Empirical Study of the Piaget’s Main Concepts

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
Limitations of the study
Implications
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Understanding the peculiarities of the children’s perception and interpretation of facts, collecting information and acquiring knowledge is important for guiding them in their cognitive development. In 1920s the Swiss biologist Jean Piaget was the first theoretician who pointed at the differences between amount and structure of knowledge in children and adults. The purpose of this project is to examine Piaget’s concepts by applying them in practice, collecting and interpreting data from an empirical research.

Focusing on the peculiarities of the child’s knowledge and the processes of acquiring it, Piaget observed everyday actions of children and infants and offered them various problem-solving situations for examining the reasoning patterns they were using.

Deriving numerous concepts and principles from his findings, the researcher concluded that children are active learners who constantly conduct experiments and manipulate the objects from the surrounding word for observing the results of their experiments. Children not only absorb knowledge, but also try to organize it for explaining new phenomena with available knowledge in future. “Children think in qualitatively different ways at different age levels” (McDevitt and Ormrod, 2010, p. 143).

Linking cognitive development with children’s biological development, Piaget used the idea of a staircase for his theory of cognitive development, claiming that each step in physiological development represents the improved cognitive ability. Piaget’s model of cognitive development includes four main periods, including a sensorimotor (0-2 years), pre-operational (2-7 years), concrete operational (7-12 years) and formal operational (older than 12 years) stages (Oakley, 2004, p. 16).

The empirical research would be valuable for evaluating Piaget’s main concepts and exploring the ways for implementing them in professional practice.

Method

A five-year-old Jessica and a thirteen-year-old Miranda gave their consent for participating in the study by signing the consent forms. A large discrepancy in the participants’ age enhances the effectiveness of the experiment, clearly representing the differences in their reasoning modes and corresponding differences in their cognitive development.

Jessica and Miranda were offered to sort sixteen pictures of animals, including a tiger, a frog, a spider, a parrot, a whale, a snake, an octopus, a goldfish, a crocodile, a newt, a butterfly, a ladybird, a scorpion, a snail, an owl, and a shark, into different subgroups, explain what their reasoning for sorting the pictures in this or that way was and sort them again, using other principles.

Both girls had enough time for thinking their decisions over and doing the assignment. The experiments were conducted in a comfortable atmosphere in a place free from distractions which allowed establishing interpersonal contact with both participants and enabled Jessica and Miranda to express their opinions freely.

The level of the participants’ cognitive ability was taken into consideration for formulating their task and the questions for discussing the reasoning mode they have used for sorting the pictures. “As a learning expectation, each product needs to be clearly described in some detail so that there is no misunderstanding about what students are required to do” (Macmillan, 2011, p. 227).

Still, the formulation of the assignment for Jessica was exempt of any hints as to how the animals could be sorted. During the discussion of their choices, the answers to the participants’ reasoning were neutral and did not express any attitude or opinion as to the way in which the assignment was done.

The choice of methods, formulation of the task and the overall atmosphere of the experiment were favorable for retrieving reliable data on the differences in Jessica and Miranda’s cognitive ability and examining Piaget’s concepts.

Results

The results of the empirical research have demonstrated significant differences in quantity and quality of knowledge in Jessica and Miranda.

Jessica used the criteria of personal attitude to the animals for sorting the pictures into two large subgroups. Thus, explaining her reasoning for classifying the objects, the girl admitted that the animals in the first subgroup she liked, while the animals in the second subgroup she disliked.

It should be noted that Jessica’s personal negative attitude depended upon dangerousness of a certain animal (a snake, a shark, a crocodile, a scorpion) and its appearance (a butterfly is pleasant-looking, while a snail is not). When Jessica was asked if she can create new groups of the same animals, the girl was confused and answered that she could not do it.

Miranda, the second participant of the study first sorted the pictures into subgroups, labeling them as mammals, reptiles, fish, birds and insects. When the girl was offered to do the same assignment using other criteria for classification, she easily provided several variants for this problem-solving situation.

Thus, Miranda suggested the possible subgroups of warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals, animals with body hair and without it, animals breathing with lungs and animals breathing with gills. In general, the girl has demonstrated not only her knowledge of peculiar features of representatives of the animal world, but also her ability to provide arguments for supporting her position.

Doing the same assignment of classifying the pictures with animals, Jessica and Miranda have shown the differences in their knowledge and reasoning modes for solving the same problem.

Discussion

The findings of this empirical research revealed a wide gap in cognitive abilities of five- and thirteen-year-old participants. Piaget’s concepts can become a theoretical basis for explaining the differences in Jessica and Miranda’s reasoning modes used for explaining the classification criteria.

According to Piaget’s classification of various cognitive stages, a five-year-old Jessica is at the preoperational stage. Eggan (2010) noted that “In the preoperational stage, perception dominates children’s thinking” (p. 38). In other words, at the age between two and seven, children are expected to confuse physical and psychological events and give preference to their perception rather than logic for explaining their reasoning.

It explains Jessica’s choice of personal attitude as the main criteria for classification of the animals. Complying with Piaget’s expectations from cognitive abilities of children of her age, she concentrated on her personal perception and did not use the logics for doing the assignment. Other characteristics of this period include egocentrism, lack of conservation, single classification and transductive reasoning (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2010, p. 148).

In other words, at the age between two and seven, at the preoperational stage of their development, children may have certain fallacies in their reasoning. The lack of conservation can make these children believe that the volume of liquid can change if it is poured from one contained to another. The transdunctive reasoning implies involvement of irrelevant arguments into explanations.

Analyzing the results of the experiment, it can be stated that doing the assignment, Jessica demonstrated particular cognitive features, namely dominance of perception over logics and single classification at a given period of time which are characteristic of the preoperational stage. Piaget’s concepts are applicable for explaining Jessica’s reasoning mode, choice of classification criteria and refusal of making another attempt to sort the pictures by implementing other criteria.

As to the second participant of this study, a thirteen-year-old Miranda, she belongs to the subgroup of formal operations. Coon and Mitterer (2010) noted that “Full adult intellectual ability is attained during the stage of formal operations…but not everyone reaches this level of thinking” (p. 99).

At this stage the thinking processes become integrated through acquisition and systematization of new knowledge. Adolescents do not concentrate on their personal perception, feelings and emotions for their reasoning and are able to operate abstract notions in their thinking processes. Understanding that other people may not share their views, they can distinguish between manifestation of facts and expression of their personal opinion.

Adolescents recognize that they can be mistaken and often require confirmation of their ideas. “Reasoning logically, formulating and testing hypotheses, and separating and controlling variables – together allow adolescents to use a scientific method” (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2010, p. 153). In general, thinking processes in most adolescents at the stage of formal operations are similar to those in adults though their cognitive abilities still depend upon their personal development.

The assignment of sorting the pictures with animals might seem to be primitive to Miranda, but the sophisticated reasoning and criteria she used for classification of objects demonstrated the level of her cognitive development corresponding to Piaget’ stage of formal operations. Offering different versions of sorting the animals, including those of their anatomic peculiarities, the girl used the system of her knowledge on Zoology and her ability to implement her knowledge in a new unfamiliar situation.

The findings of this study have proven the applicability of Piaget’s concepts and cognitive development stages to the realities of modern teaching-learning process. The results which were achieved by Jessica and Miranda in doing the assignment of sorting the pictures with animals complied with Piaget’s expectations as to the cognitive abilities at the preoperational and formal operations stages.

Limitations of the study

Disregarding the fact that measures were imposed for avoiding any distraction in communicating with the participants of the study and enhancing the effectiveness of the experiment, this study has certain limitations, including the small sample for the experiment and the type of assignment.

The level of the participant’s personal cognitive development which could be different in their peers is an influential factor which should be taken into consideration for evaluating the findings. The peculiarities of the assignment in their turn precondition specific responses in the participants, while another task could reveal other peculiarities or not reveal any at all.

Implications

Knowledge of peculiarities of children’s thinking processes is necessary for proper organization of educational environment. Understanding how children of different ages perceive, interpret and systematize new information, parents and educators would be able to select the most appropriate assignments for guiding children and adolescents in their cognitive development for improving their achievements.

“The constructivist teacher, by offering appropriate tasks and opportunities for dialogue, guides the focus of students’ attention, thus unobtrusively directing their learning” (Clements, D. & Battista, 1990, p. 35).

Acknowledging the active participation of students in the learning process at different stages of their cognitive development would allow choosing the right direction for the teaching efforts.

Conclusion

The findings of this empirical study have proven the correspondence between Piaget’s concepts and the cognitive abilities at the preoperational and formal operations stages. Collecting data from the experiment and through a theoretical review of literature, this paper demonstrates the application of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development in practice.

Reference List

Clements, D. & Battista (1990). Constructivist learning and teaching. Arithmetic Teacher, 38(1): 34-35.

Coon, D. & Mitterer, J. (2010). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Eggan P. & Kauchak D. (2010). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (8th. Ed.). International Edition. New Jersey: Pearson

McDevitt, T., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Child development and education. (4th ed.) New Jersey: Pearson

McMillan, J. H. (2011). Classroom Assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction (5th Ed.). Boston: Pearson

Oakley, L. (2004). Cognitive development. New York, NY: Routledge.

Click Here To Order Now!