Reflecting on Piaget's Theory: Understanding Cognitive Development from Childhood to Adulthood

Part A:

Introduction

The cognitive development is referred to the development of thought process which involves problem-solving, remembering along with decision-making from childhood to adulthood through adolescent. The children are required to have the ability to think properly, remember information and under relationship between ideas (Bjorklund and Causey, 2017). Thus, cognitive development is essential to allow children to think critically and grasp knowledge regarding the cause and effect of situations so that they have improved analytical skills. In this assignment, the critical reflection of Piaget theory regarding cognitive development is to be discussed. In this purpose, initially, the historical context regarding Piaget's theory is to be discussed followed by reflecting on the definition of theory and the way it applies to childhood and practice in the society. The cultural norms or the political situation that influences Piaget’s theory is also to be discussed.

Main Body

The early exposure of Piaget regarding intellectual development of the children happened when the person used to work as assistant for Theodore and Binet. The interest regarding the cognitive development of the children further grew in Piaget by observing his daughter and own nephew (Demetriou et al. 2016). The observation during the phase made Piaget develop the hypothesis that minds of the children are not just smaller version of the adults. This led Piaget proposes that intelligence is the aspects which develop and grows under series of phases which made him suggest that older children do not just execute things more easily compared to the younger ones (Siegler, 2016). Piaget highlighted that there is both qualitative as well as quantitative difference present between the way older and younger children think. Moreover, based on the observation Piaget mentioned that the children are not less intelligent than adults but the way of their thinking and analysis things are different (Demetriou et al. 2016). These observations gradually lead Piaget to develop the Cognitive Development Theory for the children where he mentioned four key stages of development.

The different stages suggested by Piaget in the cognitive development theory include sensorimotor stage, preoperational stage, concrete operational stage and formal operational stage. The sensorimotor stage initiates from birth till 2 years of age and the key achievement for the children in this phase is object permanence that is developing understanding an object still exists even though it remains hidden (Hanfstingl et al. 2019). The preoperational stage initiates from 2 years to 7 years of age and during this phase, the children develop thinking to consider things symbolically. The thinking of the children in this phase is also egocentric and the children found to face difficulty in considering other’s opinions (Ahmad et al. 2016). The concrete operational stage initiates from 7 years and extends to 11 years of children and in this phase, major turning point in the cognitive development of the child is initiation of operational or logical thought in their minds. The children in this phase become able to work out thing in minds (Kazi and Galanaki, 2019). The formal operational stage initiates at 11 years and lasts till adulthood and during this phase, the children develop the ability to think regarding abstract context and are able to logically examine hypothesis (Kazi and Galanaki, 2019).

The Piaget’s theory apply to childhood development as it explains through the stages regarding the way children develop knowledge as well as informs understanding regarding the nature of intelligence possessed by the children (Siegler, 2016). This assists the teacher in the educational field to understand the way children are processing their thinking making them aware of the styles and techniques to be implemented to ensure successful education for all. Piaget’s theory relates to the current society and practice is evident as the present primary education structure in the UK is seen to based on the theory where the focus of the education is student-centred and emphasises the improvement of the learning process rather than the end product of the learning (Flynn and Shayer, 2018). The criticism existing regarding Piaget’s theoretical perspective is presented by Vygotsky theory where it mentioned that Piaget’s theory ignored attention to cultural influences created on the cognitive development of the children. This is evident as based on the children on whom Piaget developed the theory were found to belong from the Western culture only and had already attained some form of training in thinking through primary education. Thus, the theory fails to explain the cognitive development in children among culture who have never attended the school before 7 years of age yet shows effective cognitive ability in the society (Olson and Torrance, 2017; Carpendale et al. 2019).

Piaget’s theory informs that the general school starting age of the children is 3 years during which a significant change in the cognitive and social development of the children is seen. This is because in this phase the children develop social ability to interact with their peers and at the time become egocentric as they struggle to see things from other’s perspectives (Witenberg, 2019). However, this perspective of the theory is against the cultural norms seen in the UK where the statutory school starting age is mentioned to be 5 years (gov.uk, 2020). Thus, in this context, the Piaget’s theory would be unable to explain the way symbolic thoughts and cognitive progress of the children happens who initiates schooling at 5 years of age instead of 3 years as suggested by the theorist. Moreover, in Asian culture, it is seen that children are often sent to school at 6-7 years of age but prior to proper schooling most of the children in the culture are seen to have developed own perspective of thinking and well aware of the objects to be related with language as well as have developed egocentric attitude (internations.org, 2018). Thus, in this aspect, Piaget’s theory is also unable to mention the way cognitive progress in the children occurs without any nature of formal educational training opposing the theoretical perspectives.

Conclusion

The above discussion informs that Piaget by observing the activities of his daughter and nephew was able to develop the cognitive theory. The Piaget’s theory informs that cognitive development of the children occurs through four key stages that are sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational phase. The Vygotsky theory offers criticism against Piaget that the theory does not consider the cultural influences that have on the cognitive progress of the children. The Piaget theory mentions that the initial school staring age of the children is 3 years to ensure proper cognitive development but it is unable to explain the way children in the UK who has school starting age of 5 years and in Asia where the school staring age is generally 6-7 years show effective cognitive and social ability irrespective of any nature of formal training provided to them.

Part B:

Introduction

The skills involved under cognitive development includes logic and reasoning, attention, control, evaluation and analysing skills, the ability for making comparisons, critical thinking and others. The cognitive skills are essential to be adopted by the children as it makes them develop the ability to pay attention and think regarding the activities and things happening around the world (Clarà, 2017). Ley Vygotsky was a Russian psychologist who developed the cognitive development theory known as Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development. The key assertion of the theory is that cognitive development among children occurs with the help of social interaction (Clarà, 2017). In this aspect, the essay is developed to discuss the concept mentioned by Vygotsky regarding cognitive development of individuals. Vygotsky's theory is chosen to be discussed in the study as it provides guidance to the teachers regarding the way child development is to be planned (Lantolf and Xi, 2019). The essay is going to initially explain the wider context of Vygotsky’s Theory of Cognitive Development and its implication in current practice. The essay is then going to explain one aspect of Vygotsky’s theory by applying it to current practice drawing reference from the diary notes to inform the way it effectively supports the learning of children in the current practice.

Main Body

The Vygotsky’s Theory of Cognitive Development stressed on the role of social interaction as fundamental to the cognitive development among the children as the theorists believed that communication has a central role to play for the children to make meaning of processes (Veraksa and Sheridan, 2018). This informs that Vygotsky’s theory considers cognitive development to come after social interaction and it plays an active role in the knowledge construction for the children. The key aspect for which Vygotsky's theory is recognised is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is referred to the distance present between the actual level of development that is determined by independent problem solving and the potential development level determined by the individual who is solving problem under the guidance of an adult in cooperation with other peers (Smagorinsky, 2018). This indicates that ZPD is the distance from what can be achieved by a learner without help and the things that can be learned by the individuals with the help of an experienced individual. The theorist believed that an individual can be removed from the ZPD level for a particular task if proper assistance can be provided to the student to boost them to achieve it.

Vygotsky's theory based on the ZPD argues that knowledge-based tests in academics are not proper to determine the intelligence of the student. This is because during the test the children are made to answer questions and resolve problems that may not be within their knowledge and would be able to resolve if proper assistance from the adult is achieved. Thus, such academic tests make the students unable to overcome the ZPD to express their cognitive-developmental skills (Chounta et al. 2017). Vygotsky's theory regarding ZPD was developed with the intention to improve Piaget's theory of children being autonomous and solitary learners. Vygotsky under the ZPD believed that children may not progress in studies of everything is left for them to personally understand and learn. Therefore, it is essential that the children are involved in social interaction from where they can learn through communication with others (Sinclair et al. 2017). The Vygotsky’s work on Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is seen to be a useful concept to be implemented by the teachers in the classroom to ensure effective learning and education to the children and young people. In order to use ZPD in the classroom, the teachers are required to provide effective opportunity to the children to work beyond their present skills and offer them scaffolding and ongoing support (Kadri et al. 2017).

In order to overcome the Zone of Proximal Development mentioned by Vygotsky’s theory, the presence of knowledge, as well as better skilled individual, compared to the learners is essential in the educational environment (Roth and Jornet, 2017). This is because the better-skilled individuals would have knowledge regarding the techniques and tools to be used for the learners to make them develop new skills. This aspect of the theory is seen to be followed and implemented in educational practice in the UK. This is evident as qualified and specially trained teachers who have specific and better skill compared to the students are present in the classroom to teach them information beyond the children’s existing skills and knowledge (Karimi-Aghdam, 2017). The Vygotsky’s theory mentions that children to overcome the ZPD are to be involved in effective social interaction with skilled and knowledgeable tutor in the classroom where the tutor would help the person to observe and practice the skills to develop effective learning (Colter and Ulatowski, 2017). This is because social interaction with the tutor would help the student to make sense of the instruction and activities showed by the tutor to internalize and remember the information for regulating their performance.

The social interaction which is essentially mentioned in Vygotsky’s theory to overcome Zone of Proximal Development leads children able to develop new skills and knowledge. However, the lack of it would make the child unable to attain new skills and knowledge required for showing progress in education (Zapiti and Psaltis, 2019). For instance, the 1st dairy note mentions child B is not involved in any direct interaction with the educator who is explaining the way a helicopter looks. Moreover, the individual avoided to pay any attention to the resources required in building a model helicopter when explained by the teacher to other students in the class through interaction. Thus, in the 2nd diary entry, it was seen that the educator found while other five children were able to mention the person about the resources required to built a helicopter who were previously paying attention and involved in interaction but B was totally unable to determine the resources needed and provided a blank expression towards the teacher. Moreover, B expressed that he has no proper knowledge regarding the way a model helicopter looks expressing total failure to show participation in the class. However, on the establishment of successful interaction with the educator named J, it was seen that B was finally able to express the way and helicopter as well as determine the resources required in building it which he was previously unable to identify.

The social interaction mentioned to overcome ZPD in Vygotsky’s theory is important because through communication problems faced by students in overcoming their obstacles to adopt better skills and knowledge are understood by educators making them take effective steps to resolve them (Loizou, 2017). Thus, social interaction helps to resolve the barriers faced by students in attaining new skills and knowledge. This is evident from the 4th and 5th diary entry where it was seen that during the course of making the helicopter model, B was initially unable to determine how the wings of the helicopter are to be placed in the front with the help of tape so that it looks good. He was found to call J and informed her directly that he is facing issues with making the wing in the helicopter model. J through effective interaction and by pointing to others how they are making the model explained B regarding the way he can overcome the issue. Thus, this indicated that the more experienced and skilled educator that is J was able to determine barriers faced by B in executing the task through social interaction making her realise the steps to take to resolve the issues so that B can develop proper skills and knowledge.

In the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the educator develops understanding regarding student as an individual learner through social communication (Galaige and Torrisi-Steele, 2019). This is evident from the 3rd diary entry where J learned that B avoided to previously interaction with her because he was not interested in just listening to facts but was inclined to involve in communication in the society where people interact verbally by showing picture too. Thus, the communication establishment led J to understand that B’s individual need is to show him pictures to make him understand what is been verbally communicated to make him feel interacted to make social interaction. The Vygotsky’s theory mentions that social interaction at ZPD helps the learner to have scope of showing greater creativity as well as it influences their thought process to be acknowledged and accepted by the educators (Miri et al. 2017). This is evident from the 6th diary entry where the tutor named J mentioned that when B asked what colour the helicopter is to be made she instead showed him few real pictures of helicopters and told him to develop understanding from them to finish colouring model. It was an effective approach to instigate creativity of B as mentioning the specific colour would lead to limit thinking of B making him unable to determine what others colours can be used to paint the helicopter so that it looks different from others as well as express creativity.

Vygotsky's theory mentions that social interaction to overcome ZPD leads educators to provide feedback and meaningful instructions to learners. This helps the students to determine way changes in their thinking and skills are to be made so that they can improve and develop at a proper pace (Moradimokhles et al. 2018). This is evident from the 8th to 9th diary entry where at first in the 8th entry it is seen that B is provided feedback that his helicopter is not complete and instruction is provided through communication regarding the way a tail wing is to be added to the helicopter model he made to give it a complete outlook. This led B to later add the tail wing to make the helicopter model complete showing that with proper instruction and feedback through the model making process B was able to develop with pace to determine the way in which a complete helicopter model is to be made.

The social interaction in ZPD helps educators to determine the unique thought process of different learners used by them to resolve the problem (Shukur and Abbas, 2019). This is evident from the 7th diary entry where it was seen that to develop the thought regarding what final colour the helicopter model is to be painted by B, he interacted with other five students to known what colours they are using to get insight regarding the variety of paint he can use finally. It indicates that B used the incessant thinking process whereas others used experiential though the process. This is evident as B chattered with others to finally determine the helicopter colour whereas others remain focussed on the task at hand and used the colour mentioned by me in the sample model avoided to further interact with others (Audley, 2018). The criticism regarding ZPD in Vygotsky's theory is that it does not clearly mention learning needs, capability level or motivational influences precisely required by a child to overcome the level. Moreover, the ZPD fails to inform regarding the way development in the child actually occurs through the phases (Li, 2016).

Conclusion

The above discussion informs that Ley Vygotsky who is a Russian psychologist develop social cognition theory where three aspects are mentioned that are schemas, scaffolding and Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is referred to the distance which lies in between the level where students can execute activity without assistance and where students require effective assistance to execute the activity. The Vygotsky's work on Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is a useful concept to be implemented in the educational field to ensure effective learning and education to the children and young people within the classroom. Vygotsky's theory mentions that the presence of skilled and more knowledgeable individuals is to be present for the students to help them effectively learn new skills and knowledge to overcome ZPD. Moreover, social interaction is important for students to overcome ZPD as it assists in sharing information by the educator with students to improve their skills. The social interaction in Vygotsky’s theory to overcome ZPD by the student helps learners communicate their obstacles in task to the educator to access assistance to resolve them. The fact is evident on analysing 5th and 6th diary entry where B through social interaction with J who is the educator was able to resolve obstacles faced in the developing the helicopter model.

Continue your exploration of Reflecting on a Placement Experience at Whittington Hospital with our related content.

References

Part A:

Ahmad, S., Ch, A.H., Batool, A., Sittar, K. and Malik, M., 2016. Play and Cognitive Development: Formal Operational Perspective of Piaget's Theory. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(28), pp.72-79.

Bjorklund, D.F. and Causey, K.B., 2017. Children's thinking: Cognitive development and individual differences. Sage Publications.

Carpendale, J.I., Lewis, C. and Müller, U., 2019. Piaget's Theory. The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development, pp.1-11.

Demetriou, A., Shayer, M. and Efklides, A., 2016. Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for education. London: Routledge.

Flynn, J.R. and Shayer, M., 2018. IQ decline and Piaget: Does the rot start at the top?. Intelligence, 66, pp.112-121.

Hanfstingl, B., Benke, G. and Zhang, Y., 2019. Comparing variation theory with Piaget’s theory of cognitive development: more similarities than differences?. Educational Action Research, 27(4), pp.511-526.

Kazi, S. and Galanaki, E., 2019. Piagetian Theory of Cognitive Development. The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development, pp.1-11.

Olson, D.R. and Torrance, N.G., 2017. Literacy and cognitive development: A conceptual transformation in the early school years. In Developing thinking (pp. 142-160). Routledge.

Siegler, R.S., 2016. Continuity and change in the field of cognitive development and in the perspectives of one cognitive developmentalist. Child Development Perspectives, 10(2), pp.128-133.

Witenberg, R.T., 2019. Tolerance of Six to Seven-Year-Old Children. In The Psychology of Tolerance (pp. 25-33). Springer, Singapore.

Part B:

Audley, S., 2018. Partners as scaffolds: Teaching in the zone of proximal development. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(24), p.4.

Chounta, I.A., McLaren, B.M., Albacete, P.L., Jordan, P.W. and Katz, S., 2017. Modeling the Zone of Proximal Development with a Computational Approach. EDM, 2017, pp.56-57.

Clarà, M., 2017. How instruction influences conceptual development: Vygotsky's theory revisited. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), pp.50-62.

Colter, R. and Ulatowski, J., 2017. The unexamined student is not worth teaching: preparation, the zone of proximal development, and the Socratic Model of Scaffolded Learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(14), pp.1367-1380.

Galaige, J. and Torrisi-Steele, G., 2019. Unpacking the ‘Learning'in Student-Facing Analytics: Metacognition and the Zone of Proximal Development. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology (IJAVET), 10(1), pp.1-12.

Kadri, M.S.E., Roth, W.M., Gil, A.J. and Mateus, E., 2017. Towards a more symmetrical approach to the zone of proximal development in teacher education. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 22(70), pp.668-689.

Karimi-Aghdam, S., 2017. Zone of proximal development (ZPD) as an emergent system: A dynamic systems theory perspective. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51(1), pp.76-93.

Lantolf, J.P. and Xi, J., 2019. Let's not get tied into knots: a response to Newman,(2018)—Vygotsky, Wittgenstein and sociocultural theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 49(3), pp.387-393.

Li, J.I.N., 2016. On the Path Selection of Promoting the" Zone of Proximal Development" of Young Children. The Guide of Science & Education, (9), p.66.

Loizou, E., 2017. Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies and teacher play involvement within the breadth of the zone of proximal development. In The Routledge International Handbook of Early Childhood Play (pp. 151-167). Routledge.

Miri, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A. and Bavarsad, P.S., 2017. Going beyond one-to-one mediation in zone of proximal development (ZPD): concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), pp.1-24.

Moradimokhles, H., Houshmandi Shoja, M. and Salehi, V., 2018. Improving the Social Adjustment of Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder by Expanding the Zone of Proximal Development in the Context of Creative Drama. Journal of Exceptional Children, 18(1), pp.73-84.

Roth, W.M. and Jornet, A., 2017. Genesis of the Zone of Proximal Development. In Understanding Educational Psychology (pp. 247-264). Springer, Cham.

Shukur, A.S. and Abbas, I.S., 2019. Investigating the Zone of Proximal Development in Spoken Data from the Classroom. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, pp.112-118.

Sinclair, A., Oberlander, J. and Gasevic, D., 2017. Finding the zone of proximal development: Student-tutor second language dialogue interactions. SEMDIAL 2017 SaarDial, p.134.

Smagorinsky, P., 2018. Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding: Retranslating and reconceiving the zone of proximal development as the zone of next development. Learning, culture and social interaction, 16, pp.70-75.

Veraksa, N. and Sheridan, S., 2018. Vygotsky’s theory in early childhood education and research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Zapiti, A. and Psaltis, C., 2019. Too good to be true? Towards an understanding of the Zone of Proximal development (ZPD) dynamics from a Piagetian perspective: Gender composition and its changing role from early to middle childhood. Psihologija, 52(4), pp.323-345.

Appendix

Diary Entry

1st: J who is the tutor/educator is interacting with six children sitting on a round table to explain how an aeroplane looks and the resources required making the model. It was seen that only B was never paying attention as well as avoided to participate in interacting with J.

2nd: J asked all the children “what are the resources do you remember to need in making helicopter model?” and explain me “how a helicopter model looks?” B was seen to remain silent whereas others properly answered turn by turn. B mentioned “I do not how a helicopter looks. I have never seen one and no one ever described it to me. How can it tell the way it looks?”.

3rd: J asked B “why you did not you communicated with me?”. B mentioned “You were only saying information which I do not understand. Where are the pictures of the helicopter? You never asked me what my problem was and kept on saying what you wished”.

4th: B mentioned to J “I do not know how to fix the wings of the helicopter in front. It is always coming out”.

5th: J mentioned “Wait! Let me show you how others are doing it” “Look there that student is using adhesive to stick it. Why don’t you use it?” “Oh wait! Let me show you how it is done”. It is seen that J went on to personally related step by step process to be used in sticking the helicopter wing to B.

6th: B mentioned “I do not know what colour is to be applied to the helicopter?”. J mentioned that let her show him some real pictures from where he can get the idea. J was found to be communicating the colours of each picture while showing it to B.

7th: B was seen to be observing others what colour they used to paint their helicopter model. It was seen that he finally choose to colour the helicopter red and blue along with yellow stripes which no one else did as most of the student used single colour to paint the model.

8th: J mentioned B that he did not add the tail wing of the helicopter which is essential as it would make it look incomplete. J mentioned through communication how the tail of the helicopter model is to be attached to B.

9th: B was able to finally present a complete model of the helicopter that looked different from others.