even though he or she cannot see or hear them.[24] Peek-a-boo is a good examination for that. By the end of the sensorimotor period, children develop a permanent sense of cocky and object.[25]

US Navy 100406-N-7478G-346 Operations Specialist 2d Class Reginald Harlmon and Electronics Technician 3rd Class Maura Schulze play peek-a-boo with a kid in the Children'southward Ward at Hospital Likas

Piaget divided the sensorimotor stage into half dozen sub-stages".[25]

Sub-Stage Historic period Clarification
1Simple Reflexes Birth-six weeks "Coordination of awareness and activity through reflexive behaviors".[25] Iii master reflexes are described past Piaget: sucking of objects in the mouth, following moving or interesting objects with the eyes, and closing of the mitt when an object makes contact with the palm (palmar grasp). Over the first half dozen weeks of life, these reflexes brainstorm to go voluntary actions. For case, the palmar reflex becomes intentional grasping.[26]
2Beginning habits and chief circular reactions stage 6 weeks-4 months "Coordination of awareness and two types of schema: habits (reflex) and primary round reactions (reproduction of an outcome that initially occurred by chance). The primary focus is still on the infant'southward body".[25] As an example of this type of reaction, an infant might echo the move of passing their hand before their face. Too at this phase, passive reactions, caused by classical or operant conditioning, tin brainstorm.[26]
iiiSecondary circular reactions phase 4–8 months Development of habits. "Infants get more object-oriented, moving beyond cocky-preoccupation; repeat deportment that bring interesting or pleasurable results".[25] This stage is associated primarily with the evolution of coordination betwixt vision and prehension. Three new abilities occur at this phase: intentional grasping for a desired object, secondary circular reactions, and differentiations between ends and means. At this stage, infants will intentionally grasp the air in the direction of a desired object, often to the entertainment of friends and family. Secondary circular reactions, or the repetition of an action involving an external object begin; for example, moving a switch to plough on a calorie-free repeatedly. The differentiation betwixt means and ends besides occurs. This is perhaps one of the most important stages of a child's growth equally information technology signifies the dawn of logic.[26]
4Coordination of secondary round reactions stages 8–12 months "Coordination of vision and touch—mitt-eye coordination; coordination of schemas and intentionality".[25] This stage is associated primarily with the development of logic and the coordination between means and ends. This is an extremely important stage of evolution, belongings what Piaget calls the "get-go proper intelligence". Also, this stage marks the beginning of goal orientation, the deliberate planning of steps to meet an objective.[26]
fiveTertiary circular reactions, novelty, and curiosity 12–eighteen months "Infants become intrigued by the many properties of objects and by the many things they can make happen to objects; they experiment with new behavior".[25] This stage is associated primarily with the discovery of new ways to run into goals. Piaget describes the child at this juncture every bit the "young scientist," conducting pseudo-experiments to discover new methods of meeting challenges.[26]
6Internalization of Schemas 18–24 months "Infants develop the ability to use primitive symbols and grade enduring mental representations".[25]This stage is associated primarily with the beginnings of insight, or true inventiveness. This marks the passage into the preoperational stage.

Pre-operational phase

Piaget's 2nd phase, the pre-operational stage, starts when the child begins to learn to speak at historic period two and lasts up until the age of seven. During the Pre-operational Stage of cognitive development, Piaget noted that children do non yet understand physical logic and cannot mentally dispense data.[27] Children's increase in playing and pretending takes place in this stage. Still, the child all the same has problem seeing things from different points of view. The children'due south play is mainly categorized by symbolic play and manipulating symbols. Such play is demonstrated by the idea of checkers beingness snacks, pieces of newspaper being plates, and a box existence a tabular array. Their observations of symbols exemplifies the thought of play with the absenteeism of the actual objects involved. By observing sequences of play, Piaget was able to demonstrate that, towards the end of the second twelvemonth, a qualitatively new kind of psychological functioning occurs, known equally the Pre-operational Stage.[28] [29]

The pre-operational phase is thin and logically inadequate in regard to mental operations. The child is able to grade stable concepts also as magical behavior. The child, nonetheless, is however not able to perform operations, which are tasks that the child tin do mentally, rather than physically. Thinking in this stage is still egocentric, significant the child has difficulty seeing the viewpoint of others. The Pre-operational Stage is divide into two substages: the symbolic function substage, and the intuitive thought substage. The symbolic function substage is when children are able to understand, stand for, call up, and pic objects in their listen without having the object in front of them. The intuitive idea substage is when children tend to advise the questions of "why?" and "how come?" This stage is when children want the knowledge of knowing everything.[29]

Symbolic office substage

At near two to four years of age, children cannot yet manipulate and transform information in a logical way. However, they at present tin can think in images and symbols. Other examples of mental abilities are linguistic communication and pretend play. Symbolic play is when children develop imaginary friends or office-play with friends. Children's play becomes more than social and they assign roles to each other. Some examples of symbolic play include playing house, or having a tea party. Interestingly, the blazon of symbolic play in which children engage is connected with their level of creativity and power to connect with others.[30] Additionally, the quality of their symbolic play can have consequences on their later on evolution. For example, immature children whose symbolic play is of a tearing nature tend to exhibit less prosocial behavior and are more than likely to display antisocial tendencies in later years.[31]

In this stage, there are however limitations, such equally egocentrism and precausal thinking.

Egocentrism occurs when a child is unable to distinguish betwixt their own perspective and that of another person. Children tend to stick to their own viewpoint, rather than consider the view of others. Indeed, they are not even aware that such a concept as "different viewpoints" exists.[32] Egocentrism tin can be seen in an experiment performed by Piaget and Swiss developmental psychologist Bärbel Inhelder, known as the three-mountain problem. In this experiment, three views of a mount are shown to the child, who is asked what a traveling doll would encounter at the various angles. The child will consistently draw what they tin can see from the position from which they are seated, regardless of from what angle they are asked to take the doll'due south perspective. Egocentrism would also cause a child to believe, "I likeSesame Street, so Daddy must likeSesame Street, too".

Similar to preoperational children's egocentric thinking is their structuring of a cause and effect relationships. Piaget coined the term "precausal thinking" to describe the way in which preoperational children use their own existing ideas or views, like in egocentrism, to explain cause-and-result relationships. Three main concepts of causality every bit displayed past children in the preoperational phase include: animism, artificialism and transductive reasoning.[33]

Animism is the conventionalities that inanimate objects are capable of actions and have lifelike qualities. An example could be a kid believing that the sidewalk was mad and made them fall downwards, or that the stars twinkle in the sky because they are happy. Artificialism refers to the belief that environmental characteristics tin can be attributed to human actions or interventions. For example, a child might say that it is windy outside considering someone is blowing very hard, or the clouds are white because someone painted them that colour. Finally, precausal thinking is categorized by transductive reasoning. Transductive reasoning is when a child fails to sympathize the true relationships between crusade and effect.[29] [34] Unlike deductive or inductive reasoning (full general to specific, or specific to general), transductive reasoning refers to when a child reasons from specific to specific, cartoon a relationship betwixt ii separate events that are otherwise unrelated. For example, if a child hears the canis familiaris bawl and then a airship popped, the kid would conclude that because the dog barked, the airship popped.

Intuitive thought substage

At betwixt virtually the ages of 4 and 7, children tend to become very curious and ask many questions, beginning the use of primitive reasoning. There is an emergence in the interest of reasoning and wanting to know why things are the way they are. Piaget called it the "intuitive substage" considering children realize they have a vast amount of knowledge, but they are unaware of how they acquired it. Centration, conservation, irreversibility, class inclusion, and transitive inference are all characteristics of preoperative thought. Centration is the human activity of focusing all attending on 1 characteristic or dimension of a situation, whilst disregarding all others. Conservation is the awareness that altering a substance's appearance does not change its bones properties. Children at this stage are unaware of conservation and exhibit centration. Both centration and conservation tin be more easily understood once familiarized with Piaget's nearly famous experimental chore.

In this task, a child is presented with two identical beakers containing the same amount of liquid. The child usually notes that the beakers practise contain the same amount of liquid. When one of the beakers is poured into a taller and thinner container, children who are younger than seven or eight years old typically say that the 2 beakers no longer contain the aforementioned amount of liquid, and that the taller container holds the larger quantity (centration), without taking into consideration the fact that both beakers were previously noted to contain the same amount of liquid. Due to superficial changes, the kid was unable to cover that the properties of the substances continued to remain the same (conservation).

Irreversibility is a concept adult in this stage which is closely related to the ideas of centration and conservation. Irreversibility refers to when children are unable to mentally contrary a sequence of events. In the aforementioned beaker state of affairs, the child does not realize that, if the sequence of events was reversed and the water from the tall beaker was poured back into its original beaker, so the same amount of h2o would exist. Another example of children'south reliance on visual representations is their misunderstanding of "less than" or "more than than". When two rows containing equal amounts of blocks are placed in front of a child, i row spread further apart than the other, the child will recall that the row spread further contains more blocks.[29] [35]

Form inclusion refers to a kind of conceptual thinking that children in the preoperational stage cannot yet grasp. Children'due south inability to focus on 2 aspects of a situation at once inhibits them from understanding the principle that one category or class can contain several different subcategories or classes.[33] For example, a iv-twelvemonth-old girl may be shown a movie of eight dogs and three cats. The girl knows what cats and dogs are, and she is aware that they are both animals. However, when asked, "Are there more than dogs or animals?" she is likely to answer "more dogs". This is due to her difficulty focusing on the ii subclasses and the larger class all at the same fourth dimension. She may accept been able to view the dogs as dogsor animals, but struggled when trying to classify them as both, simultaneously.[36] [37] Similar to this is concept relating to intuitive thought, known as "transitive inference".

Transitive inference is using previous noesis to determine the missing piece, using basic logic. Children in the preoperational stage lack this logic. An case of transitive inference would be when a kid is presented with the data "A" is greater than "B" and "B" is greater than "C". This kid may have difficulty here understanding that "A" is also greater than "C".

Concrete operational stage

Theconcrete operational stage is the third phase of Piaget'southward theory of cognitive development. This phase, which follows the preoperational stage, occurs between the ages of vii and 11 (preadolescence) years,[38] and is characterized past the appropriate utilize of logic. During this phase, a child's thought processes become more than mature and "adult similar". They start solving problems in a more logical fashion. Abstruse, hypothetical thinking is not yet developed in the child, and children can simply solve issues that apply to physical events or objects. At this stage, the children undergo a transition where the child learns rules such as conservation.[39] Piaget determined that children are able to comprise Anterior reasoning. Inductive reasoning involves drawing inferences from observations in order to make a generalization. In contrast, children struggle with deductive reasoning, which involves using a generalized principle in society to endeavor to predict the consequence of an event. Children in this stage commonly feel difficulties with figuring out logic in their heads. For example, a child will sympathize that "A is more than than B" and "B is more than C". Nonetheless, when asked "is A more than than C?", the child might non exist able to logically figure the question out in his or her caput.

Two other important processes in the concrete operational stage are logic and the elimination of egocentrism.

Egocentrism is the inability to consider or understand a perspective other than one's own. Information technology is the phase where the thought and morality of the child is completely self focused.[xl] During this stage, the child acquires the ability to view things from some other individual's perspective, even if they think that perspective is incorrect. For instance, bear witness a child a comic in which Jane puts a doll under a box, leaves the room, and then Melissa moves the doll to a drawer, and Jane comes dorsum. A kid in the concrete operations phase will say that Jane will still think it'southward under the box even though the child knows it is in the drawer. (Meet as well Simulated-conventionalities chore.)

Children in this phase can, yet, only solve problems that use to actual (concrete) objects or events, and not abstract concepts or hypothetical tasks. Understanding and knowing how to use full common sense has not nevertheless been completely adapted.

Piaget adamant that children in the concrete operational stage were able to incorporate inductive logic. On the other manus, children at this age have difficulty using deductive logic, which involves using a general principle to predict the outcome of a specific result. This includes mental reversibility. An instance of this is being able to contrary the order of relationships between mental categories. For example, a child might be able to recognize that his or her dog is a Labrador, that a Labrador is a dog, and that a dog is an animate being, and draw conclusions from the information available, every bit well as use all these processes to hypothetical situations.[41]

The abstruse quality of the boyish's thought at the formal operational level is evident in the adolescent's verbal problem solving ability.[41] The logical quality of the boyish'due south thought is when children are more likely to solve issues in a trial-and-error way.[41] Adolescents begin to recall more than as a scientist thinks, devising plans to solve problems and systematically test opinions.[41] They use hypothetical-deductive reasoning, which ways that they develop hypotheses or best guesses, and systematically deduce, or conclude, which is the best path to follow in solving the problem.[41] During this phase the adolescent is able to understand love, logical proofs and values. During this stage the immature person begins to entertain possibilities for the futurity and is fascinated with what they can be.[41]

Adolescents also are changing cognitively by the manner that they recollect well-nigh social matters.[41] Adolescent egocentrism governs the way that adolescents think about social matters, and is the heightened self-consciousness in them as they are, which is reflected in their sense of personal uniqueness and invincibility.[41] Adolescent egocentrism tin be dissected into two types of social thinking, imaginary audience that involves attending-getting beliefs, and personal fable, which involves an boyish's sense of personal uniqueness and invincibility.[41] These 2 types of social thinking brainstorm to bear upon a child's egocentrism in the concrete stage. However, it carries over to the formal operational stage when they are then faced with abstract thought and fully logical thinking.

Testing for concrete operations

Piagetian tests are well known and practiced to test for physical operations. The nearly prevalent tests are those for conservation. There are some important aspects that the experimenter must take into account when performing experiments with these children.

One example of an experiment for testing conservation is an experimenter will have two glasses that are the same size, fill them to the same level with liquid, which the child volition acknowledge is the same. And so, the experimenter will cascade the liquid from ane of the small spectacles into a tall, thin drinking glass. The experimenter will then ask the kid if the taller drinking glass has more liquid, less liquid, or the same amount of liquid. The child will and so give his answer. The experimenter volition ask the kid why he gave his answer, or why he thinks that is.

  • Justification: Later the kid has answered the question existence posed, the experimenter must ask why the child gave that answer. This is important considering the answers they give tin can help the experimenter to assess the child'due south developmental age.[42]
  • Number of times request: Some argue that if a child is asked if the amount of liquid in the outset prepare of glasses is equal then, later pouring the water into the taller glass, the experimenter asks again about the amount of liquid, the children will starting time to uncertainty their original answer. They may beginning to think that the original levels were not equal, which will influence their second answer.[43]
  • Word Pick: The phrasing that the experimenter uses may touch how the child answers. If, in the liquid and drinking glass case, the experimenter asks, "Which of these glasses has more liquid?", the child may recall that his thoughts of them beingness the aforementioned is wrong because the developed is proverb that one must have more. Alternatively, if the experimenter asks, "Are these equal?", then the kid is more likely to say that they are, because the experimenter is implying that they are.

Formal operational stage

The final stage is known as theformal operational phase (boyhood and into adulthood, roughly ages xi to approximately 15-20): Intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstruse concepts. This form of thought includes "assumptions that take no necessary relation to reality."[44] At this point, the person is capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning. During this time, people develop the ability to think nigh abstract concepts.

Piaget stated that "hypothetico-deductive reasoning" becomes of import during the formal operational stage. This blazon of thinking involves hypothetical "what-if" situations that are not always rooted in reality, i.due east. counterfactual thinking. It is frequently required in science and mathematics.

  • Abstract thought emerges during the formal operational stage. Children tend to retrieve very concretely and specifically in earlier stages, and begin to consider possible outcomes and consequences of actions.
  • Metacognition, the capacity for "thinking nearly thinking" that allows adolescents and adults to reason nigh their idea processes and monitor them.[45]
  • Problem-solving is demonstrated when children use trial-and-mistake to solve problems. The ability to systematically solve a problem in a logical and methodical fashion emerges.

While children in primary school years generally used inductive reasoning, drawing general conclusions from personal experiences and specific facts, adolescents get capable of deductive reasoning, in which they draw specific conclusions from abstract concepts using logic. This capability results from their capacity to think hypothetically.[46]

"However, research has shown that not all persons in all cultures accomplish formal operations, and most people practice not apply formal operations in all aspects of their lives".[47]

Experiments

Piaget and his colleagues conducted several experiments to assess formal operational thought.[48]

In 1 of the experiments, Piaget evaluated the cerebral capabilities of children of different ages through the use of a calibration and varying weights. The chore was to residue the scale by hooking weights on the ends of the scale. To successfully consummate the job, the children must utilise formal operational thought to realize that the distance of the weights from the center and the heaviness of the weights both afflicted the balance. A heavier weight has to exist placed closer to the centre of the scale, and a lighter weight has to exist placed farther from the center, and so that the two weights balance each other.[46] While 3- to five- yr olds could not at all comprehend the concept of balancing, children by the historic period of 7 could balance the scale by placing the same weights on both ends, but they failed to realize the importance of the location. By age 10, children could think well-nigh location but failed to use logic and instead used trial-and-mistake. Finally, by age 13 and 14, in early adolescence, some children more than clearly understood the relationship between weight and distance and could successfully implement their hypothesis.[49]

Example of Piaget's conservation tasks

The stages and causation

Piaget sees children'due south conception of causation as a march from "primitive" conceptions of cause to those of a more scientific, rigorous, and mechanical nature. These primitive concepts are characterized as supernatural, with a decidedly non-natural or non-mechanical tone. Piaget has as his nigh basic assumption that babies are phenomenists. That is, their cognition "consists of assimilating things to schemas" from their own activeness such that they appear, from the child'south point of view, "to take qualities which, in fact, stem from the organism". Consequently, these "subjective conceptions," so prevalent during Piaget's commencement stage of evolution, are dashed upon discovering deeper empirical truths.

Piaget gives the example of a child believing that the moon and stars follow him on a nighttime walk. Upon learning that such is the example for his friends, he must separate his self from the object, resulting in a theory that the moon is immobile, or moves independently of other agents.

The second stage, from effectually three to eight years of historic period, is characterized by a mix of this type of magical, animistic, or "non-natural" conceptions of causation and mechanical or "naturalistic" causation. This conjunction of natural and non-natural causal explanations supposedly stems from experience itself, though Piaget does not make much of an attempt to draw the nature of the differences in conception. In his interviews with children, he asked questions specifically about natural phenomena, such as: "What makes clouds motility?", "What makes the stars motility?", "Why do rivers flow?" The nature of all the answers given, Piaget says, are such that these objects must perform their actions to "fulfill their obligations towards men". He calls this "moral explanation".[l]

Practical applications

Parents can use Piaget'southward theory when deciding how to make up one's mind what to buy in order to support their child'due south growth.[51] Teachers can as well use Piaget'southward theory, for instance, when discussing whether the syllabus subjects are suitable for the level of students or non.[52] For example, recent studies have shown that children in the same grade and of the same age perform differentially on tasks measuring basic addition and subtraction fluency. While children in the preoperational and physical operational levels of cerebral development perform combined arithmetic operations (such every bit addition and subtraction) with similar accuracy,[53] children in the concrete operational level of cerebral development have been able to perform both addition issues and subtraction problems with overall greater fluency.[54]

The phase of cerebral growth of a person differ from another. It affects and influences how someone thinks almost everything including flowers. A 7-calendar month one-time infant, in the sensorimotor historic period, flowers are recognized by smelling, pulling and biting. A slightly older child has non realized that a flower is non fragrant, but similar to many children at her age, her egocentric, two handed curiosity will teach her. In the formal operational phase of an adult, flowers are part of larger, logical scheme. They are used either to earn money or to create beauty. Cognitive development or thinking is an active process from the outset to the stop of life. Intellectual advancement happens considering people at every age and developmental catamenia looks for cerebral equilibrium. To accomplish this residual, the easiest style is to understand the new experiences through the lens of the preexisting ideas. Infants learn that new objects tin be grabbed in the same way of familiar objects, and adults explain the day's headlines equally bear witness for their existing worldview.[55]

However, the application of standardized Piagetian theory and procedures in different societies established widely varying results that lead some to speculate not only that some cultures produce more cerebral development than others simply that without specific kinds of cultural experience, but as well formal schooling, development might finish at certain level, such equally concrete operational level. A procedure was washed following methods developed in Geneva. Participants were presented with two beakers of equal circumference and height, filled with equal amounts of water. The h2o from one chalice was transferred into another with taller and smaller circumference. The children and young adults from not-literate societies of a given age were more likely to recollect that the taller, thinner beaker had more water in it. On the other paw, an experiment on the effects of modifying testing procedures to match local cultural produced a different pattern of results.[56]

Postulated physical mechanisms underlying schemas and stages

In 1967, Piaget considered the possibility of RNA molecules as likely embodiments of his still-abstruse schemas (which he promoted as units of action)—though he did non come to any firm determination.[57] At that time, due to piece of work such every bit that of Swedish biochemist Holger Hydén, RNA concentrations had, indeed, been shown to correlate with learning, so the idea was quite plausible.

Even so, by the time of Piaget's death in 1980, this notion had lost favor. One main trouble was over the protein which, information technology was assumed, such RNA would necessarily produce, and that did not fit in with observation. It was determined that only near 3% of RNA does code for protein.[58] Hence, most of the remaining 97% (the "ncRNA") could theoretically be available to serve as Piagetian schemas (or other regulatory roles in the 2000s under investigation). The issue has not yet been resolved experimentally, but its theoretical aspects were reviewed in 2008[58] — then developed further from the viewpoints of biophysics and epistemology.[59] [threescore] Meanwhile, this RNA-based approach also unexpectedly offered explanations for other several biological issues unresolved, thus providing some measure of corroboration.

Relation to psychometric theories of intelligence

Piaget designed a number of tasks to verify hypotheses arising from his theory. The tasks were not intended to measure individual differences, and they have no equivalent in psychometric intelligence tests. Notwithstanding the dissimilar enquiry traditions in which psychometric tests and Piagetian tasks were adult, the correlations between the two types of measures have been found to be consistently positive and more often than not moderate in magnitude. A common full general cistron underlies them. It has been shown that it is possible to construct a battery consisting of Piagetian tasks that is as skillful a mensurate of general intelligence equally standard IQ tests.[61] [62] [63]

Challenges to Piagetian Stage Theory

Piagetian accounts of development accept been challenged on several grounds. First, as Piaget himself noted, development does non always progress in the shine manner his theory seems to predict. "Decalage," or progressive forms of cognitive developmental progression in a specific domain, suggest that the stage model is, at best, a useful approximation.[64] Furthermore, studies have found that children may be able to learn concepts and capability of complex reasoning that supposedly represented in more advanced stages with relative ease (Lourenço & Machado, 1996, p. 145).[65] [66] More broadly, Piaget'due south theory is "domain general," predicting that cognitive maturation occurs meantime across different domains of noesis (such every bit mathematics, logic, and agreement of physics or language).[64] Piaget did not take into account variability in a child's performance notably how a kid tin differ in sophistication across several domains.

During the 1980s and 1990s, cognitive developmentalists were influenced by "neo-nativist" and evolutionary psychology ideas. These ideas de-emphasized domain general theories and emphasized domain specificity or modularity of listen.[67] Modularity implies that different cognitive faculties may be largely contained of i another, and thus develop according to quite different timetables, which are "influenced past real globe experiences".[67] In this vein, some cognitive developmentalists argued that, rather than being domain general learners, children come equipped with domain specific theories, sometimes referred to as "core knowledge," which allows them to suspension into learning within that domain. For instance, fifty-fifty young infants announced to exist sensitive to some anticipated regularities in the movement and interactions of objects (for instance, an object cannot pass through another object), or in human being beliefs (for example, a hand repeatedly reaching for an object has that object, not only a item path of motion), every bit it becomes the building block of which more elaborate knowledge is constructed.

Piaget's theory has been said to undervalue the influence that culture has on cognitive evolution. Piaget demonstrates that a child goes through several stages of cerebral evolution and come up to conclusions on their ain merely in reality, a child's sociocultural environment plays an important part in their cognitive development. Social interaction teaches the child about the world and helps them develop through the cognitive stages, which Piaget neglected to consider.[68]

More recent piece of work has strongly challenged some of the bones presumptions of the "core knowledge" school, and revised ideas of domain generality—but from a newer dynamic systems approach, not from a revised Piagetian perspective. Dynamic systems approaches harken to mod neuroscientific enquiry that was non available to Piaget when he was constructing his theory. One of import finding is that domain-specific noesis is constructed as children develop and integrate cognition. This enables the domain to amend the accurateness of the knowledge as well as organization of memories.[67] Even so, this suggests more of a "smooth integration" of learning and evolution than either Piaget, or his neo-nativist critics, had envisioned. Additionally, some psychologists, such equally Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner, thought differently from Piaget, suggesting that language was more than important for cognition development than Piaget implied.[67] [69]

Postal service-Piagetian and Neo-Piagetian Stages

In recent years, several theorists attempted to accost concerns with Piaget's theory past developing new theories and models that can adjust evidence which violates Piagetian predictions and postulates.

  • The neo-Piagetian theories of cerebral development, avant-garde by Robbie Case, Andreas Demetriou, Graeme S. Halford, Kurt W. Fischer, Michael Lamport Eatables, and Juan Pascual-Leone, attempted to integrate Piaget'southward theory with cognitive and differential theories of cerebral organization and development. Their aim was to better account for the cognitive factors of development and for intra-individual and inter-individual differences in cognitive development. They suggested that evolution along Piaget's stages is due to increasing working memory capacity and processing efficiency past "biological maturation".[70] Moreover, Demetriou´s theory ascribes an important role to hypercognitive processes of "self-monitoring, self-recording, self-evaluation, and cocky-regulation", and it recognizes the functioning of several relatively autonomous domains of thought (Demetriou, 1998; Demetriou, Mouyi, Spanoudis, 2010; Demetriou, 2003, p. 153).[71]
  • Piaget's theory stops at the formal operational stage, just other researchers have observed the thinking of adults is more than nuanced than formal operational idea. This 5th phase has been named mail service formal thought or operation.[72] [73] Post formal stages have been proposed. Michael Commons presented evidence for four post formal stages: systematic, meta-systematic, paradigmatic, and cross-paradigmatic (Commons & Richards, 2003, p. 206-208; Oliver, 2004, p. 31).[74] [75] [76] There are many theorists, however, who take criticized "post formal thinking," because the concept lacks both theoretical and empirical verification. The term "integrative thinking" has been suggested for use instead.[77] [78] [79] [fourscore] [81]

Kohlberg's Model of Moral Development

  • A "sentential" stage, said to occur before the early preoperational stage, has been proposed by Fischer, Biggs and Biggs, Commons, and Richards.[82] [83]
  • Searching for a micro-physiological basis for human mental capacity, Traill (1978, Section C5.four [6]; – 1999, Section 8.4 [7]) proposed that there may be "pre-sensorimotor" stages ("Yard−one50", "M−2L", …), which are developed in the womb and/or transmitted genetically.
  • Jerome Bruner has expressed views on cognitive development in a "pragmatic orientation" in which humans actively use knowledge for practical applications, such equally problem solving and understanding reality.[84]
  • Michael Lamport Commons proposed the model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) in ii means: "Horizontal Complexity" and "Vertical Complexity" (Commons & Richards, 2003, p. 205).[75] [85] [86]
  • Kieran Egan has proposed 5 stages of agreement: "somatic", "mythic", "romantic", "philosophic", and "ironic", which is adult through cognitive tools such equally "stories", "binary oppositions", "fantasy" and "rhyme, rhythm, and meter" to enhance memorization to develop a long-lasting learning capacity.[87]
  • Lawrence Kohlberg adult iii stages of moral evolution: "Preconventional", "Conventional" and "Postconventional".[87] [88] Each level is equanimous of two orientation stages, with a full of vi orientation stages: (one) "Penalty-Obedience", (two) "Instrumental Relativist", (3) "Proficient Male child-Dainty Girl", (4) "Law and Club", (5) "Social Contract", and (6) "Universal Ethical Principle".[87] [88]
  • Andreas Demetriou has expressed Neo-Piagetian theories of cerebral development.
  • Jane Loevinger's stages of ego development occur through "an evolution of stages".[89] "Get-go is the Presocial Stage followed past the Symbiotic Phase, Impulsive Phase, Self-Protective Stage, Conformist Stage, Self-Enlightened Level: Transition from Conformist to Conscientious Phase, Individualistic Level: Transition from Conscientious to the Autonomous Stage, Conformist Phase, and Integrated Stage".[89]
  • Ken Wilber has incorporated Piaget's theory in his multidisciplinary field of Integral Theory. The man consciousness is structured in hierarchical social club and organized in "holon" chains or "Nifty chain of being", which are based on the level of spiritual and psychological development.[ninety]

Maslow'south Hierarchy Of Needs

  • The procedure of initiation is a modification of Piaget'due south theory integrating Abraham Maslow's concept of self-appearing.[91]
  • Cheryl Armon has proposed five stages of " the Practiced Life": "Egoistic Hedonism", "Instrumental Hedonism", "Melancholia/Altruistic Mutuality", "Individuality", and "Autonomy/Customs" (Andreoletti & Demick, 2003, p. 284) (Armon, 1984, p. 40-43).[92] [93]
  • Christopher R. Hallpike proposed that human evolution of cognitive moral understanding had evolved from the beginning of time from its primitive state to the nowadays fourth dimension.[94] [95]
  • Robert Kegan extended Piaget'south developmental model to adults in describing the constructive developmental framework.[96]

References

  1. Bound upwards^ http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/content/entry/conscitech/developmental_psychology/0
  2. Bound up^ Torres, J. and Ash, M. (2007). Cognitive development. In Encyclopedia of special teaching: A reference for the pedagogy of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other exceptional individuals. Retrieved from http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/content/entry/wileyse/cognitive_development/0
  3. Bound up^ McLeod, Due south. A. "Piaget | Cognitive Theory". Simply Psychology. Retrieved18 September 2012.
  4. Jump up^ Baldwin, J. (2005). Jean Piaget. In Fundamental thinkers in linguistics and the philosophy of linguistic communication. Retrieved from http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/edinburghthinkl/jean_piaget/0
  5. Jump up^ Peachy Lives from History: The Twentieth Century; September 2008, p1-3
  6. Jump up^ Singer-Freeman, Karen East. "Concrete Operational Period." Encyclopedia of Human being Development. Ed. Neil J. Salkind. Vol. i. M Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2006. 291-292. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX3466300160&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=b6bd1ae3a4e93016b772396b5848a349
  7. Bound up^ Piaget, J. (1977). The role of action in the development of thinking. In Knowledge and development (pp. 17-42). Springer Us.
  8. Jump up^ Maréchal, Grand. (2010). Constructivism. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Instance Study Research (Vol. 1, pp. 220-225). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1562500095&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=due west&asid=15311e6ee67b398da4f1a1967f58503d
  9. Jump up^ Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973).Retentivity and intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  10. ^Jump up to: a b Furth, H. Thousand. (1977). The operative and figurative aspects of noesis in Piaget's theory. B. A. Geber (Ed.). London,, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  11. ^Jump up to: a b Gruber, H. Eastward. (2004). Piaget, Jean (1896-1980). In J. H. Byrne (Ed.), Learning and Memory (2nd ed., pp. 526-529). New York: Macmillan Reference United states. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX3407100185&five=2.one&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=west&asid=b71fd57e9d31971ea40106f27e199015
  12. Spring up^ Assimilation. (2001). In B. Strickland (Ed.), The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 49-fifty). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from http://get.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3406000055&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=174d9bd2c42c2e8475446e5c13301c8d
  13. Jump up^ Trick, J. E. (2006). Assimilation. In Due north. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Man Development (Vol. ane, pp. 118-119). Grand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://get.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.practice?id=GALE%7CCX3466300066&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=ed09320c311b0c0e856cb2ce7c4cd810
  14. Bound upward^ ELKIND, D. (2002). Piaget, Jean (1896–1980). In J. West. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 1894-1898). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://become.galegroup.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX3403200491&v=2.one&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=8de3eeb14aba519a97e788201dd42234
  15. ^Jump up to: a b c Berger, Kathleen Stassen (2008).The developing person through the life span (seventh ed.). Worth. p. 44. ISBN 9780716760801.
  16. Jump upwardly^ Berger, Kathleen Stassen (2008).The developing person through the life span (7th ed.). Worth. p. 45. ISBN 9780716760801.
  17. Leap up^ McLeod, S. A. (2009). Jean Piaget. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html
  18. Jump upwards^ "Block, Jack" "Assimilation, Accommodation, and the Dynamics of Personality Development"
  19. Jump up^ Cake, Jack (1982). "Assimilation, adaptation, and the dynamics of personality development".Child Evolution.53 (two): 281–295. doi:10.2307/1128971.
  20. Jump upwards^ http://etec512learningconference-piaget.weebly.com/theory.html
  21. Bound up^ Berger, Kathleen Stassen (2008).The developing person through the life span (seventh ed.). Worth. p. 43. ISBN 9780716760801.
  22. Jump up^ Tuckman, Bruce W., and David Chiliad. Monetti. Educational Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print
  23. Jump up^ Bernstein, Penner, and Clarke-Stewart, Roy.Psychology Study Guide
  24. ^Bound upwardly to: a b c "Sensorimotor Stage".
  25. ^Jump upward to: a b c d e f chiliad h Santrock, J.W. (2008).A Topical Arroyo To Life-Span Evolution (pp.211-216). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
  26. ^Leap upward to: a b c d east Piaget, J. (1977). Gruber, H.Eastward.; Voneche, J.J., eds.The essential Piaget. New York: Bones Books.
  27. Spring up^ http://psychology.about.com/od/piagetstheory/p/preoperational.htm
  28. Jump upward^ Loftus, Geoff. (2009). "Introduction to Psychology (15th Ed.)".- Affiliate 3
  29. ^Leap upward to: a b c d Santrock, John W. (2004).Life-Span Development (9th Ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College – Chapter 8
  30. Jump upward^ Russ, Due south. W. (2006). "Pretend play, affect, and creativity".New directions in aesthetics, creativity and the arts, Foundations and frontiers in aesthetics: 239–250.
  31. Spring up^ Dunn, Judy; Hughes, Claire. ""I Got Some Swords And You're Dead!": Violent Fantasy, Hating Behavior, Friendship, And Moral Sensibility In Immature Children".Child Evolution.72: 491–505. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00292.
  32. Jump up^ Piaget, A Kid'southward Conception of Space, Norton Edition, 1967; p. 178
  33. ^Jump up to: a b Rathus, Spencer A. (2006).Childhood: voyages in development. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
  34. Jump up^ "Preoperational Phase". RetrievedFebruary 2, 2013.
  35. Jump up^ McLeod, S. A. (2010).Only Psychology
  36. Jump upwards^ Andrews, Glenda; Graeme South. Halford; Karen Murphy; Kathy Knox (2009). "Integration Of Weight And Distance Information In Immature Children: The Role Of Relational Complexity".Cognitive Evolution.24 (1): 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.07.005.
  37. Bound upward^ Branco, J. C; Lourenco, O (2004). "Cognitive and linguistic aspects in 5- to six-year-olds' class inclusion reasoning".Psicologia Educacao Cultura.eight (two): 427–445.
  38. Jump upwards^ Herbert Ginsburg and Sylvia Opper (1979),Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-675140-7, p. 152.
  39. Spring up^ Physical Operations [Video file]. (1993). Davidson Films, Inc. Retrieved October vi, 2014, from Education in Video: Volume I.
  40. Bound up^ SCOTT, J., & MARSHALL, K. (2009).A lexicon of sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  41. ^Spring up to: a b c d e f g h i Santrock, J.West. (2008).A Topical Approach to Life Span Evolution (pp.221-223). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  42. Jump up^ Karplus, R., & Lavatelli C. Due south. (Experimenters), & Davidson films (Producer). (2010, Baronial 10). Classic Piaget Volume i (Davidson Films, Inc.)[Experiments]. Retrieved Dec 1, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FjIso13i20.
  43. Spring upwardly^ McLeod, Due south. A. (2010). Concrete Operational Phase. In Only Psychology. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://world wide web.simplypsychology.org/physical-operational.html
  44. Jump upwardly^ Piaget, Jean (1972).The Psychology of Intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield.
  45. Jump up^ Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen (2013).Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood. NJ: Person Instruction Inc. pp. 64–65. ISBN 0-205-89249-3.
  46. ^Spring upward to: a b Berger, Kathleen Stassen (2014).Invitation to the Life Span, 2nd Edition. New York: Worth Publishers.
  47. Leap up^ Arnett, Jeffrey (2013). "3".Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood: A Cultural Approach (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Teaching Inc. p. 91.
  48. Bound upward^ Inhelder, Barbel; Piaget, Jean (1958).The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the structure of formal operational structures. New York: Bones Books.
  49. Spring upwardly^ Piaget, Jean; Inhedler, Bärbel (1969).The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
  50. Spring up^ Piaget, J (1928). "La causalité chez l'enfant".British Journal of Psychology.eighteen: 276–301. doi:x.1111/j.2044-8295.1928.tb00466.x.
  51. Spring upward^ BUCKLEITNER, Due west. (2008, June 12).New York Times.
  52. Jump up^ Hinde, East. R., & Perry, Due north. (2007).Elementary School Journal, 108(1), 63-79.
  53. Jump upwards^ Ramos-Christian, Vanessa; Robert Schleser; Mary Due east. Varn (2008). "Math fluency: Accurateness versus speed in preoperational and concrete operational first and second class children".Early Babyhood Pedagogy Journal.35 (6): 543–549. doi:10.1007/s10643-008-0234-7.
  54. Bound upwards^ Wubbena, Zane (2013). "Mathematical fluency as a office of conservation power in young children".Learning and Individual Differences.26: 153–155. doi:x.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.013.
  55. Spring upward^ Berger, Kathleen Stassen. (2011).The Developing Person Through the Life Bridge (8th ed., pp. 45-46). Worth Publishers.
  56. Leap up^ Cole, M. (2005). Civilization and cerebral development. In Encyclopedia of cognitive science. Retrieved from http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileycs/culture_and_cognitive_development/0
  57. Jump up^ Piaget, J. (1967/1971).Biologie et connaissance: Essai sur les relations entre les régulations organiques et les processus cognitifs. Gallimard: Paris —Biology and Cognition. Chicago Academy Press; and Edinburgh Academy Press.
  58. ^Spring up to: a b Traill, R.R. (2008).Thinking by Molecule, Synapse, or both? — From Piaget'south Schema, to the Selecting/Editing of ncRNA. Ondwelle: Melbourne. [1]
  59. Bound up^ Traill, R.R. (2011a). "Coherent Infra-Red as logically necessary to explain Piagetian psychology and neuro-microanatomy — …"Journal of Physics: Conference Serial,329, 012018. [Prague briefing: "Electrodynamic Activity of Living Cells"; (1–3 July 2011)]. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/329/1/012018 [ii]
  60. Jump up^ Traill, R.R. (2012).A molecular basis for Piaget's "schème" (as memory-code): Some surprising implications;'PowerPoint' presentation at the 42nd Almanac Conference of the Jean Piaget Society [iii] plus the accompanying notes [four]
  61. Spring up^ Humphreys, L.M.; Rich, S.A.; Davey, T.C. (1985). "A Piagetian Test of General Intelligence".Developmental Psychology.21: 872–877. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.v.872.
  62. Jump upward^ Lautrey, J. (2002). Is in that location a general cistron of cognitive evolution? In Sternberg, R.J. & Grigorenko, E.50. (Eds.),The general cistron of intelligence: How general is information technology? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  63. Leap up^ Weinberg, R.A. (1989). "Intelligence and IQ. Landmark Issues and Neat Debates".American Psychologist.44: 98–104. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.2.98.
  64. ^Bound up to: a b Singer-Freeman, K. E. (2006). Concrete Operational Menstruum. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Development (Vol. 1, pp. 291-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX3466300160&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=b6bd1ae3a4e93016b772396b5848a349
  65. Jump up^ Lourenço, O.; Machado, A. (1996). "In defence of Piaget's theory: A reply to x common criticisms".Psychological Review.103 (1): 143–164. doi:x.1037/0033-295X.103.1.143.
  66. Jump up^ Kay C. Wood, Harlan Smith, and Daurice Grossniklaus. "Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development". pp. 6 [5]Retrieved May 29, 2012
  67. ^Jump upwards to: a b c d Callaghan, T. C. (2005). Cognitive Development Across Infancy. In B. Hopkins (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Child Development (pp. 204-209). Cambridge, Great britain: Cambridge Academy Press. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.practise?id=GALE%7CCX1311100053&v=2.one&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=west&asid=c822fe0523f5b1258756f6e7855acc8d
  68. Jump upwards^ Kail, Robert (2007).Children and Their Development (4 ed.). Pearson.
  69. Spring upward^ Bruner, Jerome South. (2001). In B. Strickland (Ed.), The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (second ed., pp. 100-101). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.practice?id=GALE%7CCX3406000105&v=2.i&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=650268d1759955de0b9432be0e28ba5f
  70. Jump up^ Neo-Piagetian Theories of Development. (2009). In E. Thousand. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of Classroom Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 639-643). Detroit: Macmillan Reference The states. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3027800184&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=5fee96b9c6312e2ec80a2b957d08d51e
  71. Leap upwardly^ Demetriou, A. (2003). Mind, self, and personality: Dynamic interactions from late childhood to early adulthood. Periodical of Developed development, ten(3), 151-171. Retrieved from http://www.adesignmedia.com/OnlineResearch/sp_Mind%20Self%20and%20Personality.pdf
  72. Leap up^ Jan D. Sinnott "The Development of Logic in Machismo: Postformal Thought and Its Applications" (Plenum Press 1998)
  73. Jump up^ Johnson, D. J. (2006). Heart Adulthood. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (Vol. two, pp. 835-842). Thou Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3466300423&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=c6e23814559096bdcd16fc9068c727ee
  74. Jump upwards^ Commons, Grand. L. (2008). Introduction to the model of hierarchical complication and its relationship to postformal action. World Futures, 64(5-7), 305-320. Retrieved from http://www.dareassociation.org/Papers/GWOF_A_330277%20Introduction.pdf
  75. ^Jump up to: a b Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (2003). Iv Postformal Stages. Handbook of Developed Evolution, 199-219. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=56y91WtpwCIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA199&ots=2t8Hicx6K7&sig=VUxWK8p7OVgR9cUzGRP5sWuIeEk#v=onepage&q&f=fake
  76. Bound up^ Oliver, C. R. (2004). Impact of catastrophe on pivotal national leaders' vision statements: Correspondences and discrepancies in moral reasoning, explanatory style, and rumination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate Institute. Retrieved from http://world wide web.dareassociation.org/Carl.Oliver_Dissertation_2004.pdf
  77. Leap up^ Kallio, Eastward. Integrative thinking is the key: an evaluation of current research into the development of thinking in adults. Theory & Psychology, 21 Issue 6 Dec 2011 pp. 785 – 801
  78. Jump up^ Kallio, East. & Helkama, K. 1991. Formal operations and postformal reasoning: A replication. Scandinavian Periodical of Psychology 32 (ane), eighteen-21
  79. Jump upward^ Kallio, East. 1995. Systematic reasoning: Formal or postformal cognition? Journal of Developed Development 2 (3), 187-192
  80. Leap up^ Kramer, D. Post-Formal Operations? A Need for Farther Conceptualization Hum Dev 1983;26:91–105
  81. Jump up^ Marchand, H. The Genetic Epistemologist Book 29, Number 3
  82. Jump up^ Eatables, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (1984a). A general model of stage theory. In Grand. Fifty. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. 1. Tardily boyish and adult cognitive evolution (pp. 120-140). New York: Praeger.
  83. Jump up^ Commons, M. 50., & Richards, F. A. (1984b). Applying the general phase model. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Vol. 1. Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 141-157). New York: Praeger.
  84. Jump up^ Bakhurst, D. (2006). Bruner, Jerome (1915–). In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (Vol. 1, p. 203). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.practice?id=GALE%7CCX3466300119&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&information technology=r&p=GVRL&sw=westward&asid=d850de297c4ec233b0c5cc4eaf6bafb7
  85. Jump upwards^ Eatables, G. Fifty., & Pekker, A. (2008). Presenting the formal theory of hierarchical complexity. World Futures: Journal of Full general Evolution 65(1-3), 375-382.
  86. Jump up^ Commons, K. L., Gane-McCalla, R., Barker C. D., Li, E. Y. (in press). The Model of Hierarchical Complexity equally a measurement system. Journal of Adult Development.
  87. ^Jump upwardly to: a b c Petersen, N. J. (2006). Kid Development Theories. In F. Westward. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Assistants (Vol. 1, pp. 122-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3469600091&five=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=26b7af136b0552cd6503dd1d719701b3
  88. ^Jump upwardly to: a b Voorhis, P. V. (2010). Kohlberg, Lawrence: Moral Development Theory. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory (Vol. one, pp. 508-513). K Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.exercise?id=GALE%7CCX1923700151&5=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=e4752d673a01c82f3d23867cde7a5c46
  89. ^Bound upwards to: a b Forbes, S. A. (2006). Ego Development. In North. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Development (Vol. 1, pp. 442-443). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3466300230&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=b35c3cffb1761177fef91a14fa348d28
  90. Spring upwards^ Wilber, Ken. (2010). In D. A. Leeming, M. Madden, & S. Marlan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Psychology and Organized religion (pp. 962-965). New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3042600539&v=2.ane&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=west&asid=b4fd045913628a8f86d9316598e825e9
  91. Jump up^ Kress, Oliver (1993). "A new arroyo to cognitive development: ontogenesis and the process of initiation". Evolution and Cognition 2(4): 319-332.
  92. Jump up^ Demick, J., & Andreoletti, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of adult development. Springer. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=56y91WtpwCIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=Cheryl+Armon+adept+life&ots=2t8Nmdx7M6&sig=TzbSJQ5IBxYWW-T478GfOWB7Bjw#v=onepage&q=Cheryl%20Armon%20good%20life&f=fake
  93. Jump upwardly^ Armon, C. (1984). Ideals of the good life: A longitudinal/cross-sectional report of evaluative reasoning in children and adults (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education). Retrieved from http://dareassociation.org/Papers/Cheryl%20Armon%20Dissertation.pdf
  94. Spring up^ Hallpike, C. R. (2004). The evolution of moral agreement. Prometheus Enquiry Group. Retrieved from http://hallpike.com/EvolutionOfMoralUnderstanding.pdf
  95. Spring upward^ Hallpike, C. R. (1998). Moral Development from the Anthropological Perspective. ZiF Mitteilungen, two(98), 4-eighteen. Retrieved from http://www.unibielefeld.de/(28en,en)/ZIF/Publikationen/Mitteilungen/Aufsaetze/1998-2-Hallpike.pdf
  96. Bound up^ Kegan, Robert. The evolving self: trouble and process in human development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 1982, ISBN 0-674-27231-5.

External links

  • Piaget's Theory of Cerebral Development
  • Cognitive development of a child
  • Only one-tertiary of adults tin can reason formally

emanuelhest2000.blogspot.com

Source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/teachereducationx92x1/chapter/piagets-theory-of-cognitive-development/

Post a Comment for "according to piaget, in what stage do children begin to consider that rules can be conditional?"